Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0106.000 2004-2006Harry Kim Mayor COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakim Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663 February 8, 2005 Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Gary Safarik and Council Members: ate Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM -2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:19 State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN -20 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:1 Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Peter L. Hendricks Deputy Managing Director Uwe------------- ---N. O ----------- As--------_-- 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, (�u� Harry Kim �d Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider Ol_ 2,q* 30 r:;f. (a%: R 8 L Harry Kim Mavor County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3043 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 February 8, 2005 Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Safarik and Members State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM -2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Tax Man Key: 7-5-17:19 The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on January 21, 2005, considered the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications for Suffolk Investment, LLC for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District and from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential - 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located between Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 1 1) and Kuakini Highway, directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki lst and Puaapuaanui 1st, North Kona, Hawaii. A motion was made to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council. There were two votes in favor of the motion and three against. Because five votes are needed for the Planning Commission to take action, the two to three vote constitutes a "no action" by the Planning Commission. The "no action" itself constitutes an unfavorable recommendation. The application will be forwarded to the County Council with the unfavorable recommendation, along with a copy of the hearing transcript. The applicant requested that the docket be transmitted to the County Council rather than having the Planning Commission revote on the application at a subsequent meeting. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council Page 2 Accordingly, we are hereby transmitting this letter that explains the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission. The favorable recommendation of the Planning Director, along with the proposed bill and the Planning Department's Background Report and Recommendation, are also being included. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Norman Hayashi of the Planning Department at 961-8288. Sincerely, Fred Galdones, Chairman Planning Commission Enclosures cc: Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Planning Department — Kona Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu Mr. Dru McCabe Mr. Sidney Fuke PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 21, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) and PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ 04-025) was called to order at 3:35 pm. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT: Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones William Graham C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall Earl Fujikawa Rene' Siracusa Francis Smith Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works Sidney Fuke representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Michael Riehm representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Brian Cook representing Puaa Development LLC And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) Continued hearing on the following applications: a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential — 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located between Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1" and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:19. APPLICANT: PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ 04-025) Continued hearing on the following applications: ATTACHvIEW: Comp, 106 (Bills 29 & 30) a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.973 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial — 20,000 -foot (CN — 20) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki I" and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:1. SPRINGER: We are now on Agenda Item No. 4. The Applicant is Suffolk Investment, LLC, SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024. This is a continued hearing on the following applications. a. State Land Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural 5-A, 5 -acre to a Multi -Family Residential - 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located between Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puapuaiki 1" and Puapuanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK 7-5-17:19. Staff? Mr. Darrow, are you ready? DARROW: Sure. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you. DARROW: If I can ask Corp. Counsel a question? Ivan, did you want to address the issue of doing both of them at the same time? TORIGOE: Oh, okay. I don't know if, I think we should probably get the Applicant to come and make his request if he wants to do a consolidated infrastructure presentation. SPRINGER: Okay, Mr. Fuke, if you would please come forward at this time. And, at this time, I'd like to ask the Applicant's representative and any individuals who have signed up to testify or who wish to testify on this matter to be sworn in at the same time. I have five folks who have listed themselves, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Kehipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. If you could raise your right hands, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. SPRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, if you could please give us your name and address, for the record. FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a Planning Consultant. I'm here working on both the, both petitions, the Suffolk Development and also the Puaa Development. My business address is 2 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawaii. As the Corporation Counsel had noted, I would like to request that, you know, provided that there's no objection on the part of either the Commission or the public, to have like the material that's presented relative to the item before you, which is the Suffolk application, also the applicable, you know, to the subsequent application, inasmuch as the, not purely in interest of time, but more in the interest of having a comprehensive understanding of both projects. Because from an infrastructure standpoint, they are closely tied. From a functional standpoint, they are also very closely tied. The only difference is that they are two different developers. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, then what you're proposing is that we would hear a consolidated presentation on matters of infrastructure and function but we would go through the decision-making separately for each application? FUKE: If the Commission and the public would not have any objection, we would request that so. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, do you understand the request, have any questions on it or comments? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: It's fine with me. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa, you affirm that, also? SIRACUSA: Yes. SMITH: That's fine with me. SPRINGER: Commissioner Smith, that's positive. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Which are the two we're combining? SPRINGER: Four and five, Suffolk and Puaa. GRAHAM: Okay. SPRINGER: And the combination is strictly on infrastructure and a general discussion of function. Decision-making will still occur separately. Is that correct? FUKE: Yes. SPRINGER: From the members of the public, is there any objection to that? Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you may continue. I'm sorry, Mr. Darrow, you may continue. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may address a few in-house issues first. This is a continued hearing for Suffolk Investment LLC, as well as Puaa Development. Previously, the Background Report and exhibits have been distributed to the Planning Commission. More recently, the Recommendations as well as conditions have been distributed. Very recently, we received comments from the Department of Transportation. It has been distributed to the Commissioners, as well as the Applicant's representative. In reviewing those conditions, on the comment letters they do, they are addressed pretty thoroughly within the conditions in the Recommendations. If I may direct your attention to the location map, again, the area of these applications is within the North Kona District of Hawaii. This white, white line that's running north - south through the map is the Queen Kaahumanu Highway or the Hawaii Belt Road. This area in yellow identified as Single -Family Residential zoning is the Pualani Estates Subdivision. Directly across from that makai is the area of these applications. The area identified in red is Puaa Development. The area identified with the blue dot is Suffolk Investment. Suffolk Investment has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to Urban as well as the Change of Zone application from Agricultural 5 -acre to Multiple -Family Residential - 2,500 square feet. This request, both requests would include 250 units within twenty-four 2- and 3 -story structures. There would be over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests, and a private 1 -acre park which would be located in this general vicinity on the site map. Looking at the site map, this is a previous submitted site plan. As you can see on the wall directly across from me that there has been some adjustments made to the site maps; and those would be addressed a little later by the Applicant's representative. The Puaa Development has submitted a similar application, a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for State Land Use Urban to, Agricultural to State Land Use Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5 -acre to Commercial Neighborhood -20,000 square feet. This is 14.973 acres of land. The project would include financial, possibly range of, uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. There have been some changes to that; and this would also include housing as well; and, again, that would be addressed more specifically by the Applicant's representative. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission to be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council. If I may address, very shortly, some conditions. To bring to your attention, there is a Suffolk Condition No. D, a condition, it's stated by the Applicant's representative that this was going to be a rental housing project. To be able to assure that, the Planning Director has placed in Condition No. D which states, "As represented by the Applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the Change of Zone ordinance." There are numerous conditions related to traffic improvements; and, again, those appear to be, address the concerns of the Department of Transportation, as well as the Department of Public Works. 0 The Department of Public Works has recently asked that a change be made to Condition I on both this application as well as the Puaa. And that is that Condition I, after the word "provided" on the third line, that the words "on Kuakini Highway" be added. So it would say, "right tum deceleration shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access." And that would be, again, on Suffolk condition, as well as Puaa condition. This concludes the presentation. Are there any questions? SPRINGER: Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Jeff, maybe this question is more to Mr. Takemoto than yourself. But in regards to whether the County should be processing these applications, I know in our Background material we have a letter from the Land Use Commission and reading, directed to Planning Director Chris Yuen on October 201h. And in that letter, Land Use Commission says, "While we don't have specific objections, we do have strong objections to the manner in which these applications are being processed. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualam Makai master planned community and had been deliberately incrementalized to evade the J urisdiction of the Land Use Commission." So I would question Mr. Takemoto about what the Planning Department's discretion is as to whether we take these up or not and why they made the decision to go ahead and recommend approval at the County level for these two applications. TAKEMOTO: The Director, subsequent to the Land Use Commission's letter, had been in touch with the Executive Director of the Land Use Commission and, basically, there were two conditions that he wanted us to establish before agreeing to what we're doing. One is that we have confirmed that these are, in fact, separate owners and that this whole development was not, you know, some, what you call, there wasn't a relationship between the two developers. So, on that point, the Director did check them out and confirmed that they are independent and separate. The second point is that between the Land Use Commission and the County is just a matter of who's making the decisions. The issues and criteria concerns in terms of public interest are the same. So, for the Land Use Commission, they just wanted to make sure that the cumulative impacts of the two projects were being considered, `cause that is what actually would occur if these lots went before the Land Use Commission together, as basically you'll be looking at the impacts of both projects at one time. And we feel that we are addressing the cumulative impacts of the projects. GRAHAM: Thank you. SPRINGER: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I'm having trouble with these maps, of putting these all together. This section, in the upper left-hand comer, is what you're showing us for the Suffolk. But over here I have the parcel just below it that's darkened. And, so, and then the other one on the Puaa is, includes this one and the parcel to the right of it. So, I'm not sure what we're talking about when we're talking about Suffolk as opposed to what we're talking about when we're talking about Puaa. I'd like some clarification and guidance on this, please. DARROW: Sure, Commissioner Siracusa. The colored renderings that you have was submitted to you this morning; and, again, that'll be addressed more specifically by the Applicant's representative. The area that you're looking at on that map is a portion of Puaa. That, right there, is the Suffolk property which is identified here. So they are, to say the least, they're strangely configured lots. But this area here is the Puaa property just above the Suffolk property, so this is the relation of both. SIRACUSA: Yeah. So we have a breakdown of how that Puaa section looks, but we don't have a breakdown, really, what this color rendering here, for the other two areas. Makes it hard to envision the totality if we're supposed to look at this as a unity and, you know, in some respects. DARROW: Yeah. If I could defer that to the Applicant's representative, he'll address those issues with his presentation. Thank you. SPRINGER: Any other questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Graham, you have anything? SPRINGER: Okay. Mr. Fuke, did you receive the Planning Department's Background Report and Recommendation? FUKE: Yes, and a copy was provided to both of the Applicants; and both have indicated that they had no objections to the proposed conditions. I would like to note, however, at some point in time, you know, I did pass out some proposed amendments; and these amendments are designed exclusively not to affect any of the substance of the conditions as proposed by the Director but deal more with clarity and just tightening up certain language. With that, Madam Chair, I'd like to also acknowledge the, you know, the presence of Mr. Brian Cook, who's head of Puaa Development. He's over here. With him is also his Planner -Architect, Michael Riehm, who did the design; and I'll go into that and Mr. Riehm will also go into a little bit more detail on the design. Mr. Dru McCrue, Dru McCabe, rather, he's from Colorado and he was not able to make it here, but he did give assurance that the conditions were acceptable. Before going on the presentation, however, I'd like to just touch very briefly upon like, I guess, the question that Commissioner Graham had raised in terms of the Land Use Commission. We do concur with what Mr. Takemoto had indicated. You know, first of 0 all, like, neither of the Applicants had any part in creating that subdivision before you. Back in June of 2004, a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision action was approved by the Planning Director. And the 5 lots essentially, if you, if I can direct you to the map on my left, the farthest to, on the mauka side. There are actually, that area consists of approximately 64, 65 acres of land, and it's this general area. And there was a consolidation and resubdivision application which resulted in a creation of one lot which was like this, this is one lot. The second lot was over here. This is the third lot; and this is the fourth lot. There was the 5`h lot, which is this little guy over here; and that's the road lot. So there was a 4 -lot consolidation and resubdivision. After that was done, Puaa Development acquired three parcels - This top portion over here, and these two gray colored parcels. Suffolk Investment bought this property over here. There've been a lot of communications between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Cook, largely from an infrastructure standpoint; and I'll go into that to some detail a little bit later. But just in terms of trying to address the Land Use Commission's condition, it was not as though that, you know, neither of these, first of all, neither of these applicants had anything to do with the creation of this lot, trying to, you know, so-called undermine the intent of the land use law. They bought the properties as is. Secondly, as Mr. Takemoto pointed out, neither of these applicants have any relationship aside from a desire to do what they believe might be suitable for the community and try to specifically address both in terms of the affordable housing issue as well as the infrastructure question. The Land Use Commission's letter also talked about a Pualani- Makai master planned community. And I looked through the files, and there was nothing formally filed for a Land Use Boundary Amendment for that area. So these concepts were like independently developed and had no relationship with whatever was developed; and if it were filed, I don't believe there was any action on that. And, as Mr. Takemoto had indicated, I think, and that's partly the reason why I had made the request earlier that both of these applications should be more appropriately reviewed collectively, so at least the Commission and the public would have a better understanding of the cumulative impact of both projects. Having said that, I think that the staffs recommendation at the last meeting, you know, was deferred because they were waiting for Department of Transportation's comments. I think that during that time, over the last month-and-a-half, it was a good period because both applicants have had a chance to sit down and discuss some of the more critical issues that the Planning Department, particularly that the Planning Director had. And, you know, we acknowledge, you know, the insights and the input provided by the Director, particularly the issues relating to infrastructure and, also, the affordable housing issues. So after we complete the presentation, I would hope that, you know, it's not as though that neither of these applicants are not concerned with the infrastructure, not concerned with affordable housing. But I think that as we go through this presentation, we would hope that you can find that these projects will actually help, not necessarily hinder the fulfillment of those two objectives. Oh, I'm sorry, like what I forgot to mention was that, you know, when they had that 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision, what was also required, wisely by the Planning Department, was the setting aside of a 60 -foot wide roadway easement that would effectively connect Kuakini Highway with the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway; and this is the 60 -foot wide roadway easement. The staff kind of generally, maybe I should just, first of all, talk about like the Puaa neighborhood, the neighborhood shopping center. Very briefly, I think that what motivated the Puaa to come forth with this neighborhood shopping center concept was primarily to look at trying to find an area that would service the needs of an under -served area; and at the same time by being able to service the need, you'll be able to mitigate the traffic issue. And I'd like to direct you to this map over here which is a map that was, it's Figure 10 that was taken out of the County's Keahole to Honaunau Traffic Circulation Plan. And, generally, this first red dot here represents the area of Keauhou, and then this other dot here represents Kailua. And it's basically like a 7 -mile stretch between Keauhou and Kailua, and then, you know, you have essentially no commercial areas. So the thought was to have, and at the same time, if you look at these maps you can find like there's a lot of subdivisions coming along in that area. This is kind of like a blow-up of that particular area. Again, this is Keauhou and this is the subject property. What this map more accurately shows is that this area shaded in blue is the already existing Kahakai Estates Subdivision. This area on the mauka side of the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the developing of Pualani Subdivision; and that Pualani Subdivision is basically on this snap over here. If and when, not if, when that Pualani Subdivision is completed, there will be a new road that connects from, and this is Hualalai Road, there will be a new road that connects from Hualalai Road all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway in this particular area. So the thought that Mr. Cook and his people had was by having a neighborhood commercial center in this particular area, you'd be able to capture a lot of the existing and developing residential homes in this, the central part of that area between Kailua and Keauhou. Because absent that you're taking, you're forcing the traffic to go either down to Keauhou or to Kailua and beyond. And so this is the whole idea. By having this extension, knowing that it's going to be completed probably within the next year or 18 months at the latest, that this area will be fully signalized, this roadway will be completed. So the thought then was how you're going to bring this connection down to Kuakini Highway, and that was partially like this answer. At the time as we discussed it with the Planning Director, there was always the issue about, there were two issues, as it related to this proposed commercial neighborhood shopping center. One was that not trying to create a strip mall kind of appearance and, secondly, was still trying to see whether there was a way that some measure of affordable housing could be addressed within this particular area. So what you see on the map on 0 Jeff's or the staff's, what would that be, your left - yeah, I'm sorry, I'm left-handed so I get confused - is the original proposal. You see the original proposal, it kind of like stretches from this point here to the, on the north side going all the way down to the south side over here. But what you see, the difference is that it's only on the northern quadrant is the proposed commercial area and portion of like at the intersection of, you know, this new mauka-makai road. The balance of the property would be set aside or reserved for housing. There is a condition that's outlined in the Planning Director's Recommendation that mandates the requirement for housing to be constructed in conjunction with a minimum of 50 units to be constructed in conjunction with the occupancy of any of the commercial area. So it's definitely, you know, you can't have the commercial area without this multiple -family development. And so the focus there was really just trying to address the housing needs. Mr. Cook, in his acquisition of the property, was able to secure like 51 affordable housing credits. You will notice that in your, in the Director's proposed condition, none of these existing credits can be applied to any of these projects. So that means that if the Council changes the ordinance, or whatever the prevailing affordable housing code is, he must, the developer must fulfill that requirement on site and cannot get credit. So in that way, like it's a direct way to address the affordable housing issue for the commercial area, let alone having this commercial neighborhood facility also service the existing and growing residential population of that area. The other project is by Suffolk Investment Corporation. It's, this area is another parcel consisting roughly about like 14 acres of land. And Suffolk has committed to the County, and we had submitted a letter, that this would be exclusively a rental housing project. And that's why like the Planning Director, as the staff had indicated, there is a condition that state, that stipulates that, as represented by the Applicant, that this will be a rental housing project. And we all know that what is really critically needed in this area because a lot of people can't afford to buy, you know, buy homes, that you need to provide rental. And, so, there is this stipulation that requires these 250 rental units to be constructed on the site. So that's one way to address the affordable housing issue. The other one is like traffic, traffic and more infrastructure concerns. So as I tried to indicate in the beginning, you know, you do have, we know that this roadway is coming down and it's going to be signalized, you know, from Hualalai Road, I mean, this Hualalai Road coming all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. What your staff is recommending, and what these developers have also committed themselves to, is that prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the commercial, or the multiple -family area, or also for any portion of this 250 rental unit housing project, this light has to be signalized. Because what Pualani is obligated to provide is just signalization to accommodate their project, not signalization to accommodate any traffic on the makai side. So your condition, the staff s condition requires this area to be signalized, but more so, or equally so, that this 60 -foot wide W, roadway be developed in curb, gutter, sidewalk and be completed before occupancy is issued for these, the rental unit project or the commercial project. There is also this proposed access on the south end of the property which is designed to be exclusively a right -turn in and a right -turn out, provided that the State Department of Transportation allows that. But it's already a permitted access. This property is already permitted like two, you know, two accesses. So this would be your primary and this would be your secondary access. The Director's Recommendation also called for having the necessary improvements be done at this Kuakini Highway. And that Kuakini Highway, this point over here intersects with, if I can stretch this map, just follow me for a while, this lower side is Kahakai Estates. And, so, if you continue on you'll go directly into Kahakai Estates. So, you know, the intersections would line up over here. So the staff's condition requires like, you know, channelized intersection with left -turn pocket, so on and so forth. So that is the way that both Applicants believe that you'll be able to fulfill the, at least this particular region, the infrastructure needs very immediately by having, first of all, a commercial area that would service the neighborhood and minimizing excessive movements to either Keauhou or to Kailua and, secondly, at the same time, constructing major infrastructure work. So that if you're traveling on Kuakini and you need to get, you know, you need to move north, you'd have a safe place to get out, and which would be at this intersection and not over here, which is close to where the Kona Outdoor Circle is. The other thing about the Suffolk project which I forgot to note is that there will be, if you can look at the middle map over there, the concentration of units will be like more on the, that area; and then the bottom portion, although this is part of the property, is still like a portion of a floodway. So the intent is to have this area serve both as a floodway as well as like a passive recreation area, pretty much similar to in concept to what, you know, Hilo Bayfront area is. You have like a soccer field and, at the same time, when you have inclement weather then, you know, it's used as a drainage way as well. There is a sewer line that presently bisects the property that services Pualani. So both of these projects, if approved, will be sewered to the County system. Water is already available. They have over 510 water commitments for this property. Can I, Madam Chair, you know, with your indulgence, call upon Michael Riehm to kind of like give a little bit more description in terms of what he visualized, you know, in talking with Mr. Cook and understanding what the Planning Director's concerns were relative to minimizing the effect of any like strip type of appearance and like what he visualizes this neighborhood commercial facility would look like? SPRINGER: That'll be fine, as soon as he gives us his name and address for the record. 10 RIEHM: Michael Riehm. I'm with the firm of Riehm Ownesby Planners Architects. The address is 75-128 Kamilo Street, Kailua-Kona. Thank you, Sidney. When we approach projects like this, especially commercial projects, one of the most difficult things to do is to fit them into the neighborhood, not only aesthetically and in terms of the architecture but also in terms of traffic and, most importantly, pedestrians. So when we first looked at this project, our goal was to make it neighborhood -friendly and to fit it into the local environment as best as we could. What we first looked at was rather than allowing the commercial to go all along the frontage of the highway here, we decided to do a much more compact shopping village. The main reason for doing that was by making it more compact we could put more services closer to people who would park in this facility that would help mitigate them from driving from one shop to the other using their car. So by putting the vast amount of commercial services, which would be mixed use, including both retail and office, everybody who would park in the shopping center would be within a two -minute walking distance of any shop in the project. The other thing that we looked at was integrating it into the community in terms of secondary road access. Like Sidney said, this would be a multi -family rental project. We decided to have a connector street that could go in and attach this, providing more circular access around the center. One of the things that is real important to us is making this a pedestrian -oriented center. And things, studies have shown that if you provide a safe walking distance, a five-minute walking distance, that people will use or walk to a destination versus driving a car. So the location of this center, particularly in relationship to the other development, most of these residents would be within a five-minute walking distance of these basic services. The other thing that we wanted to do was to create a character in this neighborhood, this neighborhood shopping center. That was more of a, what I would call a traditional town development versus what Sidney had said before, you know, avoiding the look of a strip shopping center. And some of the devices that we use are, I'll go ahead and point those out. As you come into the project, we want to create what we would call more of like a main street character; and this is a character that would encourage pedestrian activities. We would have a mixed use of office and retail along that. And I've included some photographs of some examples of what I call pedestrian -oriented commercial villages that I believe you all have copies of. What makes that work is that the architecture, the buildings are brought closer to the street, we'll provide street trees, traditional lighting fixtures, the parking is done parallel to the street, and it provides a buffer between the pedestrians and the roadway. And we're using this main street character to more or less establish the character of this shopping center being more of what we would call a traditional neighborhood development versus a strip shopping center. 11 The way that it's laid out also allows convenient access for people who want to just get in their car, buy, get their products and leave, but it also would encourage people to stay and hopefully become more of a, what I would call a small town center versus just a very quick shopping experience. So, in summary, there's a number of devices that we would use architecturally. I think the landscaping is very important, the development of the streets to be pedestrian - oriented, street trees, traditional lighting fixtures; and, hopefully, this would look more like some of our most, or nice shopping areas here on the Big Island versus some of the more suburban sprawl type projects. Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions for the architect? Commissioner Siracusa? SI ,ACUSA: I'm a tree person so, of course, my first question about this is going to be -. I see you have a lot of trees marked on here. I assume they're shade trees, or maybe not. Maybe I should ask that as a question. RIEHM: I hope they are. SIRACUSA: I hope so because I always look for the tree in the parking lot to park under. I don't like my car to heat up, and I know a lot of other people feel that way, too. So I'm wondering what types of trees you had in mind for this and whether their canopies would be consistent with their root systems in terms of, you know, affecting the paving. RIEHM: Well, let me just preface this by saying that I'm not a landscape architect so I couldn't tell you exactly what type of trees that we would use. But the landscaping is a very critical thing, especially for large paved areas. These definitely would be done as canopy trees or shade trees. For example, my favorite, one of my favorite parking lots on the island is the Prince Kuhio Mall in Hilo with the beautiful monkeypod trees. Now, a lot of people have problems with monkeypod but there are ways to mitigate their tree growth. So other projects that I think are remarkable are what they did on Oahu with the Mililani project with all those beautiful monkeypods that they had planted in their town center. So I think an integral part of this would be not only the shade trees in the parking lot but, most importantly, the trees that we would be using along our main street to create that pedestrian atmosphere. The type of tree, I don't know. I mean, that would be up to the landscape architect for the project. SPRINGER: Thank you. Any follow-up questions, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner McCall? 12 MCCALL: I guess my question on what you said on the TIAR that was done, I'm not sure whether, I think it was never addressed. But on situations like this, from what I understand, the general idea is you'll be putting multi -family housing here, rental housing. It seems to me what in effect we're actually to do is reduce the housing out on Ocean View, Waikoloa and a number of people who are actually, you know, driving into Kona to work, or whatever. But I've never seen, you know, I suppose it requires conjecture to say that this actually is going to potentially relieve some of the traffic, say, on Queen K Highway coming in, or coming through Kainaliu, or something. I mean, I've never see anything, I suppose that's a little bit too hypothetical to actually put down in a TIAR. So can you address that in any way? Fi.1KE: This is Mr. Brian Cook who has a wealth of experience in homebuilding here in the Kona area, so I just as soon defer it to him. SPRINGER: And, Mr. Cook, if you could please give us your name and address for the record? COOK: Yes. My name is Brian Cook. Address is 75-5608 Hienaloli, Road No. 25, Kailua-Kona. SPRINGER: Thank you, sir. You may proceed. COOK: When we first looked at this property, the developers who we had acquired the property from had it subdivided it into five lots, as Sidney said. They had played out this proposed, what we call a "strip mall," running the whole frontage of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. We didn't want to create that type of development. We think our community here, I've lived here in Kona for over 15 years and been in Hawai' i for 45 years; and in construction and development all these years we've seen a lot of things done bad and some things done good. When we go in and try to do a project, we've not motivated by density. We've motivated by trying to create something that's needed in our community. Living here ourselves, we see project after project that isn't really taking care of the concerns of the, of our community. As a developer, when I first started back in the 1960s, water, sewer and drainage were the three criteria that you would worry about. As we got into the `70s then the environmental assessment areas got in; and then coming over to the Big Island, it was the archaeological, and now it is traffic infrastructure. So when we looked at this project, we said, if we develop something that is not just neighborhood -friendly as far as a commercial area, we have been talking to Suffolk who has the adjacent property, and to create the neighborhood shopping center and the rental housing project, it takes the two projects together to pay for all the infrastructure to be developed. If you take a look at, if you're familiar with Kailua-Kona, creating a neighborhood shopping center like this will benefit projects on the makai side of the road coming from the south to the north of Kailua circle, you come up to Komohana Kai, there's Kuakini Makai, and Kahakai, and going mauka, you go from Sunset coming north 13 all the way through Kona Vistas, and to Pualani Estates. And the Lako Street intersection, I understand they said that the, the engineer told me yesterday that they have finished the road design, and they have awarded the contract to Isemoto, and they're concluding some final reports. And we hope that within a year we're going to be looking at two accesses coming off of Hualalai Road, which then means everyone living up in Holualoa and central area and Hualalai Road can come right down across the lighted intersection to a Neighborhood Commercial area; and we feel like this mitigates the traffic congestion and problems. Because if you look at what happens right now people will have to go from Holualoa all the way down Mamalahoa Highway to Pualani Road, and all the way down Pualani to Crossroads and Lanihau. We're trying to do something that's going to benefit our community where we're going to lessen some of the traffic. The rental housing project, very important to our community. Single-family homes are, someone was saying earlier that they're up over, like there's like a hundred under 500,000. I don't think there's more than 12 or 15 homes on the market now for under 500,000. It has gotten to be a critical issue here. Working with the Planning Director, our project, we're looking at maybe a Neighborhood Commercial and a hundred multi- family units; and we will abide by the, whatever the County Council comes up. Whether it's 20 percent or 30 percent affordable housing, we'll build it within that community. We've gotten the assurance from Suffolk Development. They also, whether it's 20 percent or 30 percent, they will create the rental housing on those guidelines. So we feel like if you have a neighborhood shopping center and some of the people down south can move into town and have a grocery store right there, if the husband has a car and the wife doesn't, she can walk to grocery store. And we need to do more things like that to help mitigate traffic. If we don't, it's just going to get worse. And even our project as we propose it, if you folks approve it and it goes before the County Council and we get it approved, for us to go through the engineering to get a design approved by DOT, we have a FEMA issue of a flood plain running through the project so we have to go through the County and FEMA, and that process, to get the plans processed and approved and actually developed, is probably going to take us three years. So we won't be building apartments or shopping centers for that period of time. Our community is really going to be suffering by then. That's why we need to consider projects like this that are going to mitigate some of the traffic woes and not add to them. FUKE: If I can just kind of supplement and directly answer your question, so, by increasing the inventory at the affordable housing range, then it could possibly minimize people having to find places in Hawaiian Ocean View and Waikoloa. SPRINGER: Thank you, gentlemen. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I have heard, you know, like prices like $250,000, for example, mentioned when people talk about affordable housing as single-family units. But I'm wondering for rental housing, what kind of range are we looking at for, say, a single bedroom, two-bedroom, that sort of thing? 14 COOK: I think that what we received from the County, a one -bedroom, I think, was $956 a month, two -bedrooms are $1,100 and something, and three-bedroom, $1,300 and something. Those are the guidelines. FUKE: The County affordable housing, and perhaps Mr. Takemoto can speak to that directly, but the County proposed ordinance, they do have like guidelines in terms of, you know, when you try to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for rental, what would be the rental rates for the 80 or 100 percent and whether it's one -bedroom, two -bedrooms or three -bedrooms. And, so, those would be the guidelines that they would have to adhere to. The other provision, I think, as I mentioned earlier is that, you know, the Director had recommended per the representation of the Applicant that this be a rental. So you have a 20 -year cap that is going to be rental, so you don't have the opportunity for the project to be condominimized no sooner than it's developed, you know. And the only way that it can be condominimized, of course, is that you have to, the Applicant would have to go through the same process that they're going through trying to get the initial entitlement, which is County Council action. SPRINGER: Is that sufficient, Commissioner? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I really, I just -. I'm blown away by the thought that a single bedroom apartment could be $900. And I think I'm going to have to urge my County Council to review those and make those levels more realistic, because otherwise they're really not serving the needs of most of our people. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner. Deputy Director? SIRACUSA: Right now we're stuck with what it is, right? TAKEMOTO: Let me just briefly address that. The definition of "affordable" is pretty much a formula; and it's based on the income group that you're trying to reach. "For Sale" housing, it's, I think goes from 100 percent of median income to 120 percent; and the factors that determine the affordable sales price is based on the interest rates prevailing at that time and the income group that you're trying to hit. So we're trying to provide homes for sale for income groups that earn less than 120 percent of the median income. Now, rental we're trying to dip further lower. So about 80 percent of the median income is the target for the rental housing. And the basis to determine the affordable rent is that the rent should not exceed 30 percent of this median income group income, 30 percent. Those are kind of like Federal guidelines from HUD. Below 80 percent it gets very difficult for private sector to burden, to take on that burden of providing housing that reaches down at that lower levels of rent. And so below 80 percent public policy is that perhaps that should be the realm where government should step in and provide public housing or encouraging non -profits to step in with all kinds of other incentives. 15 SPRINGER: Commissioners? I have a couple of questions. Will the affordable units be concentrated or will they be dispersed throughout the project? FUKE: Well, Mr. Cook can talk about Puaa. But as far as like the Suffolk project, it's, that would have to be determined ultimately by, I guess, both projects will ultimately have to be determined by the County Housing Agency, which is the, which consists of the members of the County Council. So they could then stipulate whether it's like spread out, you know, within the project area, or concentrated, or however. SPRINGER: Thank you. I have another question regarding the Department of Transportation correspondence that's dated January 21, 2004. In the first section, the first paragraph, it says that there are assumptions regarding certain improvements that will be provided by the adjacent Pualani Estates. Can you discuss that with us? FUKE: They were referring to the signalization at that main intersection, so we know that that's a fact that it's going to go in. COOK: I talked to the developers and they said that they have the, the plans are being processed for the street lights for the, three -sided street lights, and they anticipate it will probably be about a year. They're obligated to install them before that road opens up to Hualalai, but they're saying within a year to year -and -a -half. SPRINGER: Thank you. FUKE: So in answer to, you know, your question about Department of Transportation's comments, we received a copy this morning. And we noticed that as we went through all of them then they have been addressed, I think, very well by the Planning Director's recommended condition. And, in that regard, like I had also passed out, you know, if there are no further questions, you know, by the Commissioners or you, Madam Chair, I did pass out earlier like proposed amendments to both the Puaa Development as well as the Suffolk Development. And these, do you want me to go through them right now? GRAHAM: Maybe we should take some public testimony pretty soon, huh? FUKE: Oh, okay, sure. SPRINGER: Yes. I'm wondering and, Mr. Torigoe, the amendments that have been circulated are not, they're not the same for both. I'm wondering at what time we separate this discussion. We've had a good introductory discussion on the areas of commonality. I'm wondering when we should separate out discussion of, first, Suffolk and then Puaa. The amendments are not the same for both. Per Commissioner Graham's comments, we should be accepting testimony on the two or if the testifier should separate out their comments for one and the other? 16 TORIGOE: Well, I suppose that in order to allow any members of the public to testify intelligently about these things, I don't know if these amendments have been made available to the public at this point. If not, then, you know, perhaps they should be made available. And if there's going to be discussion regarding these, I suppose you may want to allow the public to have a look at these and present testimony before you go into your discussion. SPRINGER: Sidney, are we about ready to bifurcate the discussion and proceed starting with Suffolk? FUKE: Sure. Generally, though, you know, just for the Commissioners' information, both the proposed amendments are not really substantive in nature and they, because most of the conditions are, were the same for both Puaa and as well as like Suffolk. The amendments to the conditions would be identical. But if you wish to have it separated, then we can just look at the proposed amendments to Suffolk. SPRINGER: Commissioners, are you comfortable with some, proceeding in this way? We've had a discussion of the, a comprehensive discussion of the two developments, and especially with regard to public testimony. I'm thinking that we should now separate out the discussion and proceed with one Applicant and then the next. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: My thoughts on this would be perhaps if we, my thoughts would be that public testimony would probably also be the same for both applications. Perhaps if we take public testimony jointly, we could ask each testifier, you know, do their comments imply to both, or just to one. And in that way we could kind of, you know, go through where, so -. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Mr. Tongoe, would reading the proposed amendments to the conditions be sufficient with regard to public notice of them? TORIGOE: Well, that would be a start. Perhaps you could try reading them and then see if any member of the public would like to take some time to take a look at a copy, or perhaps obtain a copy, then that can be considered. SPRINGER: I would ask the staff if we have a copy of the amendments that could be made available to the public for review. FUKE: And, Madam Chair, perhaps like in the interest of having some general public information, if I were to review them, you know, using this process, I think that they'll be able to understand like what these changes are intended to do. SPRINGER: To read them? 17 FUKE: Sure. SPRINGER: Please? FUKE: Okay. Relative to the amendments, the suggested amendments to Suffolk's project, we would like to suggest that Conditions F, G and I, F, G and I relate to making improvements to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, you know, the traffic light, so on and so forth. G and I relate to the improvements to the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road, you know, through the property, and I refers to the improvements to Kuakini Highway. Now, if you look at all of those conditions, none of those conditions say when those improvements have to be in. And, so, what we're suggesting out of good faith and, you know, just out of clarity, and I think it's kind of understood but we would suggest that, you know, you just tack on the last sentence and, you know, add to the last sentence to all of those conditions. And that would read as follows: "Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures." SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions on this amendment? Thank you. Mr. Fuke? FUKE: And on Condition L, what -. SIRACUSA: Page -? SPRINGER: We're on page 3 of the conditions. We're looking at the change of zone application. SIRACUSA: Oh, okay, okay. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. SPRINGER: We're looking at the Change of Zone application. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Sure. On Condition L, what we wanted to do is just to clarify this restriction. Because as it's currently written, it would prohibit non -habitable structures or improvements within the Zone AE or the shaded Zone X area. For example, you can have the project and, you know, you would want to have like your driveway or your landscaping or improvements in that area. That would be prohibited just based upon the language. So what we would like to suggest is that if you delete the first sentence and then you start with what I had suggested like, "No residential structures shall be constructed within areas designated AE or shaded Zone X by the FIRM map, as amended," etc., etc. And then the, and I think the intent is like, you know, to have the restriction, you know, of this relative to single-family residential lots, although the Applicant does not have any plans to have single-family residential lots, but to have the restrictive covenants be applicable only to single-family residential lots, and that no 10 single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. So I just kind of like wanted to make this separation, because I think the intent of that condition was two -fold. One is to make sure that, you know, you don't build structures where people are going to utilize in a floodway, and that's understandable. And so we wanted to just clarify that to say like, well, there may be other improvements that could go within the AE areas, such as your roadway, your landscaping, you know; and if you're going to have your park area maybe some improvements that are non -habitable, you know, they should be allowed within the AE area without having an absolute prohibition as initially recommended. And, secondly, if there are going to be any single-family residential lot subdivision, although the zoning would allow it but, you know, that's not the intent, but in the event that there are single-family residential lots then what you want to do is make sure that the respective lot owners know that they cannot build within any portion of the property that's designated Zone AE or shaded X. So that was more just designed for clarification. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comment on this proposal? TAKEMOTO: I understand the AE. Why Zone X? FUKE: What is the shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. FUKE: I had to ask your staff. Maybe Mr. Hayashi can explain that. HAYASHI: The shaded Zone X is an area that's designated for 500 -year flooding. TAKEMOTO: No problem with your clarifications. SPRINGER: I just have a question. Your fourth amendment there, the insertion of the words, "If appropriate a copy of the proposed covenants." What would be an example of the inappropriate case? FUKE: Well, if there's no single-family residential lots. SPRINGER: I see. FUKE: Yeah. So that was the intent, yeah. SPRINGER: Thank you. Commissioners, we've heard the proposed amendments on the Suffolk Development conditions. Do you have any questions or comments on them? 19 GRAHAM: I'd just like to see the public get their testimony in so, cause it helps us focus our interest and all stuff, if we could, since they've been waiting so long. SPRINGER: Yeah, I think, Mr. Graham, what the intention is is to go through these so that the public has a chance to hear what the proposed amendments are, and then we'll invite them up as soon as we finish the Puaa conditions. GRAHAM: Okay. SPRINGER: So, Mr. Fuke, if we may then turn to your proposed amendments for the Puaa Development. FUKE: Sure. The proposed amendments I found on Page 1 of what I passed out, conditions, the proposed amendment to Conditions F, G and I, again, would be identical to what we had proposed for the Suffolk project, and specifically to indicate when these improvements have to be in. And what we're saying is that they have to be in prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the non-residential structures or inspection of any, Final Inspection of any residential structures, the so-called concurrency issue that Mr. Takemoto had intimated earlier. Condition J requires like the designation of an easement; and that's very understandable because the County just wants to make sure that there are interconnectivities of road. And, so, what Condition J is talking about is like having an easement that would be directed to the properties to the north. And that easement, you know, if you look at that map over there, would preliminarily be, and it may change, would preliminarily be right after you get off the primary intersection and head north. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comments on this proposed amendment to Condition J? FUKE: Well, what we were going to suggest was just to add the second sentence like, again, to clarify like when it has to be done. And then, basically, we're saying that the designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a CO for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. Again, it just makes it clear. And, you know, I had to add the easement and its terms because, you know, they're going to be providing the easement. And we would, the respective property owners would still have to get together to figure out like, you know, who's going to do what, what are the liabilities, the interim access, so on and so forth. So that's the description of the easement and its terms. TAKEMOTO: That's acceptable. SPRINGER: Thank you. FUKE: On Condition K was just more an editorial change. That thing was just an omission, the word, minor editorial change, add the term "to" between the words 20 "improved" and "County" in the first sentence. So it would read, "All roadways within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards." So that's an editorial change. Proposed Condition M would be the same thing as what I had suggested for proposed Condition L on the Suffolk project, which was to make clear that you can't have non- structural type of or non -habitable type of activities, you know, within the Zone AE area, such as your parking lot and your roadway and all that. Because if you were going to say that, if you leave it as it is and you have that easement designated as such, then that roadway would not be possible, you know, that north -south roadway interconnectivity. DARROW: I think that's different, Sid. Condition M? FUKE: That would be to Condition M. Correct. DARROW: This is referring to the drainage. Condition O would be similar to the Condition L. FUKE: Oh, you are correct. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, thank you very much, Jeff. The Condition M, what we're suggesting here was to say that not mandate that the study have to be submitted to FEMA, `cause you already have, an application to FEMA has already been filed, you know, for an amendment. And, understandably, you need to also have like additional drainage study done for all of the planned improvements within the project. And, generally, when you do a drainage plan, that's not subject to any FEMA amendment, you don't have to send it to FEMA. But the way that the language is written it implies, or at least it's not clear, that that same drainage study would have to be directed to FEMA. So we wanted to kind of like make it clear that, as well as like to indicate like when the drainage study would have to be done. So it would read, "The drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval." The drainage study is important to, prior to issuance of Plan Approval. Because once you get Plan Approval then pretty much you're on your way to doing specific design pursuant to the plans. So you need to pretty much know how your drainage system is going to work. And to delete the second sentence, and I just kind of added that, "If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency clearances and/or approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the AE zone or the corrected effective base flood plain." So, Public Works reviews the drainage plan and they can say like you need a FEMA amendment. If that's the case, then the plan has to go up to FEMA. So that's all we're saying, which is current law right now. And, then, again, making sure that all of the necessary drainage improvements have to be completed before occupancy is done, the concurrency notion. 21 SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Takemoto, any comments? TAKEMOTO: Let me kind of defer to Public Works. Ki, you got any concerns about this amendment? EMLER: Yeah, unfortunately, I didn't get this recommendation until yesterday late so I wasn't really, I didn't really go over the conditions on the drainage issues very well. I thought our conditions in our Recommendation were pretty well down. But I don't have any objection to the Applicant's proposed changes to the conditions. I think they're well done. Chapter 27 regulates that anyway; and, so, any work in the flood plain falls under Chapter 27. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Emler. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Emler while he's up. Thanks again. And, then, finally -? FUKE: Sure. And, finally, the last amendment is amendment to Condition O, which relates, again, to the prohibition of any type of improvements within the Zone AE or shaded Zone X, like I had discussed earlier on the Suffolk application. SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions on these proposed amendments? Any other further discussion with the Applicant's representatives before we begin public testimony? DARROW: If I could just ask the Deputy Director a quick comment? Condition O and Condition L of Puaa and Suffolk, would it be more appropriate to say Zone X-500 versus shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO: Do you know if shaded Zone X is a term of art? It would be clearer if it said X-500, or 500 -year flood plain, or something like that. DARROW: So X-500? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, or then put in parenthesis something like "500 -year flood zone?" SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, is that acceptable? FUKE: Sure, that's the intent. SPRINGER: Thank you. If the Applicant's representatives could stand back now. We have on our testimony sign-up sheet, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Keliipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. I don't see Ms. Palma-Glennie in the audience but -. PETERSON: She left written testimony. 22 SPRINGER: Okay. PETERSON: And she wanted to know if the Planning Department could acknowledge her written testimony out loud. SPRINGER: Thank you. Then I think we have enough chairs for all of you. You've all raised your hands and been sworn in. Before you begin your testimony, if you could please give your name and address for the record; and we'll begin with you, Mr. Gimpel. GIMPEL: My name is Joel Gimpel. I live at 73-4686 Hinalani Street in Kailua-Kona. Good late afternoon. I represent the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. And we've reviewed both the Puaa and Suffolk applications for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone; and I'd like to combine my comments on those two. I submitted written copies on each so that, to the staff so you'll have it in the record. We understand now that the Puaa proposal is to develop a commercial shopping center in the northern end of the property and housing at the southern end of the property. Principal access, of course, would be from Route 11 at the north end of the property, with a signalized and channelized intersection directly opposite the access to Pualani Estates. And the Applicant also proposed a right -in, right -out only access to Highway 11 at the south end. There would be a road with a 60 foot right-of-way through the project connecting with the Suffolk Investment property immediately makai. We have a number of concerns and suggestions regarding the Suffolk proposal, I mean, the Puaa proposal and recommend as you are doing, that it be evaluated in conjunction with the Suffolk application. Traffic on Route 11. The TIAR predicted that the project would add 3614 trips per day to traffic on Kuakini Highway and Route 11, which is already operating at capacity. But the TIAR, while predicting no change in the level of service at the Pualani Subdivision intersection with Route 11, which should be signalized, failed to take into account the traffic that will be added to that intersection by the 21 -unit Uluwehi Properties Development that has been approved by the County Council, and the 250 -unit rental development that's proposed by Suffolk Investment. And because the traffic counts used for the TIAR were taken before commercial delivery trucks were needed in the area, it also failed to account for the many delivery vehicles that will enter the development, especially in the morning peak hours. Furthermore, the TIAR projected, predicted that the proposed right-in/right-out driveway on Route 11 would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the afternoon peak hours. And, even with the right -turn acceleration lane, entering Route 11 will be dangerous because the speed limit at that point is 55 miles an hour. Second issue: Traffic on Kuakini Highway. Because of the existing and projected congestion on Route 11, we believe (and the TIAR predicted) that many drivers would 23 use Kuakini Highway to access and leave the project, which will invariably increase congestion on that two-lane road and result in increased traffic through the residential development proposed by Suffolk. Third: Trip Length Reduction argument. We understand and recognize that the proposed development will somewhat reduce trip length for area residents to and from commercial and office uses, but it will nevertheless add significantly to the already congested traffic on Route 11 and on Kuakini Highway. We have another, a few other safety issues with respect to the Puaa Development. We're concerned that speeding on the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road to be constructed that connects Route 11 and Kuakini Highway will raise safety problems, especially as it crosses the proposed 250 -unit housing project makai of the subject property. So in view of those concerns, and of the Mayor's opposition to commercial development, where supporting infrastructure is already operating at capacity, as we know it is, we urge that you carefully evaluate these traffic -related considerations and apparent shortcomings of the TIAR, and delay the project until: 1) the community development plan is in place; and 2) infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. At the very least, we ask that you: 1) Prohibit occupancy until the Pualani Estates/Route 11 intersection is signalized and fully channelized, including a northbound left -tum pocket lane from Route 11. 2) Require the Applicant to provide right -turn deceleration lanes from Route 11 into both of the access driveways, and a right -tum acceleration lane from the right- in/right-out driveway onto Route 11. 3) Reduce the speed limit on Route 11 to 45 miles an hour from Hualalai Road south to the Kuakini Highway/Route 11 intersection. I know that isn't your jurisdiction but that could be your recommendation. 4) Require a left -tum pocket lane from Kuakini Highway into the mauka-makai road, and right -tum deceleration and acceleration lanes into and out of the mauka- makai road at its intersection with Kuakini Highway, and a pedestrian grade separation (either overpass or underpass) or a pedestrian -activated stoplight at that intersection to facilitate safe pedestrian access from nearby subdivisions along Kuakini Highway. Let's get rid of the cars to go shopping a few blocks away and allow people to cross Kuakini Highway into the area. 5) Lastly, limit speed on the mauka-makai road between Route 11 and Kuakini Highway to 25 miles an hour, require a traffic -calming design, and provide sidewalks and bike paths. 24 Briefly, I'd like to outline a couple of the considerations and concerns we had with the Suffolk Investment proposal. We do appreciate that the Applicant proposes to provide much-needed rental housing in the Kailua-Kona area. Nothing in the applications, however, describe the affordability of the rents to be charged. Because the shortage of affordable housing for low-income workers in the Kailua-Kona area contributes greatly to our traffic congestion, we urge that you require the developer to designate a substantial percentage, at least 30 percent, of the units on-site for low-income households, and that in -lieu of fees not be permitted, and that the developer also comply with other requirements for affordable housing that are in effect when construction begins. In addition, we recommend that you require the developer to restore the old Kailua- Keauhou Road, which is the Middle Road that's designated on Page 10 of Appendix D-2 on the application, that runs mauka of the old Kuakini Highway which is the western boundary of the project, and designate it as a bicycle and walking path which will benefit all area residents. We note that the project, that the TIAR anticipates that the project upon completion will add 1405 daily trips to the roadway network. In other words, Kuakini Highway/Route 11 and that Route 11 is already a capacity. Furthermore, the TIAR on this application didn't anticipate the service and delivery vehicles that will be entering and leaving the adjoining commercial complex that was proposed by Puaa Development. So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: That's a lot to chew on there. But the first thing you're talking about a Community Development Plan that you'd like to see. Is that underway now? I'm not aware of what's going on with the development plan. GIMPEL: Yes, that is underway. The Council is considering the Draft 1 of the General Plan in which calls for the, and will be working on community development plans as well. And that we think is important because the current General Plan, until the revisions are adopted, isn't something to base this on. GRAHAM: I understand. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Other Commissioners, questions or comments of the testifier? The testifier's comments peaks some questions that I have for Deputy Director Takemoto. I'm interested in this failure to take the Uluwehi Development, is that correct, into consideration. I'm also interested in, if the Planning Department took into consideration the increased commercial traffic that would result from this development. And if you could, we had some discussion about the tension between providing much-needed affordable housing close to places of 25 employment and the burden onto the existing roads. Could you comment on those, Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO: As far as the factors that went into the TIAR, I cannot comment on that. I haven't reviewed that study. But, you know, commonly, TIARs can be criticized just like an EIS, you know. Everybody who picks it up has something to say about it. So I would need to take the comments and compare it to the TIAR, and possibly get Public Works' input on that as well. SPRINGER: Okay. Then perhaps a more general statement regarding how the Planning Department evaluates the benefit of affordable housing close to places of employment against the cost of increased traffic? TAKEMOTO: This kind of goes to an earlier question raised by Commissioner McCall, actually, about, you know, the strategy here is to direct growth to the existing urbanized areas, which is called "in -field development," and provided that this in -field development does have an affordable housing component. Because the trend is that the people are being pushed out to the periphery because they cannot afford housing close to town where their jobs are so, which is what's causing these long commutes to Kona. So, to counter that, the idea is to direct growth to the in -field areas, which are the vacant urban areas in existing urbanized areas, that have infrastructure or can be developed to provide infrastructure. As long as there is a component for affordable housing so that these people have a choice to move closer to where they work, we cannot guarantee that that would actually happen. I think the whole exercise here is to provide opportunities and choice; because without even that, we don't stand a chance. And that is kind of a paradox to hear you increasing development in the urbanized area in the interest of reducing congestion, but that is the long-term solution. We need the, the congestion that is occurring now is a symptom of the existing conditions. So we need quick fixes to clear up as much as we can the congestion that's occurring now. But in the long term we need to reverse this land use trend to not aggravate the existing trends. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Takemoto. Commissioners, any questions of either Mr. Gimpel or Mr. Takemoto on this matter? Okay, thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Next, Mr. Murata, if you could please give us your name and your address for the record. MURATA: My name is Harold Murata. My address is 77-6452 Alii Drive, Apartment 305, Kailua-Kona. My compressed statement is the Suffolk-Puaa project should not be approved. The Suffolk Development proposes 300 parking stalls, the Puaa Development proposes over 520 stalls. This kind of high traffic -inducing project, such as these, do not fit into the existing transportation infrastructure in Kona. These projects will further impact traffic flows and traffic circulation, not only on the roadways here in central Kailua and in the vicinity. But if you go mauka, about 10 more miles south, the effects of all these cars that will be generated will spill over to the Honalo-Kainaliu area, and continuing on 26 to Kealakekua and Captain Cook. These areas are already suffering from traffic jams today. I don't know how many of you travel this route, but it can get pretty hectic. Traffic movement at the junction of the two roads, Mamalahoa and Kuakini, is jammed in the afternoons and evenings. On Kuakini Highway going southbound from the junction about three to five miles back, there's a traffic jam, cars creeping along. Some cars will scoot mauka, go to Mamalahoa, and then use that like a grand prix highway to get to the junction so that they can merge into the main line traffic, beat the others who are seating by further back. The drivers are pretty lucky because they can, you know, they can get in, what I call driver courtesy, you know, people are nice. But as projects like this increase the volume of cars, I think that kind of spirit, you know, karma, it's going to diminish. There's going to be driver, drivers are going to cut in and cut off; and that's not a healthy traffic situation. Access from driveways are getting more and more difficult. Farmers are, they have to adjust their life to sell their coffee because of all this heavy volume. If you don't get out in time, you know, it's going to, they have to adjust their lifestyle tremendously, the quality of life. Projects such as this worsens already a bad situation. If you were stuck in Honalo and Kainaliu, you'd go nuts. Signficant adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. You can use your reins and say, oh, slow down. Because once a project is approved, mitigation is pretty much out of the question, but avoidance can. It's time to do some thinking and say, you know, what can we do to prevent the worsening of the traffic situation. So I ask you, please don't approve this project that will add 800 -plus car stalls and over 5,000 average daily car trips. Don't add that to the inadequate transportation infrastructure. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Murata. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Ms. Keliipio? KELIIPIO: My name is Josephine Keliipio. My address is 76-168 Royal Poinciana Drive, Kailua-Kona. And I have lived in this area, general area, where this commercial area is going to be built. I live on Alii Kai's, sorry, I live on Alii Kai, in Alii Kai Subdivision. It's a very old subdivision. It was built back in the `60s; and I moved into that area in '88. Now, if I were to walk from my home up to this commercial area would be about a little bit over a mile, because I'd have to follow the road up to the commercial area. And as much as this developer thinks that they're doing a good thing for the community, they're talking in terms of it being very car -oriented. In order for them to, in order for them to be useful to the Pualani Estates Subdivision, those people are going to have to cross that very, very busy, busy, busy, busy highway. And highways aren't nice to pedestrians, which means that they're going to have to jump in their cars and still drive across. Okay? So, as much as the developer is saying, oh, you know, this is going to be more walkable, yes and no. It's mostly no. It's still designed for the car. And I'm wondering how am I going to get over there and walk and shed some pounds, 27 which I need to. So it's not quite compatible with our surrounding neighborhoods. And the developer is only looking at how they can accommodate Pualani Subdivision, which is directly mauka of the highway, and how they can accommodate the rich guys in Kahakai Estates, which is about, maybe about 100 lots in there. We have 200 lots in our area. And I think there are lot of people that wouldn't mind walking up there if it was walkable to that area; and it's not walkable. And, so, I wanted to bring that to your attention to maybe quiz the developer on, you know, how walkable is it to the rest of us. I'm below Komohana Kai Subdivision, okay. And, so, how walkable is it for us because they didn't mention us; and, you know, we're kind of off the map over here, you know, where -. So, and, you know, and then this frontage road deal, that's ugly to put a frontage road right next to the highway. That's mainland style. Is there some way that they can hide that behind their building so that it's not obvious? Are we setting a bad precedent for other developers to do the same thing when they want to adjust their development because the land is irregular-shaped? Is that what we're going to do? And another question I have is, now, developer mentioned the town center. Now, you know, usually the community determines who, where the town center is going to be placed. Not, but we're letting the developer tell us where our town center is supposed to be? So these are all the, these are questions that come up that I'm hoping that you guys can quiz the developer on. You know, where I live, actually, the ideal town center for us would be right there next to the Lako Chevron Station. You know, from there south there's all that big area, acreage. That would be really ideal because people already walk across the highway and cars are used to stopping in that area, so it works well for us. But that town center that they're claiming -. And, and, please, can you ask the developer if we can get a rough idea of how large this town center is? Can he give us an example of an existing mall that's here either in Kona or Hilo, so that we can relate to how large this town center, this commercial area is going to be. Now, he cut it in half, right? According to the new, the changes, it looks like only half of this Puaa project is going to be the commercial area and then they're going to put homes on the other side. And, but, you know, you still want to know what kind of impact it's going to be, how ugly it's going to be next to the highway. And that frontage road really bugs me, because even though he has permit for that secondary access and even though his traffic study says that it's not going to affect us, it will. Right now there's nothing there, so the highway flows very smoothly in that area, very smoothly. And to put two, even if it's a right -tum in, right -tum out, it still affects traffic. And then I question that secondary access because right after that is the turn-off to go down Kuakini, and, so, this sort of disrupts the driver before the turn-off. And I'm just wondering, you know, what kind of impacts that secondary access is going to be to the next turn-off down in Kuakini. So, you know, there's just so many questions. I don't really think that this development is ready for, to go; and I think maybe we should wait until like two other people have M said, wait till the regional plans are in place and the community can have better input into where our town center should be located. So, let's see what else that I want to say. Also, if this thing goes through, and if it goes through because they're going to put in all the housing, would be good to put in senior housing because I think Kona is very limited in that. And there was a woman that came, she left, she's trying to get into senior housing. So, those are considerations; and I think that, oh -. Mauka-makai road, one last thing. I have a real problem with mauka-makai roads. I live on a very important mauka-makai road where speeding was the norm until we had seven speed humps put in about three, four years ago. And, so, this mauka-makai road, maybe the developer can design it in such a way that it is no more than an eight percent slope. And the reason for that is if there's a speeding problem, it's easier to put in speed humps or some kind of traffic calming when it's not as steep. And in order for the, you know, the developer to put in a gradual less than eight percent slope road, he might need to start that mauka-makai road further up by the highway rather than, you know, in other words, to give more land for sweeping curves, more curves, to accommodate eight percent slope. But these are things that, can you guys please ask the developer abou? Because unless it's resolved, I don't think that this project should go through. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner McCall? Question for the testifier? MCCALL: Yes. Could you identify where your subdivision is on the map? KELIIPIO: Where is it? DARROW: Royal Poinciana, this is Royal Poinciana here. What's your cross street? KELIIPIO: I'm way down at, it starts with a P. DARROW: Pakalana? KELIIPIO: Pakalana Road. DARROW: Pakalana, so that would be right in this area. The area that we're looking at in this application is here. You can see the streets. It appears that -. NOMURA: Microphone, please. DARROW: Oh, thank you, sorry about that. It appears to be able to access the Hawaii Belt Road. You have to actually go from Royal Poinciana or these subdivisions here, come up to Kupuna Street and then access off of Lako Street. 29 KELIIPIO: I'm .7 miles from that intersection, yeah, from that intersec —, at Lako and the Queen Kaahumanu; and then I'd have to walk across to that shopping center. That's going to be a real challenge, yeah? MCCALL: And my other point would be that still might be closer than driving all the way to Keauhou, or over to KTA, or something. KELIIPIO: So still jump in my car? You don't believe in walkability? MCCALL: No -. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner -. MCCALL: I'm not hereto testify. But I'm just saying that even if you have to, some people will need to drive. They can't go to -. I mean, if they can go to shopping center or close enough to anybody that they can walk, that would be great. KELIIPIO: Mr. McCall, this is Kona. We have the weather to walk. Fifty percent of us are obese. Look at me, I'm on Weight Watchers, you know. So we need to walk, we need to be encouraged to walk by putting in the right developments that make us do that, make it pedestrian -friendly. Right now, everyone is designing Kona to be car - oriented. It's a real turn-off, well, for people like me. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, two things. One is, after I ask my question, if you, I'm going to ask Mr. Emler to comment on your questions about lowering the speeding by, you know, changing the grade or the speed bumps and that sort of question that you raised. But, first, I want to ask you if you have any concrete suggestions for making the area more walkable, more pedestrian -friendly. If you were me or if you were the planners or, you know, Mr. Fuke, and you wanted to plan for pedestrian access from any of these surrounding areas to this commercial complex, what would your suggestions be? KELIIPIO: Open up Kahakai Estates so we can go up that road, nice area. Or, let's see, we have a vacant property above us, there's some archaeological, it's vacant, you know, put a pedestrian walkway through that property so we can access Kuakini, to stop the traffic on Kuakini so that we can walk across it. You know, I mean, we could probably go down to Kahakai Estates and cross there but, you know, make the sidewalks super big, super wide so that the cars know that they need to stay back from the pedestrians. Improve the sides, the shoulders of Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu, make them super wide so that pedestrians know they're safe. See, that's the problem, we're not safe when we're walking next to the road. You know, we've had people get killed on Alii Drive, you know. And this is a, these are two highways, and especially in that area. So, you know, it needs to be, somebody that's a pedestrian planner needs to come in here and help us. 30 SPRINGER: Thank you. Follow-up? SIRACUSA: Okay. My second question was for Mr. Emler from Public Works, to come up and comment on your remarks about changing the grades so cars can't go so fast and that they could put in speed bumps. EMLER: Yeah, generally, we wouldn't restrict the grade on a local street to eight percent. However, Josephine has some knowledge of the guidelines for installation of speed humps because they were done in front of her house. Correct? Eight percent is the guideline maximum; and that is part of a, I believe it's part of the Traffic Code. I'm trying to think which code it's part of, but we do have some speed hump guidelines. The installation of speed humps in a County road that's proposed for dedication to the County would be sent to the Traffic Division for review and comment. I do not want to make a commitment at this point as to whether that would be allowed. However, I do concur with Josephine's understanding of the maximum grade. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No questions. SPRINGER: Okay. Other Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Ms. Peterson, your name and address and then your testimony, please? PETERSON: Aloha, I'm Ann Peterson, 77-180 Kekai Place, Kailua-Kona 96740. Before I begin my testimony, I just want to say a little bit about traffic calming. And there are many, I don't like speed humps, personally. But there's all different other ways, bulb -outs and chicanes; and there's a lot of ways to get really creative that have been done in communities all over the nation that can slow people down. We know when we built mauka-makai's wide, 60 -foot wide on a slope, that people are going to speed. So, you know, that should be built into any project that you guys take a look at. When I sat down here I was really in support of this project. I like Josephine's idea about having the community decide where a shopping area should be, but I am really supportive of shopping areas in, near neighborhoods. We need small, little units. I've lived in Japan for three years before moving here and there's zero zoning there. It was so convenient to walk right across the street to the drug store, get my hair done, go to the fish store, the tofu shop, everything was right there. It was wonderful. I didn't own a car before I moved to Hawaii and I've gained 40 pounds in 10 years; and I've lived in cold climates and, you know, it was never a problem. 31 And that's why I'm here today, is if this shopping area has the right kind of stores in it, not like the Pines. I don't know what happened to the Pines. I think that was a good idea that went bad. Now, who does that service? It draws people in. It doesn't have the kind of service stores that this kind of neighborhood needs -- and I don't know if that's something that you guys can control -- needs a supermarket, needs a laundry, you know, those kinds of things, a hairdresser that will service the people around there. I have a, this area was a real heartbreak for me. The old Walua Road, biking/pedestrian scenic route, if you're familiar with that area, it's up in the Sunset Subdivision. And we worked really hard to get that opened and we were going to extend that down into town. Mayor Yamashiro was on board with that. Henry Cho was on board with that. Curtis Tyler was on board with that. Peter Young was on board with that. We went on hikes in there. We brought in consultants from the mainland to help us figure out that we could use the two culverts that are there near Lako Street to go under the highway, you know, divert the water into one and have the other for a pedestrian/bike access. When I saw the construction going on in there in the storage unit, and talk about a total mis-use for that area, that's the kind of thing that belongs in the industrial areas. I don't know how that got in there. I was told in the Kona side Department of Planning by Norren that if anybody touched that right-of-way, they'd be "in big trouble;" and I don't want anybody to be in big trouble. But that, we found out later that got sold, that alignment got sold; and not only got sold once, it got sold six times by the State. And, yeah, I don't know how that kind of thing can happened but there's this major disconnect. This pathway was on the State Bike Plan as a bike route. It was on the County Department of Public Works Roads in Limbo to be a bike plan, to be a bikeway, bike and pedestrian -way I should say. But from what I understand, when the request comes through to purchase this, it doesn't, it goes to the Department of Finance. It doesn't go to Public Works. It doesn't go to, you know, the right people that have this broader vision of what's happening; and, so, this is a tragic disconnect. When I hear the developers talk about neighborhood -friendly and pedestrian -friendly, this could really be a wonderful little development, I think, in my head, but it needs to bring down the people - I'm sorry, I'm cold, I'm not scared, I'm just shaking - to bring people down from Sunset Subdivision and Kailua Village, or whatever, Kona Heavens, whatever they call it, Kona Heights, I don't know my subdivisions, sorry, but, and from down Lako Street. But as Josephine said we need more pedestrian -friendly. And that frontage road doesn't say pedestrian -friendly. It says you've got to get in your car to get here. Doesn't it? So I'm going to leave it at that. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Are there any questions for the testifier? Mr. Takemoto, then Commissioner Siracusa. TAKEMOTO: Ann, I'm a little bit confused on the Walua Road Extension of that pedestrian -way. Was the intent to come down Lake, Street, cross Kuakini and then use 32 that old Kuakini Highway right-of-way that goes through the property? Is that what you're saying? PETERSON: Yeah, that Kailua-Keauhou Road. You know how Walua Road is, it's Walua Road up there and then when you get down by Tres Hombres, it's Walua Road again. Well, that, there's, if you look on the map, that old alignment is there, and I think on the older maps that was called the Kailua-to-Keauhou Government Road or, you know, it's gone through a number of names depending on which map you look at. But we weren't really sure how people would get from the upper to the lower; and that's why we thought initially they could cross at Lako Street. But the ultimate would be to open up that culvert and have, and extend. The road actually, the alignment actually extends behind that car dealership, Orchid Isle. And there could be a little switch -back down to the culverts, come under the culvert, and continue on along that alignment. Now, you know, I do want to say that the alignment is gone; and I don't think that it needs to be on that exact spot. You know, it could be closer to the highway, it could meander through this development. The developer should not be, you know, constrained in any way, I think, by this old alignment, even though there's some wonderful berms in there. It's just a beautiful old highway, scenic. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. Is it appropriate for me to ask a question of the developer or Mr. Fuke? SPRINGER: He'll be coming back. If you can reserve your question for him when he returns to the table. SIRACUSA: Okay. SPRINGER: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments for the testifier sitting at the table? I do have a question for you, Ms. Peterson. You mentioned Janice Palma-Glennie's testimony. You're saying that it was left with the staff, was it? PETERSON: She said she was going to leave it with -. HAYASHI: Yes, she gave the testimony to the staff. SPRINGER: Thank you, Norman. Has that -? HAYASHI: We'll make that as part of the record. SPRINGER: Has that been distributed or -? HAYASHI: No. She only had left one, copy. SPRINGER: Thank you. 33 HAYASHI: So we could circulate it. SPRINGER: Okay. And it will also be copied and entered into the record. Thank you all. PETERSON: Aloha. SPRINGER: Aloha. PETERSON: Can I just applaud you all. It's really commendable what you're doing; and I know you're volunteering; and -. SPRINGER: Thank you, ma'am. If the developer's representative and the consultants could come back to the table, please. Mr. Fuke, may we invite Commissioner Siracusa's question at this time? FUKE: Sure. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you, I assume you were listening to the comments from the people that came up to testify from the community, and Mr. Cook as well. And I'm wondering if there is any way that you folks can see to address some of the concerns that were raised by members of the public in terms of moderating your plans in some way here and there and possibly cost-effective ways to address some of those issues that they raised? Or, would you be willing to, if we were to say let's defer to give you a chance to go back to the drawing board, and look and see how you could make a win-win for the community, as well as for your development? FUKE: One of the Applicants is here so I just as soon defer the question, the issue on the deferral issue to, you know, Mr. Cook. But before he responds, I think that there were like a number of suggestions that were offered. I think that, I'm not necessarily speaking for Mr. Cook but, I think, you know, just overall like from the standpoint of like the mitigation, the added mitigation, they can be accommodated. I think there has been some misunderstanding in terms of like when Mr. Riehm talked about like the village concept that the whole place is going to be, it had to be like pedestrian -accessible. And it was clearly, and I think as Commissioner McCall accurately pointed out, that the project, the commercial component was, you know, within the project component, plus the multiple -family portion that, you know, you could start the beginning of what, I guess, what Ms. Peterson was talking about, just trying to create a greater sense of village environment within the project. You can't go beyond that. But in terms of the beyond component, trying to minimize like the visual impact of, number one, like not having, you know, the sprawl, you know, the strip mall kind of 34 notion, by having this kind of revised proposal, I think, eliminates, visually eliminates that kind of notion. You can also have, introduce extensive landscaping within the proposed right-of-way, not the proposed right-of-way, but within the parallel roadway. You know, that would help visually screen and try to create more like a village enclave. We can't do much in terms of providing pedestrian movement from other subdivisions to over here. But within the project area to make it pedestrian -friendly, it can be done; and it has been suggested and made conditions, such as the provision of curb, gutter, sidewalk along the main spine, the spine -way. There were also discussions about, to further the notion of like a pedestrian -friendly along the Kuakini Highway portion, for example. It could possibly be, and this is something, I guess, Mr. Cook and Suffolk would have to look at, is, since they already have to make improvements to the Kuakini Highway, as proposed by the Planning Director, that you could have like a pedestrian -activated crosswalk, you know, as they have like in Kailua and other areas, you know, to make it more "like whatever you can," to make it more and more pedestrian -oriented. COOK: Yes. Listening to some of the comments by these folks, they bring some good points; and I think the first gentleman who spoke was referencing traffic concerns, speed limit and on the highway. Now the Hawaii Belt Road, the speed limit is 55 miles an hour in that area. When the traffic light goes in, I'm not sure but I think that would automatically reduce the speed limit to 45 miles an hour. I think that that is much better; and that's a preference to have that lower speed limit on the highway. And we will work with DOT and try to see if things like that can be accomplished. Some of these other comments of concern about how the intersection would be designed, the main intersection coming in connecting to the intersection at Pualani Estates would be a complete DOT -required intersection, which would be a deceleration lane and acceleration lane. There would be a pocket lane turning north. Then the southern right - tum only, again, there would be a deceleration lane; there would be an acceleration lane. The intersection of the new, they're calling it the Spine Road, to Kuakini Highway, the requirement there I'm sure will be there will have to be a pocket lane for the left -turn. So I think many of those issues, and I would like to meet with him, that gentleman, and talk to him further about it, `cause it seems like he has a lot of knowledge about traffic; and, certainly, that's an issue that we really want to make sure we all work together on. Some of the other issues, Josephine was asking about the percentage of grade on our project. And as I look at the topography map, it looks like that the roadway could be designed, for the most part, with possibly an 8 percent grade. As I looked at the current topo at Kuakini Highway, our elevation is in the neighborhood of 260, whereas when we get up to the main highway it's about 330. So I don't perceive it as being a steep intersection or a steep roadway. Lessening the speed limit in that area, too, is a good idea. I think that's good. 35 Josephine and, also, Ann were both mentioning, you know, how you can get pathways through different given areas; and we would be certainly willing to try to look at different areas. We don't control adjacent properties. But as I look at Royal Poinciana, that road goes up, and it just stops before it gets to the highway. You know, we would certainly try to work with them and see if there's any way we can get pathways and things like that to better accommodate people that want to -walk, even if it's a distance to go to the store. The type of project we're proposing is truly what I feel like a Neighborhood -Commercial. We're not trying to create any big box stores. In meeting with the Planning Director and staff, we were sensitive to not creating a shopping center that would have a, like an Office Depot, or something that where people from outlining areas would come into there specifically. We're looking at more like a supermarket and getting some banks in there, getting a satellite post office in there, hair salons, barbershops, a restaurant -- a restaurant more fitting like the Kona Ranch House that we all had that we all enjoyed here for so many years -- health food stores, a bakery, a mix of office space, small retail shops, maybe a drugstore and then the gas station, car wash. We have two car washers in West Hawaii, one of them is by the County offices, it's very congested. The other one is out past Honokohau Harbor. Simple thing like that, we're driving all the way out there just to get our car washed. We're on the road creating more traffic. So we would want to work with the community; and we're not calling this a regional shopping center. It's just a neighborhood shopping center for the people of that area, and we will be soliciting their input as to what they would like to say in the way of retail shops and businesses there. SPRINGER: Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes, thank you very much for clarifying a lot of that. And I'm wondering if I look over can I see, you know, any kind of response from the testifiers as to how they, you know, feel, if they would be able to work with the developer on addressing some of those problems? SPRINGER: I see that you're nodding assent. If you have a verbal response, if you could come to a microphone, please. And, again, this is Ms. Peterson. PETERSON: Aloha. Just to say Joel had to leave, but his comments are from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Those are created by the whole committee, so you might want to come to one of those meetings sometime, get on the agenda, and hear the input from everybody. He kind of drafts something and everyone throws their two cents in. Your comments were encouraging, you know. I just, I hope the County can help get on board with, and figure out some way to complete that pathway. I know Roy has a passion about this as well, and I'm glad he's on board. And I know that having Michael Riehm at the table, he's very pedestrian -oriented, and that makes me feel very comfortable. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Commissioner Siracusa. 36 SIRACUSA: Thank you. Mr. Murata, did you want to respond to that, also? MURATO: I'd like to give additional comments. SIRACUSA: Please, 1 would like to hear your comments, yes. SPRINGER: If you could please come to the microphone. SIRACUSA: I'm looking for a win-win here. SPRINGER: And if you could please come to the microphone, Mr. Murata. MURATA: I would like to comment, perhaps this is more to the Commission than to the developer. It has to do with 60 foot roadways. They're magnificent. They add a lot of traffic. I don't know, I think Deputy Director Takemoto may know. The right-of-way on Kuakini Highway when it ends in Honalo, then it comes, it goes into a country road in Honalo and the greater part of Kainaliu. I understand the right-of-way is 30 feet. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO: I don't know the exact right-of-way but it does narrow, because it turns into from a State highway, it turns into County, County road, through that town, and then it picks up again as a State highway. MURATA: Yeah, it's just mind-boggling to have so many, such a wide, large capacity for cars, you know, getting into constriction. So my question is how are issues such as this addressed? I think it's beyond the scope of the project itself. But it's the impact of the project in an urban area having a tremendous impact on the country road; and, so, that's my comment. SPRINGER: Mr. Murata, thank you for that comment and the question in it. Mr. Takemoto, can you respond to his concern of cumulative impacts and enlarging highways, which eventually narrow down to County roads? TAKEMOTO: Okay. When you're referring to the 60 -foot road, you're referring to the proposed mauka-makai that will eventually connect to Kuakini, yeah, the lower, the County Kuakini. And, if that's the case, then what they're dealing with is our existing road standards which require a 60 -foot for a collector. We can, so they're only doing what we told them to do, is my point. But aside from that, we recognize your concern that our current County standards need to be re -looked because it does encourage, it is very vehicle -oriented, very, it's designed to be as maintenance -free as possible. So you just pave as much as you can and minimize the landscaping; and that needs to be changed, we understand that. Within the 60 foot right-of-way, you can have a narrow travel -way and have more space for pedestrians and bicycles. So the width of the right-of-way may not necessarily be the issue, it's how you design within that right- of-way. And we can control that through subsequent phases of the project, whether 37 through Plan Approval, or if they come in through subdivision, we can do it at that stage as well. SPRINGER: I think the concern is also when that broad thoroughfare feeds onto the narrow County road. TAKEMOTO: When it intersects with Kuakini? SPRINGER: That's correct. TAKEMOTO: Okay. SPRINGER: Or with the traffic that's going to be coming out of this subdivision and eventually going up to Honalo where it narrows down again. TAKEMOTO: Well, the whole function I see as then value of that mauka-makai road is to provide another means for the residents within that project to get down to Kuakini, if they're heading to, say, Kailua. Instead of having to go all the way up to Kuakini, the upper Kuakini or Queen K, or actually it's Queen K at that point, loading up that highway for a short distance and coming back down to Kuakini, so avoiding that segment. So just bringing them down, and then they have a choice to go to Kailua. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: If that's the primary purpose, then I think we should be considering that a lot of those households would have children. They would be doing a lot of walking and running, a lot of them would have bikes. And, so, if some of that 60 -foot wide area could be used possibly for a bike lane, that might narrow the actual motor vehicle part of it and create an area where, that would be safe and that would encourage this pedestrian and biker -way. And you can lose a lot of weight riding a bike, too, you know. And I'm wondering if the developer would be willing to consider something like that as part of that 60 -foot wide road. COOK: Well, right now, as I stated, the County requires for a collector road a 60 -foot wide right-of-way. In Michael's layout, you'll notice coming off of that through the rental housing project, we have a much narrower road; and then going into the little neighborhood shopping center, again, it's a narrow road. Those would both be private roads wherein we could design the roads where they're more narrow, it slows traffic down, you have street trees; and that would be the intent. The area that runs through the commercial, what we're trying to propose is something like this where you have parking on the side, trees, a narrow road where you don't have traffic moving quickly. The neighborhood shopping center would own this road in private. The rental housing project would own this road in private. But we really, at this time, have no control over the 60 -foot wide corridor. It's a County requirement. FUKE: So if I can add to that -. 9M SIRACUSA: And the County requires that it all be used for four lanes, or whatever it is, or -? FUKE: No, if you look at the, Commissioner Siracusa, if I might direct you to Condition 8 that the Director has proposed. Basically what you're saying is that the Applicant has to, within the existing 60 -foot wide right-of-way, construct a roadway in that area with curb, gutters and sidewalk to County dedicable standard. So as Mr. Takemoto has indicated, if the County requires other improvements that would still satisfy the dedicable standard requirement, then that is the requirement that the developer has to comply with. So, you know, hearing what the community or members of the community raise relative to how to make it more pedestrian -friendly, if the administration is in a position to require that in conjunction with the Construction Plan Approval process, then the developer has to comply with. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comment? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. Commissioner Siracusa just raised another point about children; and Kahakai Elementary School is possibly within walking -biking distance. And, so, the comment raised by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee about a safe pedestrian crossing at Kuakini, is that something already being incorporated? FUKE: Yeah, like I was, actually, I had a proposed language along that line but I didn't clear it with Mr. Cook. But, you know, they already have to make improvements along the Kuakini Highway section, you know, channelizing intersection and all that. So, if you were to amend Condition I on both applications to just read, you know, like if you look at on Page 2 on Condition I, this would be the Suffolk Investment, you know, `cause it's the same for either Suffolk or Puaa -. And if you go down to the first, second, the third sentence, it reads, "required improvements may include but not be limited to pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities." What I would suggest is that after "pavement and shoulder widening," you put in "pedestrian -activated crosswalk." PUBLIC: On Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu Highway? FUKE: At the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, it would be a truly signalized intersection. So it's almost a mandate that they would have like a crosswalk at that point. PUBLIC: Okay, but -. SPRINGER: Excuse me, if you have questions if you could come forward and put them into the microphone. But if the testifiers could sort coalesce your thoughts and just bring them forward, that would be good. Okay. So, Mr. Fuke, in response to what we heard from the back of the room, you were saying that when the traffic signals are installed, there will be a crosswalk there. And what we're talking about now is across Kuakini to have a pedestrian -activated crosswalk. Is that correct? FUKE: Yeah. That portion of Kuakini is under the County's jurisdiction; but the Queen Kaahumanu Highway portion, the Hawaii Belt Highway, that falls under the jurisdiction of the State. So if the State requires it or does not want to have a crosswalk, then there's very little that the Applicant can do. But there is a provision here that already states that they have to do whatever is required by the State to fix up that intersection to provide, you know, a four-way traffic system and the left -tum movements down to makai. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, could you refresh my memory, and do we have a timeline on that traffic signal? FUKE: Sure. Both of them would be, as the suggested amendments I had offered earlier, would be prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for any activity on the property. SPRINGER: And do we have a timeline on the signalization of that intersection? FUKE: If you were to amend Condition I and put in the section that I just read, "the pedestrian -activated crosswalk," and the last sentence to Condition I would be as what I had read at the beginning of the meeting where like these improvements would be in prior to issuance of occupancy permit. SPRINGER: But what I'm wondering about is the signalization of the intersection on Kaahumanu Highway. Do we have a timeframe for that? FLJKE: Same thing, too. SPRINGER: What date would that be then? COOK: Excuse me. I talked to the developers of Pualani Estates and they said that their plans are in now processing for the street light. They said that the roadway from Hualalai coming down to their project would be completed probably within a year; and they said that, at that time, they have to have the street light. So, to give or take six months, I would say between a year and 18 months that traffic light would be in. It would be a three-way traffic light. If our project is approved and going forward prior to that, we would hope to have our design done so that it would be completed at the same time their work is going on. SPRINGER: So about 18 months? COOK: Right. SPRINGER: Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? Ent GRAHAM: I just had one question for Mr. Fuke. It's sortof off topic of what we're talking about but it's with regard to the Suffolk project with the rental housing and there's going to be like 20 years held in rental housing. What does it mean when it comes down to ownership and stuff like that? Does that mean that Suffolk will continue to own the, all the property for 20 years and have somebody manage rentals, or what does that really mean as far as what's going to happen? COOK: My conversation with them, they intend to develop it and own it, I think. Now, that's not to say that they might not sell it in the years to come, but it would still remain the rental project. We didn't put the 20 -year date in there. The Planning Department did that. GRAHAM: So what does it mean? Let's say you sell something and it's going to still be a rental project. What does that mean, you put in some agreement, some sales conditions on a sale that -? 1281114 Oh, yeah, yeah. GRAHAM: That you can't occupy it or -? I just wondered, is that something that's commonly done -? COOK: Would that go with the deed? GRAHAM: Is that a problematic issue or what? FUKE: Yeah. That would go with the deed as part of the disclosure, correct. GRAHAM: And that's something that's commonly done so there's sort of language that's already established for doing that kind of thing -? FUKE: That is correct, yes. GRAHAM: That will keep it in rental? FUKE: Sure, yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. SPRINGER: At this time, I'd like to offer Ms. Keliipio the opportunity to comment. I think Commissioner Siracusa had asked about a response. If you care to say anything, a couple of the other testifiers have come forward. KELIIPIO: I think the Commissioners haven't asked them how large this project is going to be, and I think, to me, that's still a concern. Because, I guess, what I'm still looking at is how much of the highway traffic is it going to attract into that area 41 and to make sure that it is for the surrounding neighborhood. So, but if it is, I mean, it's good. It's good to have something like this if it's to service all of us, so that we all can get there and not necessarily on our cars. So that's kind of what I wanted to know, is like how large is it; and I think Ann had some other concerns about pedestrians. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Can her query about, I guess, the total number of acres or units ? COOK: I think she's addressing the size of the neighborhood shopping center. And, in general, as I said, we were looking at a supermarket, and we're looking at a supermarket, and something similar to the one in Waimea. If you take a look at the Safeway at Crossroads, I think it's about 44,000 square feet. We're looking at something more in the 35,000 square foot range for the grocery store. And, like I had said, we were going to be trying to get the banks in there, satellite post office and the amenities for a neighborhood shopping center. The Planning Director did restrict anything in excess of 45,000 square feet. So the, as we said earlier, we didn't want big box stores in the neighborhood either. We want to just have a truly neighborhood shopping center. And if we get through with the Planning Commission and before we go to the County Council, we would be trying to meet with people in the community and see what they want to see in that neighborhood shopping center. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Cook. So, Mr. Fuke, would that take the form of some organized public meetings with the members of the surrounding neighborhoods? FLJKE: Yes. And related to that, you know, I don't want to leave that point out but as what Mr. Cook was referring to is a proposed Condition D by the Planning Director under the Puaa Development which restricts the no -single commercial business shall have more than 45,000 square feet. So that condition automatically eliminates those big boxes type and tries to create more like a pedestrian or village type of atmosphere within the commercial area. SPRINGER: Thank you. We've allowed a full and free discussion. We still have many more agenda items before us. We have had an expression on the part of the Commissioners to hear from the members of the public that came up to testify. Are you satisfied with the discourse with the community? SIRACUSA: Yes, I am. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Yeah, I feel comfortable that the community has had input; and I think that, it sounds like the developers are very cognizant of the need for community input and the need to fit in with the neighborhood. It sounds to me like they're going to continue to work with the community to fit in at some time. I'm definitely in favor of the project as it is. 42 SPRINGER: Okay, Commissioners, is there any, are there any questions or is there any further discussion with the Applicant's representatives, the consultants or the Planning Director? Mr. Takemoto, do you have any closing comments for us? TAKEMOTO: No, just one loose end. That pedestrian walkway that would possibly extend the Walua Road trail or whatever it is, I'm not sure how to word a condition. There's nothing addressed in here. But should that potential alignment traverse through the subject properties, whether it's Suffolk or Puaa, a condition to the effect that you would be willing to set aside an alignment to accommodate that pedestrian -way? COOK: I think we would work with the community. And I know Michael, he is on the Committee (PATH), I think. Are you still on it, Michael? RIEHM: Yes. COOK: Oh. And if it's appropriate to the properties that we own to help create something that would be a bikeway path, we would certainly work with the groups and community to accomplish that. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, are you anticipating including a condition to that effect? TAKEMOTO: Well, that would be the Commissioners' choice to do so. But something I suggest, although when I look at the right-of-way, I'm looking at a map, it does seem to, that old right-of-way seems to be outside the subject properties. But I'm not sure exactly how it goes and would need to have some dialogue with somebody more knowledgeable like Ann Peterson to exactly determine that. But to accommodate the potential that, should that be possible, to have it as a condition. SPRINGER: I'm looking at the Suffolk recommendation sheet for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. And on that map is the treadway that we're discussing, that which arches over the word "urban" and "agriculture." If so, it is outside of the subject property. On the back page where you have the State Land Use Boundaries map -. FUKE: Okay. You're referring to the map, okay, go ahead. SPRINGER: From the map and to our right of the project area, off of Kuakini Highway, there's the word "urban" and the word "agriculture" -. FUKE: Correct. SPRINGER: And there is what appears to be a roadway above that. FUKE: Yes. 43 SPRINGER: Is that what we're talking about? FUKE: I don't know, but there was, you know, that road actually, that sliver actually kind of continued on through the subject property. And what happened was that then the property was then subsequently acquired by the former or former property owners which resulted in the consolidation and resubdivision of the property. So if you're asking of like whether that roadway exists right now on the property -. COOK: Sidney, that is where the self -storage facility roadway goes up. FUKE: Goes up. COOK: There is a reservoir site up there. And, so, it starts right at the south side of our property, actually, within the adjacent property. And that roadway now goes up to the self -storage facility and reservoir, and then wanders back over by Lako Street. So that's not on our property. 120JIM Correct. SPRINGER: So even, so we're discussing a possible treadway that is not part of this subject application. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO: Not so much Puaa, possibly Suffolk, though. FUKE: On that small little portion on the makai section? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. FUKE: Yeah. TAKEMOTO: It could be accommodated within the proposed park area. So -. FUKE: Correct. That absolutely would not be a problem, `cause that's in an area that's all zoned AE right now in the floodway. Can I ask you another question, may I ask the Deputy Director a question? SPRINGER: Certainly. FUKE: You know, not withstanding all of the discussion on this pedestrian or the bikeway area, is it within the jurisdiction of the County offices to require like, you know, within the proposed 60 -foot wide right-of-way to achieve the objective that you were thinking about making as a separate condition? TAKEMOTO: What's -? 44 FUKE: Bikeway, pedestrian -friendly, you know, those kinds of things? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, that will be part of it; but I think that the intent of this Walua pedestrian -way is to provide a north -south off-highway route -. FUKE: Oh, okay. TAKEMOTO: Rather than mauka-makai. FUKE: So from that standpoint and inasmuch as the two makai properties are not part of this petition, then it would not be possible to require any conditions to that. But relative to the Suffolk property, because it falls within the, and it may be within the, you know, the former road right-of-way, you know, we would have no objection, you know, to having such a condition on the Suffolk property. SPRINGER: And that addresses a very short distance of this longer system? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, I take it, but it may not be necessary. Because if it is necessary, it would go through the proposed park area which is in the flood zone. SPRINGER: Yes, we understand the discussion and have agreement then that there would be no condition addressing this because the section of trail or road is already in the open space. Okay. Good. Commissioners, do you have any questions or discussion on this matter? If not, Commissioners, I'd like to go back to the Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and following any decision-making on that, next take up their rezoning application. So we're returning to Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (04-010) and their Change of Zone (REZ 04-024). Do we have all of our correct papers before us? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Getting away from all the specifics and getting back to the overall situation, I carry along the same concern, I think, Commissioner McCall put forth at the beginning of, you know, how does the infrastructure handle something like this. I feel like it's well-planned with obviously a lot of input from the Planning Department as far as making rental housing, as far as a lot of other things. But still I see the, you know, we have a tremendous primary, primarily traffic infrastructure problem in Kona. And we're, if this is presumably to move forward, then whatever the effects it might have to help solve that problem, it's adding more urbanization which by itself is going to exacerbate the problem. So I think Commissioner McCall's words were conjecture. It doesn't feel just plausible on the face of it, to me, that the net result is going to be a positive one as far as the infrastructure deficit in Kona. As I thought about this as we go along, the last time I can remember voting in favor of a sort of large urbanization project in this area was back at the Kohanaiki one. And that case, you know, that was a year ago; and in that case they were putting forth a big 45 shoreline park that kind of compensates or something. So, you know, the only thing I can see is somehow as we do infill in Kona, we are running out of open space. So, to me, if the developer wanted to put up a real plum to kind of compensate, the real plum would be maybe one of these other two parcels be and totally turn into a public park and open space for Kona, or something like that. I know that's asking for a lot. But I feel like this project, although it's well planned, given the bad infrastructure deficit right now, I think it's going to be more harm than help to it. So I don't feel like I can vote in favor of it, given that overall picture. SPRINGER: Other Commissioners, comments? MCCALL: I guess, a little comment time. I guess, I generally am in favor of this. I think that your comments are very good, Graham, but I think this is a step in the right direction. I think there is potential for more traffic but I also see the potential for this to actually relieve traffic in other areas. I'm hoping to see what the potential for this actually giving us less traffic in Kainaliu, because there's going to be less people living in Ocean View. I mean, I followed six cars from Ocean View all the way to, you know, this morning, I mean, the same six cars, we came all the way from Manuka, you know; and I left them at, when I turned down, you know, right here in Kailua. But, you know, there's an amazing amount of traffic coming from Ocean View. And I see the potential for even two or three of those cars be coming from here from, you know, be generated locally rather than being all the way down there; and same thing whether they're coming from Kohala, or Waikoloa, or Honokaa. Because there's an incredible number of people who are commuting to Kona because that's, because there isn't a place to live here. I mean they're living in garages or living everywhere else. I think there's a good potential for this to actually, it may not actually relieve the traffic situation directly there in, you know, on Kuakini, but I see it relieving some of the traffic situation in Kona. You can have people that are going to live there that may only have to drive, maybe they still have to drive to work but they're only driving five miles to work instead of fifty miles. So I see this as definitely a step in the right direction. I mean, we certainly need the infrastructure also; and I think all the powers that be know that and are working towards that direction. But, I think, to me, this type of development needs to go forward, to me, regardless. I think this is important enough and it, to me, it's definitely a step in the right direction, so -. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: In a lot of ways, this is a push me/pull me. I can see Commissioner McCall's points and I can also see Commissioner Graham's points. And I'm wondering, there was another development on this side that Mayor Kim wanted to delay pending the development of, I believe was, or was it Queen Kaahumanu Highway? Is there a scheduled date for that now; and would that help to alleviate if we said let's hold it off until, just like they did with the other one, would that help to alleviate a lot of those traffic concerns? It would certainly give time for that mauka development to get their traffic signal in and stuff like that, and time for these developers to work more with, M closely with the community. Is there anything planned like that that would, on the State level that you know of, that would help to alleviate some of those traffic problems? SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO: That's actually a really good question. Along Queen K, there was the Clifto's project that you're referring to where Mayor Kim initiated the concurrency policy. The situation there is Queen K is like the only corridor in that region. Mauka of Queen K, there are no County network of roads. Makai there's nothing. So everything flows and depends on Queen K. And the State knowing that had prioritized improvements on Queen K, so the improvements were imminent. And based on traffic counts, that segment of the highway, Queen K from the airport to Henry Street, received the most volume of traffic. So that was a critical segment of the highway. In this case, I can think of two factors that kind of distinguishes it from the Queen K situation. One is that we are working towards a network of other local roads that take off the pressure on Kuakini. We're looking at Hualalai extensions that would give residents a choice to go a further distance along Hualalai and then dropped down, instead of always having to come down to Kuakini and load up that highway, and eventually connecting that Hualalai to Palani, so that it'll totally avoid that Queen K-Palani intersection. And another thing in this segment is the State; the level of service here is not as bad as Queen K; but it is bad and it's getting worse. But the State has not prioritized this area, this Kuakini, as highly as the Queen K improvements. So we're kind of caught in a bind here. So our strategy on, because their plans for Kuakini widening is 10 years out, at least, to get into the ground. So the strategy here was to put a redundant corridor that would take some of the traffic volume off of Kuakini, which was the Alii Parkway; and you know what happened to that one. It's still, it's not a dead issue but having Alii Parkway, or whatever the name is now, if it should come through, it would come out north of this project. And so that segment of Kuakini, should that road be completed, would be relieved of the substantial traffic volume that it gets now. SIRACUSA: Thank you. SPRINGER: I have a -. Do you have any follow-up, Commissioner Siracusa? Do you have any follow-up on that? SIRACUSA: No. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you. I have a few questions. Does the County anticipate that people will move in from outlying areas or that new arrivals will occupy these newly -built structures if approved? TAKEMOTO: There's no way to control that; and, hopefully, people in the outlying areas just by market forces will be attracted into the infield areas just for quality of life choices. Instead of spending two hours on the road, commuting 50 miles, they can 47 just commute half an hour or less, or even walk. So the whole idea is to provide choice; and by imposing affordable housing requirements and limits, hopefully, that's hitting the local needs. Constitutionally we cannot restrict who qualifies for these homes. But income is the only way we can control it and, hopefully, that will hit the local people already living there. SPRINGER: My tendency is to concur with Commissioner Graham's comments that as well-planned and articulated the proposal as we have before us regarding this project, the existing and surrounding infrastructure is still overburdened. And I haven't heard anything if the Kuakini is not prioritized, and we're looking at a 10 -year timeframe for address of that. That definitely concerns me. To Mr. Torigoe, in our SMA discussion, it was very clear that the Topliss decision directs us to look at all factors, not to focus on traffic -related issues singularly as a reason perhaps to deny an application. Does Topliss apply to Land Use Commission Boundary Amendment applications and the rezoning applications? TORIGOE: I believe Topliss was, had solely to do with the SMA permit application; and so it really doesn't apply directly to this. SPRINGER: Okay. So the scope was limited to the SMA. Mr. Torigoe, it has been a long day. We went through a number of SMA, three SMA applications, where you gave us direction with regard to a split vote, what the outcome would be if there was a split vote. On these items, could you give us a similar overview with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Rezoning? You also gave us some timeframes if we did have a split vote; and if we deferred it, what that implication is to the Applicant. TORIGOE: Okay. Let's see. I think with respect to the zoning amendments, the County Code provides for a decision to be made within 90 days, I believe, after it is transmitted to you, which I think staff indicated that the time of your last hearing on this matter was when it was transmitted to you, or at least that's what staff is deeming it to be. In that case, the 90 days would be up sometime in March, I think, March 2"d. If that is the case then the February 18`h meeting would still be within the initial timeframe for the zoning. I think staff is now checking the Code to see if there's any difference with the State Land Use Boundary Amendments. Staff is indicating that the same timeframe would apply but I -. HAYASHI: There's no timeframe in the Code. TORIGOE: Okay, or that there's no timeframe in the Code with respect to State Land Use Boundary Amendments. So, as far as the zoning is concerned, I think the Applicant also has the option of asking for further continuances or of, well, basically, if the Commission is unable to render a decision one way or another within the 90 -day timeframe, then it either goes up to the County Council with a negative recommendation or the Applicant can ask for further extensions of time. .F Staff is indicating that neither the rules nor the Code has any kind of deemed negative recommendation provision. So it seems that there would be the opportunity for the Applicant to request at least some extension of time to try and get a revote on these matters, to see if you can get five votes one way or the other. So it would seem that you got at least one more hearing that you can deal with this; and then, in the meantime, I think we can take a closer look at, you know, what your options are. SPRINGER: Commissioners, do you have a -? Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioners, do you have an understanding of our options that are before us? Do you have any further questions for Mr. Torigoe? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Wasn't it on the, one from the last meeting or something, the one that was on Palani Road that they had a split vote when I was not here, but rather than coming back to the Commission they decided to go directly to the Council? So might that be another alternative for this Applicant? TORIGOE: Right. And that's, I kind of alluded to that earlier in that once you hit that 90 -day deadline, if there's been no decision made on a zoning application, then it's deemed to be negative and it goes upstairs that way unless the Applicant asks for further extensions. GRAHAM: But that only takes place after 90 days? TORIGOE: Right. GRAHAM: Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I have the feeling that the, when we take the vote on Suffolk and Puaa, that we might not get the same mix of ayes and nays. And, so, I know my vote will not be the same on both of those. And I'm feeling that the commercial part of it should probably go on because that can benefit a very wide community without adding appreciably to traffic. Because local subdivisions would be able to go and use that, the services that that would provide, and without increasing density or, you know, putting more cars and people on the road in that area. So maybe, we were planning to vote on those separately, were we not? SPRINGER: That's correct. SIRACUSA: And, so, there is a possibility that, I'm wondering if that would affect the developer's decision on how they would move if one got approved and the other did not. Cil SPRINGER: And my next question would be to the Applicant's representative. You've heard the discussion before us. And what would your pleasure be at this time? FUKE: Okay. First of all, can I just respond-? SPRINGER: Yes. FUKE: To Commissioner Siracusa's question. I think we indicated in the beginning that these are two separate entities and the infrastructure requirement, you know, to kind of make things easier, you know, are very, the requirements are very extensive that no one developer on its own would be in a position to complete. And, so, effectively, the denial of one would essentially result in the denial of the other one, even if you get an approval. Because the conditions would be so onerous to the point where nothing would happen. You know, having said that, I think that we understand like the Commissioners' concern about like, primarily like traffic. And it's really, it's really like an unfortunate situation because you not only have traffic but you also have that issue about affordable housing. And the question is like if projects are denied, then the question becomes who puts in affordable housing? And the only thing that you're going to have to look at is probably like the government. Because, generally, affordable housing conditions are made part and parcel of zoning changes. So you can have the 40 or 60 percent affordable housing requirement changed by the County Council tomorrow, I mean, you know, at its next meeting; but if it's not made a part and parcel of a zone change addition, then it really is like a hollow requirement. You know, you won't have it. The other thing, too, is like the same thing with the infrastructure question, I mean, it is a very real issue. But the question is like if all projects were denied, who builds the infrastructure? And that's very critical because you can stand still and homes will still be constructed on all of those subdivided, existing and undeveloped subdivided properties. They'll continue to be built; and they will not necessarily directly address the infrastructure question. The only way the infrastructure can be constructed, new infrastructure can be constructed, especially in this particular mini -region, is that you have to look at developers. It has to be a participation between the governmental sector and the private sector in getting infrastructure done. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I want to thank Mr. Fuke for reminding me something that I had forgotten because he said it so long ago at the very beginning about the sharing of the infrastructure costs. And I realize in a lot of ways it's unfair to expect, and the traffic problems weren't of your creation; and, yet, whether your project goes forward or not is going to be dependent to a large extent on those problems that you never had anything to do with in the first place. But, you know, I guess those are some of the facts of life; and maybe we should just go ahead and take our votes and see how the chips fall. 50 SPRINGER: Mr. Cook. COOK: Yes, just one comment when you were saying earlier, maybe defer a project, deferring a project like we're proposing until the traffic light gets in. In order, if, if we had approval in rezoning today, for us to have our engineers design the flood plain issue and go through FEMA, and to design the State Highway intersections and the Kuakini, it will take us probably three years to get through all that process where we would actually have the site work done before any building starts, be it a commercial building or a rental housing project. In three years from now, our problems are going to be so much more acute than they even are today. I am very, very convinced that what we're proposing to do is going to help. It's not going to eliminate traffic problems at all, and they're going to get worse, but it'll help from getting as bad as it's going to get. Because when you have people living up in Holualoa that have to drive to all the way down to old Mamalahoa Highway and all the way down Palani Road, that creates a lot of traffic; and they're just going to go to the shopping center, go to the grocery store. What we're trying to provide, and it is in a central area, is a neighborhood shopping center where many of these developments and subdivisions that are existing and going to be built, that are already zoned and are on the way, will have a place to shop. And I'm not sure about TIAR's and how you can prove this or that. I just know that, I live here myself, been here 15 years, live up in Hualalai, I fight the traffic like everyone else. We really felt like what we're trying to propose and do is going to be helpful to our community. And I just, you know, as you look at these different neighborhoods and say, gee, if they can come to this neighborhood shopping center, they only have to cross a lighted intersection, it has got to help, it really does. And I have to go to the post office a lot of times, and if it's just one thing to do, and I get my car on the highway and go to Lanihau and fight the traffic and wait in line for 20 minutes. If a satellite post office is right there, in five minutes I'm down there and I'm back up to my house. I mean, it's just, it seems to make common sense that when you look in our community and all the developments in that area, if people can shop right there, it's going to eliminate a lot of the traffic that's out there everyday. The rental housing project that Suffolk is proposing, whether they're going to be people from the mainland renting or locals, we would hope they'll be the local folks, we would hope that there's some way they could get the people from living down south enter our community with a store right there. So if the husband has a car and the wife doesn't, she can take the baby buggy and take the kids up to the grocery store. Our community really is going to need something like this. There's no quick fix and it's not an easy solution. And for you folks it's very difficult. No matter what you do, someone is going to be mad at you. I mean, as a developer, I have the same thing all the time. But we really tried to think through this; and we're certainly open to discussion and dialogue in and people with ideas. But you really have to think seriously when you say, well, we're going to deny this because of a traffic problem. We're really trying to come up with avenues to help mitigate that, so -. 51 SPRINGER: Mr. Torigoe is reminding me that in our advisory capacity as we pass our decision whether it's yea or nay on to the County Council, a record of our discussion would go with that vote, and our concerns would be articulated as a part of that record. And when we come down to deliberating on the particular motions if we're careful to express our reservations, our concerns, those things that we feel positive about the matter, either way the vote goes, that's captured by the record and would be there for deliberation by the County Council should we choose to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I don't mean to be argumentative or anything like that. But just coming off the comments by Mr. Fuke and, excuse me, Mr. Cook, I don't doubt the good intention, I don't doubt the good planning. And, to me, it sounds sensible, what you're talking about with the regional area, what you're talking with the rental housing. But, you know, I've lived in West Hawaii for 30 years now, and I heard comments 20 years ago about bow the traffic situation would get bad if this and that weren't done. And, you know, we've had 20 or 30 years of developers coming in and putting in a contribution to the infrastructure and doing all this, but the net result of it was we got a terrible infrastructure problem. So, it didn't have to happen that way. And if something was a little different in government or something was a little different somewhere, it probably wouldn't have happened that way. Those infrastructure contributions by the developers would have taken a different turn or the State would have done something. But I'm not convinced that whatever that little tum is, so that I could feel like, well, from now it'll start working in the right way, I'm not convinced that little turn has happened. You know, and if something kind of convinces me or, you know, that I can see this is on the road to improvement -. Whereas before it was working the same process, developers are putting in their contributions, the County doing what they can, it got worse and worse. I haven't seen that turn yet. So, I just don't feel like I can, I have the evidence that makes me believe now I can see things differently. I can't see things differently. That's my personal feeling. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Graham. I think, and another thing that we're laboring under as a regular user of these sections of highway, regardless of what the miles per hour are indicated on the signs, regardless of whether lanes are double - striped or the center lines are broken, there's just some human behavior isn't all that we would hope that it would be. So, just for myself, you know, I'm looking at what I know about the behavior that occurs on these highways; and I can just weigh in my 52 years of living in Kona. I've yet to see the traffic get better at any given year. But, Commissioner McCall, you've had a chance to express yourself. Commissioner Smith, do you have any comments to weigh in on with? SMITH: Yes, I have. I think this project is great, that we should push it forward. Other than that, I'm done. SPRINGER: Yeah, I think all of us have had a chance to express our reservations, our enthusiasm with the project as well. We've heard from a number of Commissioners to proceed and make motions and vote on them. Again, Mr. Fuke, 52 you've heard our discussion this evening, would you care to request a continuance, or would you like to see us proceed with the vote? FUKE: I think given the situation and as the way you had described, the ultimate decision -maker is, you know, it's really like the County Council; and I think that the dialogue expressed among the Commissioners and, you know, by the public, I think, you know, will all be made part and parcel of the public record. So the Council will be fully aware of like all of the, you know, the agony that the Commission has struggled with. And, so, deferring it for one month I don't think necessarily the outcome will be the same inasmuch as it'll probably the same Commissioners, maybe you might have like a different set of Commissioners but still five or six. And, so, I think it's going to be difficult to achieve like five -way, you know, having five votes one way or the other. So, given that situation, I would suggest that the Commission just take action on it. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I would just say that the vote that I will cast is with reservations with regard to the discussion that we've had; and those reservations focus on the existing and surrounding infrastructure. This is a well -articulated project that represents good planning. But the context in which it is being recommended, I have concerns with. So anybody else care to weigh in on this matter before we entertain a motion? Would someone care to make a motion? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: I guess, Suffolk is first? SPRINGER: We'll take Suffolk first, we'll take their State Land Use Boundary Amendment application. MCCALL: Okay, Suffolk Investment LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-010), I will make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, given the proposed amendments articulated earlier. SPRINGER: So including the amendments, and the Background Report, and Recommendation of the Planning Director. MCCALL: That's correct. SPRINGER: Thank you. Is there a second? SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. So the motion by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Smith is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council, including the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, and all the amendments that have been discussed during this discussion. Is there any discussion? Thank you, Jeffrey. Jeff, if you could take the roll call vote. 53 DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. If we could take now the rezoning? MCCALL: For Suffolk Investment, LLC, Change of Zone application (REZ 04-024), I'll make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the Background Report, the proposed amendments and the, what else do I have -. SPRINGER: And the Recommendation? MCCALL: And the Recommendation. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner McCall. SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. It has been moved by Commissioner McCall, and seconded by Commissioner Smith that a favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone be forwarded to the County Council. Is there any discussion? Mr. Darrow, roll call, please. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. 54 DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? [tl.71:/\1i���.7 DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. You'll be informed in writing of this decision. Sorry. There will be no written communication to you of this decision. It'll move on to the County Council. TORIGOE: Well, are you going to, well, you have a couple of options. Either you can move to defer it until, I guess, the next meeting, or you can just, I guess, you can just let it sit until the 90 days passes and then it goes up with a negative recommendation, unless the Applicant requests for the continuances. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, what is your pleasure then, having heard Mr. Torigoe's comments to us? FUKE: Yeah, I think we noted earlier that, you know, given the concerns and the struggles that the Planning Commission has, we don't believe that waiting an additional 30 days will affect the outcome of, you know, today's recommendations. So we would like to suggest that this matter just be directed to the County Council. TORIGOE: I don't think the rules make anything, tell you anything specific about what you do. I guess if you take no further action on this thing then it'll just go up after 90 days with a negative recommendation. SPRINGER: On the Hoawe application, we all received correspondence from the Planning, forwarded to us from the Planning Director that they were going to proceed to the County Council. So would that be the case, might Mr. Fuke send a memo to the Planning Director, and we'd be informed of his action? 55 TORIGOE: Well, it wouldn't hurt for Mr. Fuke to send a memo like that, just, you know, acknowledging that they're not going to be requesting any further continuances. But then he stated down on the record he already, so, you know, it's probably not necessary. SPRINGER: Do we need to do anything more, Mr. Torigoe, on this matter? TORIGOE: Perhaps what would be helpful, though, is for -. I guess, Mr. Fuke, just to be clear, are you requesting that the State Land Use Boundary Amendment matter also be sent up with a negative recommendation? Because this is, I guess, the staff and I looked at the rules and it really doesn't clearly state what happens if you don't have five votes, you know, within the 90 -day period, or any period for that matter. It basically just says that after close of the hearing within, there's supposed to be a decision made. FUKE: The request really would be for both applications inasmuch as they're kind of like, they're twin applications, basically. TORIGOE: Okay. So, I guess, with that request being on record, the, it sounds like the Planning Department would be authorized to go ahead and send the State Land Use Boundary Amendment up with a negative recommendation that is congruent to the treatment of the zoning application. Roy, you have any comment on that? TAKEMOTO: No, that's fine. We'll follow through. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Takemoto. May we move on to the next agenda item? We turn our attention now to the Puaa Development applications; and we'll start with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Is there a motion? MCCALL: Madam Chairman? SPRINGER: Commissioner McCall. MCCALL: As far as Puaa Development LLC's State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-009), I make a motion that we send a favorable Recommendation to the County Council with the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, as we stated earlier. SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smith. The motion and second is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council. Discussion? Again, I would state for the record that my vote will be made with reservations. Again, it's a well -articulated and well-planned application before us, but I am concerned of the context in which this application is being made and its cumulative impacts on the surrounding community. Commissioner Graham? 56 GRAHAM: I would also just like to add on top of what you just said, and Commissioner Sircusa's comment before, about the value of a commercial center. I do feel, as Mr. Fuke said, that the two really work well, work better together because this commercial center can serve with a walking distance by Suffolk Investment. But if, in fact, that's not there, then the commercial center standing alone looks like sort of a spot commercial zoning to me. So 1 feel like it's, you know, less attractive alone. Thank you. SPRINGER: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Darrow, the roll call vote, please. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye, with reservations. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: We now take up the matter of the rezoning application. Commissioner McCall. MCCALL: Puaa Development LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-035), I make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the, let's see here, along with the Background Report and the Recommendation from the Planning Director, and the amendments that were articulated earlier. SPRINGER: Getting better every time. SMITH: Second. 57 SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smith for that. The motion is that a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Discussion? Mr. Darrow, we're ready for the roll call vote. DARROW: Thank you again, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye, with reservations. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, will you be taking the same course of action with these two applications? FUKE: That is correct. That's correct. Thank you. SPRINGER: And that would be to go directly to the County Council? FUKE: Yes. SPRINGER: Would you like any more information on the record, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: No, I think that will suffice. Thank you. SPRINGER: Good. Thank you. FUKE: Thank you very much. It was a very healthy dialogue. SPRINGER: Good night. W The discussion ended at 6:44 p.m. 59 spectfully submitted, IA . �LYvl L� Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary RSuffolk-REZ04-024.jwd 01-1I-05 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) 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. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of comments from the Department of Transportation, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing, or because of later Department of Transportation comments. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to Urban District for 14.87 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district for 14.87 acres of land. The applicant is proposing to develop a 250 -unit market rental housing project to help address the rental housing needs of the community. The project would include 250 units within twenty-four (24) two and three-story structures, over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests, and a private park approximately .75 to 1.0 acre in size. 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 from an Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet (RM -2.5) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. LAND USE — GENERAL • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. • Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. • Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need. The request will conform to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as it will be compatible with adjacent urban types of uses, such as the Pualani Estates, Kahakai Estates, Kuakini Makai, and Alii Kai Subdivisions. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map designates this area for Urban Expansion. This request will conform to the projected need of urban growth for this area. A favorable recommendation of this request will also conform to the following goals and policies of the Land Use -Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan: LAND USE — MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate that physical, social and economic needs of the island 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, and recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. The rehabilitation and/or utilization of multiple residential areas shall be encouraged. Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. 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 that 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. • 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. Multiple residential living is becoming a way of life for many people. This type of housing is for those who find it financially difficult to own a single-family residence, and those with changing employment among other reasons. In practice, multiple residential developments use less land area per person, and locate in areas of concentrated economic and population activity where land is scarce and costly. The request will conform to the Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, as it will create a mix of residential housing opportunities and maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices for residents of the North Kona district. It will be located close to the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions, which are made up of single family residential uses. The property will also be located conveniently to public services such as police, fire, public schools and employment centers located near and in Kailua-Kona. To further compliment the policies and standards of the Muliple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, a condition of this favorable recommendation will require the applicant to comply with the Affordable Housing Policy of the Hawaii County Code 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 -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5) zoned district conforms to the LUPAG Map, which designates the property as Urban Expansion Area. The Urban Expansion designation allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. The proposed request is to develop a 250 -unit market rental housing project to help address the rental housing needs of the community. This change of zone will facilitate the development of a framework of a concentration of urban activities occurring in an orderly manner commensurate with the provision of necessary infrastructure. Therefore, it is determined that the request is consistent with the urban form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona. The requested change of zone is also generally consistent with regional and community planning documents that prescribe the County's land use policies for this portion of North Kona. The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984, recommends the area for residential units at a density of 8 units per acre. The applicant's request will provide for a residential density of roughly 17 units per acre. While the requested change of zone will provide for a unit density that is greater than the density recommended by the Kona Regional Plan, it still compliments its fundamental goal of providing residential units within this section of North Kona. Iq The requested change of zone will not create a significant adverse impact upon the natural resources of the area. While the project site is situated within the County's Agricultural -5a (A -5a) zoned district, it is not currently being used for active agricultural purposes. The State of Hawaii's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map classifies a small portion of the southern section of the property as "Other Important" Agricultural Lands with the remainder of the property being unclassified. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in the area is "E" or Very Poor. The project site has been utilized for pasture activities in the past. Therefore, the rezoning of this 14.87 -acre area from an A -5a to a RM -2.5 zoning designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the agricultural land inventory in the County ofHawai`i. From a land use perspective, it is a more feasible alternative to infill urban development within this particular area of North Kona. In doing so, it would tend to alleviate the conversion of more productive agricultural lands in more appropriate locations within the North Kona area for urban types of uses. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a RM -2.5 zoned district upon public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fire protection. Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Hawaii Belt Road) and from Kuakini Highway. Queen Kaahumanu Highway has right-of-way width that varies from 165 and 225 feet with a pavement width of 24 feet with 10 -foot paved shoulders. The site immediately mauka has two (2) permitted accesses to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The north access will be fully channelized and signalized and will be used as one of the principal accesses to the subject property. There will also be a 60 -foot wide mauka/makai road also proposed through the property and other properties makai of the subject site. This road will eventually connect to the Kuakini Highway and serve as the other principal access for the rental housing project. All roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be required to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, which will include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "I" be completed as required by the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. A condition will be added requiring the applicant to comply with the conditions of the declaration. The AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2, affects a portion of the subject parcel as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The flood way crosses onto the subject property from the eastern boundary and runs northwest across the property to the west (makai) boundary where a private park is being proposed. The applicant has filed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway on the subject parcel. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X, area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. A condition is proposed that prevents construction of the buildings within the areas designated "AE." Water is available for the development of the 250 -unit market rental housing project. The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will be required to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. As is typical of similar types of rezoning requests, approval of the accompanying change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed multiple family residential development. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. The proposed request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is located approximately one mile from the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact recreational resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. The proposed request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: 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 Inventory Survey dated June 2004 conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc.(PHRI), who revisited the project site to update a previous study conducted by PHRI conducted in 1990. • Response letter dated May 28, 2004 from Paul Rosendahl responding to DLNR-SHPD's review of the revised archaeological inventory survey (3rd Draft) letter dated April 20, 2004. • A Botanical Survey dated October 2003conducted by Winona Char of Char and Associates. • No professional survey was conducted regarding fauna resources. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres confirmed and identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. None of the sites recommended for preservation are situated within the subject parcel. There is an agricultural complex with a possible burial (Site 14091) on an adjoining property (TMK:7-5-17:23). The botanical survey reports that the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. The applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White -eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: E 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. The botanical survey concluded that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of 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 has been a survey and an updated survey conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated April 20, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division to Paul Rosendahl responding to the 3rd Draft of the revised archaeological inventory survey, DLNR requests additional information and recommendations for a final review and approval of the significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. Paul Rosendahl sent a response letter dated May 28, 2004 identified as the 4'h Draft responding to DLNR's comments. DLNR has yet to send an approval letter. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from Agricultural (A -5a) to Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet (RM -2.5) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. Many of the conditions of the zone change duplicate those of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 (Puaa Development, LLC property). These conditions must be met if T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 19 is developed independently of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map), Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. ORDINANCE 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 - 5 ACRES (A -5a) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.5) AT PUAPUA`AIKI 1sT AND PUAPUA`ANUI 1sT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-17:19. 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 Hawai `i County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Puapua`aiki 1" and Puapua`anui I", North Kona, Hawaii shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5) Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of this parcel of land, being also along the Easterly side of Kuakini Highway (F.A.S.P. No. S-229(1)), the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAHELO", being 578.53 North and 2,877.36 East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 2510 54' 00" 134.10 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2. 2520 05' 06" 43.12 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2490 53' 15" 23.07 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 4. 5. 6 7 L 9 10. 2600 35' 20" 31.24 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2660 51' 30" 57.70 feet along Lot 2, being also Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2540 52' 40" 36.98 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 2, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2450 28' 45" 28.89 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 2, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2620 1 l' 50" 47.31 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 2, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2490 23' 45" 64.25 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2630 42' 30" 41.92 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2540 13' 40" 21.70 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; -2- 12. 13. 14. 15 16 17 18 2630 10' 50" 28.26 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2480 21' 30" 34.17 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2330 38' 00" 12.37 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2580 01' 40" 84.72 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2720 37' 30" 20.53 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2540 40' 45" 22.28 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2580 37' 30" 37.35 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; -3- 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25. 2700 13' 50" 31.59 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2410 05' 50" 17.06 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2350 29' 45" 30.26 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2520 15' 50" 11.93 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 50 25' 00" 181.16 feet along Lot 2 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 2780 26' 30" 37.85 feet along Lot 2 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; Thence, along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the right with a radius of 1669.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 2910 23' 00" 747.57 feet; -4- 26. 27 28 29. 30- 31 Thence, along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 56.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 2740 15' 20.5" 56.12 feet; 2440 11' 11" 123.00 feet along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 3340 11' 11" 98.00 feet along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 640 11' 11" 285.00 feet along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 3340 11' 11" 246.47 feet along Lot 2 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams, and Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-13, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159); Thence, along Lot 3 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-13, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159), and Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the right with a radius of 300.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1140 29' 18" 121.62 feet; 5- 32 33 34. 35 36 1260 11 00" 60.00 feet along Lot 3 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; Thence, along the remainder of Lot 3 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 300.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 710 55' 00" 487.05 feet; Thence, along Lot 4 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the right with a radius of 3953.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1340 48' 00' 654.68 feet; Thence, along Lot 4 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 150.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1130 49' 00" 130.26 feet; Thence, along Lot 4 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 100.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1000 08' 00" 41.75 feet; 37. 1120 11' 00" 126.00 feet along Lot 4 of Pualani Makai being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams and the Old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road; 6- 38. 1240 53' 00" 85.49 feet along Lot 4 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of the Old Kailua- Keauhou Middle Road and Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 39. 770 31' 34" 143.74 feet along Lot 4 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; Thence, along the Easterly side ofKuakini Highway (F.A.S.P. No. S -229(l)) on a curve to the left with a radius of 2222.70 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 40. 1660 37' 32" 69.87 feet; Thence, along the Easterly side of Kuakini Highway (F.A.S.P. No. S-229(1)) on a curve to the left with a radius of 1677.02 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 41. 1650 01' 28" 41.01 feet to the point of beginning and containing an area of 14.872 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code, 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. -7- 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. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of I st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII m � I 7 A -la r� i 3 A -5a A -5a 1 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. A -5a A -5a 578.53 N 2,877.36 E— "KAHELO'a RM -7 �. A �' RS -7.5 / ' �- RM -5 RS -15 I RS -7.5 � RM -5 ASa rn _ AGRICULTURAL (A-5 ) )MULTIPLE -FA I Y RESIDENTIAL -2A-5a 14.87 Acs. A -5a % A -5a Kuakini -{_ RM -5 —� A-5al1 _ A -5a I RS- {_ 4- _ CV -10 R 1 — A -5a _ RS -f0 CN -10 1/ ..r- I/ RM -2 �� TTS--� —1 RS -7.5 II ��Si�`}II CV -7.511 CV -7.5 II RMT 890 445 0 890 1780 2,670 0560 1451 eel AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING COD 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 -5a) TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.5) AT PUAPUA'AIKI 1st AND PUAPUA'ANUI 1st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII TMK: 7-5-017.019 Date: September 29, 2004 EXHIBIT "A" (SUFFOLK INV., LLC:1152) CSuffolk-REZ04-024.jwd 01-11-05 SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. 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. As represented by the applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the change of zone ordinance. E. If Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1, at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including, but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No, 7-5-17:1. Intersection improvements shall be as required by the Department of Transportation. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -tum deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, SUB 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "1" to the main project intersection, including bridging the floodway, to County dedicable standards, and from Easement "1" to the southerly project access, to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. I. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed -2- to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. J. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. K. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. L. There shall be no construction of dwellings and related improvements or other substantial buildings within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. M. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. N. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. O. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. If the offsite sewer line does not have adequate capacity, the applicant shall be responsible for necessary improvements. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. P. 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. Q. A Data Recovery Plan and/or an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan, -3- if required, shall be submitted 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 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. R. 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 Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. S. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if the unit counts are adjusted. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval or within five years from the effective date of this change of zone ordinance, whichever occurs first. The fair share contribution for each unit shall be based on the number of units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit ($9,671.44 per single family residential unit). Based upon the applicant's representation of intent to develop a total of 250 multiple family residential units, the indicated total of fair share contribution is $1,551,515.00 for the multiple family residential units. However, the total amount shall be increased or reduced in proportion with the actual iE number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (single family residential unit) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities for a total of $765,315.50; 2. $96.75 per multiple family residential unit ($224.98 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities for a total of $24,187.50; 3. $297.62 per multiple family residential unit ($444.36 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities for a total of $74,405; 4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit ($194.55 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities for a total of $33,162.50; and 5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements for a total of $654,442.50. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway may be credited against the road fair share. T. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. U. 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 final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite, and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated -5- offsite or by any in -lieu fees. V. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. W. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension 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). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. X. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. M BSuffo1k-REZ04-024.iwd 11-23-04 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04-010) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1" and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:19. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Request: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to Urban District ^ for 14.87 acres of land; and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential - 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district for 14.87 acres of land. 2. Project Description: According to the applicant, they are proposing to develop a 250 - unit market rental housing project to help address the rental housing needs of the community. The project would include: 250 units within twenty-four (24) two and three-story structures over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests a private park approximately .75 to 1.0 acre in size. The applicant estimates the cost of the proposed improvements to be in excess of 20 million dollars. The cost would include the new road within the 60 -foot wide right-of- way, on-site improvements, landscaping and structures. Supportive Information: The applicant, Suffolk Investment, LLC., has recently purchased the property with the intent of developing a 250 -unit market rental housing project. The applicant has submitted the following in support of the request. (See -1- Exhibit A - State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone Applications) STATE AND COUNTY PLANS • 4. SLU: Agricultural. 5. County Zoning: Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a). 6. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Urban Expansion Area. The General Plan document indicates that the Urban Expansion Area designation allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. 7. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan adopted by the Planning Commission in April 1984 designates the area as Residential (RES -8). 8. County Zoning: Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a). 9. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management area. The intent of the Coastal Zone Management Program is to guide and regulate public and private uses in the coastal zone management area with respect to recreational resources, historic resources, public access to the shoreline, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, marine resources, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, and beach protection. 10. Special Management Area: The property is located approximately one mile from the shoreline and is not situated within the Special Management Area (SMA). The SMA is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program regulated by the County. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 11. Subject Property: The subject parcel has a total area of 14.872 acres. The property is irregular in shape. It is located on the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road, directly across of the Pualani Estates Subdivision. The Waiaha drainageway borders the northern edge of the subject property. The site is vacant of any structures. 12. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Lands in the vicinity of the project area are zoned A- la, A -5a, RS -7.5, RS -10, RM -5, RM -7 and CN -10. Bordering to the east of the subject -2- property is the location of a rezone request from A -5a to CN -20 for 14.973 acres, ..J submitted by Puaa Development, LLC along with this application, to allow the development of a neighborhood shopping complex. Beyond Kuakini Highway to the west is the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, which is comprised of lots zoned RS -10. To the south of the project area is a 2.252 -acre property zoned CN -10 and a property zoned A -5a that has a mini -storage facility, office and residence, which was allowed by Special Permit No. 1003. Further south, across Kuakini Highway is the Kuakini Makai Subdivision, comprised of lots zoned RS -10, and the Alii Kai Subdivision, comprised of lots zoned RS -7.5. To the east and southeast are properties zoned A -5a and RM -5. Approximately 1/2 mile to the south at the intersection of Lako Street and Hawaii Belt Road, there are properties zoned CV -10 that include an auto dealership and a Chevron service station and mini mart building. Pualani Estates Subdivision, which is comprised of lots zoned RS -7.5, is located directly across the Hawaii Belt Road to the northeast. To the north are properties zoned A -5a. 13. ALISH System: A small portion of the southern section of the property is classified as ..,J "Other" Agricultural Lands. The remainder of the property is unclassified. 14. USDA Soil Survey Report: There are two types of soils on the subject property: 1) Punaluu extremely rocky peat (rPYD): This consists of well -drained thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. The surface layer is black peat about 4 inches thick. It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. This soil is medium acid. The peat is rapidly permeable, although water moves rapidly through the cracks. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. 2) Kaimu extremely stony peat, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKED). The surface layer is very dark brown extremely stony peat about 3 inches thick. It is underlain by fragmental Aa lava. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is not suitable for cultivation. 15. Land Study Bureau Rating: The Land Study Bureau's overall master productivity rating for agricultural use is Class "E" or Very Poor. POSSIBLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 16. Flora/Fauna Resources: A botanical study was done of TMKs: 7-5-17: parcels 1, 19, `.% -3- 23, 25 and 26 by Winona Char of Char and Associates. In the report dated October 2003, it states that vegetation consists of kiawe and opiuma forest with scattered koa haole thickets. The report also states that because the property is no longer used for grazing , cattle, the Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. The report concludes that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. Regarding fauna resources, no professional survey was conducted. The applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White -eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. 17. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI). A revised report dated June 2004 has been submitted along with a response letter to DLNR-SHPD in response to DLNR's April 20, 2004 comment letter. According to the applicant, the survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non - burial site was a possible significant habitation site. None of the sites recommended for preservation are situated within the subject parcel. There is an agricultural complex with a possible burial (Site 14091) on an adjoining property (TMK:7-5-17:23). 18. Cultural Resources: The subject site is not adjacent to and/or proximate to the MI shoreline. The applicant also notes that he has been in this area for over 10 years and has 11 not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. The applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations if legitimate claims are made. 19. Coastal Hazards: The subject property is located approximately one mile from the shoreline, is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect, or be affected by shoreline processes. 20. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Approximately 90% of the property is located within Zone X, an area considered to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. The remaining portion of the property lies within the AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been filed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway within the subject parcel. According to the Department of Public Works, the existing culvert crossing upstream at Queen Kaahumanu Extension is a 96" CMP (Corrugated Metal Pipe). The culvert downstream in Kuakini Highway is a 36" CMP. These culverts are not large enough to contain the 100 -year flood event. According to the applicant, a culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the proposed shopping complex to the east. Additional drainage improvements to the north end of the subject site are being proposed including a private park, which would also serve as a drainageway. There may be an issue relating to potential increased runoff due to the added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, in which the applicant recognizes that drywells or similar type of accommodations may be required. 21. Air and Noise Quality: Air pollution in the Kona area is mainly derived from volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide, which converts into particulate sulfate and produce volcanic haze (vog) that persistently blankets the district. According to the applicant, the proposed development should not generate any direct air quality impacts, as the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, with the only discernable air -5- 22. 23 quality impact associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. Noise quality in this area is influenced mainly by traffic along Kuakini Highway and the Hawaii Belt Road, averaging more than 55 Ldn. The applicant intends to install the appropriate landscaping to mitigate noise impacts that may be generated by the proposed development. Visual Impacts: In the General Plan, the Natural Beauty element lists the viewplane from Queen Kaahumanu Highway going mauka and makai (various areas) as a listed vista of scenic beauty to be considered in relationship to the impact of the proposed development. The project site is located between the shoreline and the extension of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Any development of the site will generate some impact to the view of the coastline. The applicant has indicated that the proposed 3 -story structures will be no more than 40 feet tall and the proposed 2 -story structures will be no more than 30 feet tall. The maximum height allowed under the proposed zoning is 45 feet. Traffic: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to address traffic impacts possibly generated by the proposed development, which made the following findings: • The project is expected to generate 118 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips to the roadway network. • A traffic signal is needed at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road with or without this project. • The signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS in 2008 with the additional traffic created by the apartment complex. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) was also conducted for the proposed neighborhood shopping complex on the adjacent property to the east. hi addition to the conclusion regarding a traffic signal needed at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road intersection, it made the following additional conclusions: • a left -turn lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road is needed; and • possibly a right -tum deceleration lane to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. -6- 0 • also recommended a right -tum acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. There are several road improvement projects planned that may bring relief in this area. One is a long-term project proposed by the State Department of Transportation to widen Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kam III Road from two lanes to four lanes. The projected completion date is scheduled for 2011. The other project is the Alii Highway, in which construction is proposed in two phases, with the approximate 2 '/x -mile south section of the road (from Lako Street extension to Keauhou) to be constructed first. The Alii Highway (a.k.a. Kahului-Keauhou Parkway) (hereinafter referred to as the "Parkway") is a proposed 4.5 -miles, 2 -lane road, with bike and pedestrian paths, between Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway from the vicinity of Hualalai Road (north) to Keauhou (south.). This project is on hold until issues regarding funding and identified burial sites are addressed. The Department of Public Works submitted comments with the following recommendations regarding improvements to the roadways: • The 60 -foot wide roadways, depicted in figures 3 and 4, are proposed to serve a mix of commercial and multi -family residential and should be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutters and sidewalk. • Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the approval of DPW and be open to public traffic. • The Hawaii Belt Highway, fronting the subject property, is under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Comments and requirements concerning this road should be obtained from the HDOT. • Kuakini Highway is a two lane County arterial within an 80 -foot right-of-way. It is our intention to request the entire frontage of Kuakini Highway be improved to the right-of-way property line meeting with the approval of the DPW if zone change amendments are applied to frontage properties. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of DPW. An exclusive left turn lane and a right tum deceleration shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The -7- access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and • shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. • The TIAR assumes the access roads, including the approach to Kuakini Highway are completed by 2008 and should be required as a condition for granting a certificate of occupancy. • Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the DPW. The Police Department submitted comments stating that until such time as adequate roads are built to support the ever-growing population, construction, and additional vehicles on the roadways, development needs to follow the County's proposed policy on the principle of concurrency. The Police Department staff recommends the following: • This project access the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension only via existing intersections and that a new intersection not be created due to existing traffic problems on Queen Kaahumana Highway. • Due to existing traffic problems, staff will consistently recommend that new projects along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, its extension, and Kuakini Highway not be granted direct access to the highway. • The developer work in conjunction with other landowners along this corridor and develop a secondary road to provide north and south ingress and egress from the development. • If this development is unable to coordinate a secondary road, access should be limited to Kuakini Highway. All entry/exits onto Kuakini Highway should be fully channelized with both turning and storage lanes. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway -8- • improvements on and over Easement "1" be completed as required by the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. (See Exhibit B - Declaration Re Road Construction) PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 24. Access: Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Hawaii Belt Road) and from Kuakini Highway. Queen Kaahumanu Highway has right-of-way width that vanes from 165 and 225 feet with a pavement width of 24 feet with 10 -foot paved shoulders. The site immediately mauka, which is proposed for a neighborhood shopping complex, has two (2) permitted accesses to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The north access will be fully channelized and signalized and will be used as one of the principal accesses to the subject property. There will also be a 60 -foot wide mauka/makai road also proposed through the property and other properties makai of the subject site. This road will eventually connect to the Kuakini Highway and serve as the other principal access for the rental housing project. 25. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply, water is available for the 250 - unit market rental housing project anticipated to use 250 units of water or an average of 100,000 gallons per day. The subject parcel is part of an assignment of 368 units to Westpro Development, Inc. 26. Wastewater: The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The Department of Environmental Management - Wastewater Division commented that the applicant needs to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. 27. Solid Waste: The applicant intends to utilize commercial haulers to dispose of refuse generated by the proposed development at the county landfill at Puuanahulu. The Department of Environmental Management - Solid Waste Division commented that the applicant needs to submit a solid waste management plan. -9- 28. Essential Utilities and Services: Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 29. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit C — November 17, 2004 Memo) 30. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit D —November 5, 2004 Memo) 31. Department of Environmental Management -Wastewater and Solid Waste Division: (See Exhibit E — September 29, 2004 Memo and attached guidelines) 32. Police Department: (See Exhibit F — October 18, 2004 Memo) 33. Fire Department: (See Exhibit G — October 6, 2004 Memo) 34. Department of Education: (See Exhibit H — October 14, 2004 Letter) 35. Department of Land and Natural Resources —Land Division: (See Exhibit I - October 25, 2004 Letter) 36. Department of Health: (See Exhibit J — October 20, 2004 Memo) 37. State Land Use Commission: (See Exhibit K — October 20, 2004 Letter) AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 38. Department of Land and Natural Resources - State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Transportation, NRCS and Kona Traffic Safety Committee APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL LETTERS 39. The applicant has submitted the following additional information. (See Exhibit L — Letters dated October 13, October 25 & October 26, & November 9, 2004) PUBLIC COMMENTS 40. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any letters of support or opposition to the proposed request. -10- 0 b 21 SEP 22 PM 3 Q2 APPLICATIOnl"N; FOR STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING (A -5a TO RM -2.5) SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC. Puapuaaiki 1" and Puapuaanui 1St North Kona, Hawai i TMK: (3) 7-5-17:19 Prepared For: Suffolk Investment, LLC. Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant August 2004 E X B I T 07/08/2004 09:29 808-969-7996 S. FUKE, PLANNING PAGE 02 STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (15 ACRES OR LESS) pui (Type or legibly print the requested Buffo& laveatmeat LLC (e PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: ADDRESS: 630 S Chang Stora, Suite 920 Deaver, 00:0216 Dru McCabe DATE: "6, 2004 PETITIONER'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Managing Member - Dru McCabe TELEPHONE: (Bos.)(SM) 906-1031 0(303) 331.4"8 LANDOWNER(S): suRo& invaamaot 1d.c LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S)' ATE'3ih' 6, 2004 Baa as appliaat (Ma be by later) ADDRESS- TAX MAP KEY: _ . 7-5-17: 19 • STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: KuekiW HWmV ZONING: A -5a SIZE OF PROPERTY•' 14 • a3_+ acre s CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION' REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: u*m AGENT;SiM'M FWW ADDRESS -100 Pamhi Sped, Suite 212 Hilo, HI %720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 969-1322 —(Res.) (Fox) 969-7996 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sort. ORIGINAL: sidwy Fake COPIES: Dru McCAm (See IT1swuefions on Reverse Side) JUL-08-2004 THU 1259 PM 808 969 7996 P. 02 e7ieei2ea4 U9:k9 APPLICANT: UdU-yby-I"b 7. runC� r�niw ung, CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly pont the requested information) APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: ADDRESS' 650 S. Chary Streets, Subs 920 Dorm, CO 8046 DATE: July 6, 2004 LIST APPLICANTS INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:rianaging member (Dru McCabe) LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: X)m McCabe- M1 a&t PHONE:(Bus., (f0o1 ) 90f-1091 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): lthi.- (/ ridy l DATE: July 6, 2004 they be by laser) —� LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: Some as above REQUEST: A-59 TO t RM -2.5 7 TAX MAP KEY: . — 7-5-17: 19 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ku*JW Highway SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: AGENT: Sidney M. Fabs ADDRESS: 100 Pumbi Sana, suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 14.87+ acres TELEPHONE: (Bus.)M %9-1522 (Rey.) —(Fox Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be seat. ORIGINAL: SWueyM.Fuke ICOPIES:.Y--Dru McCabe (See Instruct ions on Reve mSide) JUL-08-2004 THU 0100 PM 808 969 7996 P, 03 ATTACHMENT . Residential Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No if yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to ques£ion 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. if your request is approved, approximately how long . after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? if yes, please answer the following questions: on how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lots Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 40 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans No b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? No C. Sell or lease the land to someone who has ae plans? No d. Keep it? Yes e. other (please state) f• If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. �.J 3. Do roo think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? J This project will increase the overall rental market in this area. 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No If so, what kind? what do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? -2- 5. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. 6. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? If so, please describe the problem. No Yes Portions of the general area are part of a drainageway. It does not affect this property, tbough. ?• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? Yes If so, what kind? Improvements at the QK Extension will have to be made. See planning report. Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes B• What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? yes_ a. Schools g b. Roads X C . Sewer X d. Drainage x e. police Protection X -3- M. • • 07/06/2004 15:21 808-969-7996 S. FUKE, PLANNING PAGE 04 Yes f. Fire Protection X 9, Recreational Facilities X h, Public Utilities x I, other X For those checked "yea," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Address i 630 S. Cherry Street, Sto920 Damwl� 'telephone: $a9WI031 Date: My 6, 2004 6337A/50A J D A A1QA JUL-06-2004 TUE 06:51 PM 808 969 7996 P, 04 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT • APPLICATIONS FOR STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (A -5a to RM -2.5) SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC. PUAPUAAIKI 1sT AND PUAPUAANUI 1sT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-17:19 The applicant, Suffolk Investment, LLC., recently purchased the subject property with the intent of developing a 250 -unit market rental housing project. As such, the applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary amendment covering this 14.872 -acre site, and concurrently, its rezoning from Agricultural (A -5a) to Multiple -family Residential (RM -2.5). The subject site was created as a result of a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision application. Final subdivision approval was granted on June 4, 2004 and was assigned File Number 7814 (Appendix A) The subject parcel was assigned number 19. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property, consisting of 14.872 acres, is located on the makai lo' side of the Hawaii Belt Highway, between the towns of Kailua and Keauhou in North Kona. It is situated within the land divisions of Puaapuaiki 15t and Puaapuaanui 1st, North Kona and is identified by TMK: 7-5-17: 19. More specifically, the site is located on the makai side of the Highway, directly across of the Pualani Estates Subdivision. The subject site is located approximately Y2 mile south of the intersection of Hualalai Road and the Belt Highway and % mile north of the Kuakini Highway/Belt Highway intersection. There is a new self -storage facility on the south side of the subject property. A neighborhood -commercial complex is being proposed immediately mauka and adjacent to the subject site. (Figures 1 and 2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Proiect Concept and Components The applicant is proposing to develop a 250 -unit market rental housing project to help address the rental housing needs of the community. As proposed, the project would tentatively include 250- • r ` 0 � �{wd �\.7-1 � � $a, o4 DS L d .e ❑ ar Po e P f p LUCD l uar e p e dr P1 Tlanil 7 m w r y P r zSp a Hoene ° x goene - �� :. P] w Wehilani DL Vd Xailua t Lew Est The Pines - - ...... The ... __. n.. Condos 1 '�ailrra y. ;.yl� yyehilant �Qj crpa.e to P t a Hualalai Colony y 4 �; zona w. giUcrest 0111, ° w,o UB,i PI ?k XahakaiEa _ .e Ohai Est 4� :_ 6e 'Kula Kai P Halewili P1 H� R Pe Q °° Makalauna PI Neni Ai m (Wai'A) Q (Mafia. w Mahi'iu Lani P] u �O aloha4� Ma an rtla PlaMakapono P1 Makapon, Kona is Orchards A'I SITE Pualani Est. <L CJS— VON a4vaanul? ��-ci ` ,� Hualalai �O �+.r �i _ _ Heights u O I PI ��, (under p J' construction) r�OQ 6. fOrj O� Io r0-01 0 KIM �o Est 'O i O �,a Xuakinz ra� 6 Oti• Makai The Courtyard i4• d/ �o� at Iolani N G 3 U Yd IQ. p' a -------. ��... _ _ .a o ni Zd 11� a.A� 44' G t� k t aR' on il°P t B . L 5e Q A a . ni `.Qc ga ,b r L�CCI oia � Su t �� A311' 1Sia i �y B1CYc(e��8d 4 ea10 ;yo S4arc Pn': Qs41 VOW o- LS.e° �'pnp bather c�o y Nl ,fan 01, de L G *�. Wik lia d 1 �aDa dam . a W °� �f e ro ¢ %amana�Q 4r o y Q+ v �� y Aili a Trees nu ayi° 1 f'l a� d fpr y y4'tO on6pol �a1 X19 „fie`{- � d �pcc a o • K SeaVie`�1 •fr w :epi _ d , o. �.• �:-. _ °'rp, 't'� . �S. w �Kiakealaniwahine 4 N� rn Complex Site (historic) °i °� oe • Casade N y 14.15. ll Setet o! � FIGURE] Xona 4 ;rnte 1918.17.'°I u units housed in twenty-four (24) two and three-story structures. The 3 -story structures would be approximately 40 feet in height, and definitely not exceed the 45 -foot height limit. The 2 -story structures would generally be around 30 feet tall. Also proposed are over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests. A private park consisting of approximately .75 to 1.0 acre in size for residents,pnd guests is also being proposed. This park would be improved with landscaping and lawn and would serve also as a drainageway. This multiple -use concept is comparable to the soccer fields in the Bayfront area of the City of Hilo. (Figure 3) The principal access from the Hawaii Belt Road would from a proposed new road located at the north end of an adjoining property. This intersection would be fully channelized and signalized. The developers of the proposed neighborhood commercial complex, which abuts the subject property, are proposing this access. (Figure 4) From the main intersection, there is an unimproved 60 -foot right-of-way that bisects the proposed shopping center and goes makei to Kuakini Highway. The rental housing project intends to improve and utilize this right- of-way as its access. The proposed housing project is intended to help address the market rental housing needs of the community. Please note that the applicant is prepared to accept a zone change condition that would restrict the use of this project for rental housing only. B. Prosect Timetable and Cost The applicant intends to secure the balance of the required permits and begin making the appropriate improvements immediately upon securing all development permits. Hopefully, this can be done by the middle part of next year. The applicant estimates the cost of the proposed on-site and related improvements to be in excess of $20 million. This cost would include the new road within the 60 -foot wide right-of-way, the on-site improvements, landscaping, and the structures. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use The subject property is designated Agriculture. As such, a boundary amendment to cover the requested RM -2.5 zone is , ■)%| k ` | 2 |!!|• \ ■ §,& FIGURE 3 g / 2 � I I J I I I ' \ O_ I I YNMNW31Mw I I \ i I PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT I — /�//////�/ raa�iaulo6o p¢ ' I 1 I L I \ I I i i I FA 'Vr PIIALAM VUAGE CENTER ti! 1®_%, ��� KIf111Ey-fi0R1 rY'>AYYPTl1Al. AIiT=.. PLAN a anri 6ccrriaMc Irr.. V required and is being filed concurrently with the requested zone . change application. B. County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the site Medium Density. As such, a General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would not be required. 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." The requested zoning and planned uses would be consistent with the uses envisioned within the Medium area. C. County Zoning The County zoning of the requested area is Agriculture (A -5a). If the Multiple -family Residential (RM -2.5) request were approved, all related land use and development codes such as Plan Approval, parking, landscaping, fire, ADA, and the like would be complied • with by the applicant. D. Other Permitting Considerations The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as noted earlier, other construction -related permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Plan Approval, grading permit, building permit, Department of Health clearances, UIC, and the like. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description The 14+ acre parcel is irregular in shape. The property is located generally between the Kuakini Highway and the Belt Highway. A portion fronts the Kuakini Highway, although no access from that portion is contemplated, as that section is part of a drainageway. A neighborhood shopping complex is proposed for the property • immediately east of the subject site (parcel 1). There is an \ intervening strip of land with a right-of-way of 60 feet between the J proposed neighborhood shopping complex and the Highway. This strip is intended to serve as a service road to the project. The Waiaha drainageway borders the northern edge of the subject site. The site is vacant of any structures. B. Climate, Soil and Topooraphv Being on the leeward side of the island and located southwest of Hualalai volcano, 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. Because the site is situated on the leeward side of the island, winds tend to be light and variable. Slight easterly winds occur during the day, while westerly or mountain winds are prevalent during the evenings. The property's elevation is approximately 300 feet. There is a less than 10% slope towards the makai end of the property. According to this author's interpretation of the Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating map, this site is classified "E" or Very Poor. It is of the A'a clinker soil series. This series is characterized by properties with little or no soil material and light brown to nearly black A'a. It is excessively drained and unsuited for machine tillability. Likewise, this author interprets the soil classification found in the US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) Soil Survey Report to be of the Punalu'u series (rPYD). The Punalu'u series consists of well -drained thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard slight. This type of soil was typically used for cattle grazing. Under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system, it appears that the site is classified as "Unique" C. Natural Hazards 1. Drainage The Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies more than 90% of the subject site to be within Zone X (areas outside of 500 -year flood), and the remaining area AE (floodway). The floodway is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 and bisects the middle portion of the subject property. In conjunction with the development of the proposed neighborhood shopping complex on the adjoining property to the east, a culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the proposed shopping complex. Additional drainage improvements at the north end of the subject site are also being proposed. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for these improvements and adjustments to the FIRM has been filed. This application is found in Appendix B. Relative to subject site, the drainageway located at the • makai end of the site will be utilized as a park. As there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, including the culvert and related improvements noted in the CLOMR application, all potential drainage and/or flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and mitigated. 2. Tsunami Hazard Given its elevation (300±) and distance from the nearest shoreline (1± miles), it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Thus, there should be little or no threat from high waves. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards } The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. This designation applies to much of North Kona. By way of comparison, the City of Hilo falls within zone 3. There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site from lava flows. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be prominently placed within office building. The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according to the County Building Code. As such, all structures built on the site will have to meet with the more restrictive seismic hazard structural requirements of the Building Code. D. Fauna Resources Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate to the subject site. This is due to the already developed state of the subject area and its immediate surrounding area. Nonetheless, due to the semi -developed state of this area, the faunal resources should be somewhat typical of other developed areas. One may thus find bird species such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White -eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. None of these are endangered animals. As such, it is unlikely that the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal impacts. E. Flora Resources A botanical survey was done of the subject and immediately surrounding area by Winona Char of Char and Associates. In its report, dated October 2003 and found in Appendix C, the author noted that the "vegetation on the site is dominated by introduced or 6 alien species such as kiawe, 'opiums, koa haole, and Guinea • grass. " However, a few native or indigenous plants were found. These included the 'uhaloa, 'ilihe'e, 'ilima, koali 'awa, and 'ala'ala wai nui. No commissioned flora survey was conducted of the site. These native plants can be found in similar dry, lowland, disturbed habitats in Hawaii. None of the native or introduced plants were considered threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The author thus concluded that the development of this area "is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources." It continued, "There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site." F. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources An archaeological inventory survey was conducted of the requested and immediately surrounding areas by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI). In response to the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD) comments, a revised report was prepared and subsequently submitted to the State (Appendices D-1 & D-2). . This report was subsequently deemed acceptable by SHPD. (Appendix D-3) The survey of the subject and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres identified 64 sites consisting of 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, plus a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only, with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were also determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining 7 sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of these sites were burials or possible burials, while the one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. The archaeological sites relative to the subject site are reflected in Figure 3). None of the sites recommended for preservation are situated within the subject parcel. There is an agricultural complex with a possible burials (Site No. 14091) on an adjoining property (TMK: 7-5-17:23). 0 G. Valued Cultural Resources The recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina"decisions require decision -makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, as noted in the botanical survey, while there are some endemic plants on the site, these plants are neither endangered nor threatened. The applicant also notes that since being in this area for over 10 years, he has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past. Nonetheless, if legitimate claims are made, the applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. H. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located over a mile from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the site should not be significant. Being a non -coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. The proposed development will connect to the County's sewer line. There is a 12 -inch line that extends from Kuakini Highway through this area to the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Thus, this should further reduce potential adverse groundwater or nearshore water impacts resulting from this project. Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources will be carefully examined. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust 0 The existing background ambient noise level in this area is wind, foliage, birds, and the like. However, the significant manmade noise is influenced by the traffic associated along both the Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. With the traffic, the noise level is relatively high, averaging more than 55 Ldn. To mitigate this noise to the project, the applicant plans to install appropriate landscaping along that portion of the property that faces the Highway and within the project itself. There will also be short-term noise impacts during the construction phase. To mitigate this impact, the development of this project — particularly the site work - will be limited to daylight hours and on weekdays. Contractors will also be required to comply with established State Department of Health guidelines and standards relating to noise and emission controls. The proposed development should not generate any direct air uali impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the prevailing tradewinds. All of the required parking area within the project site will be paved with an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be insignificant. J. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, the views of the coast and Hualalai Mountain are indirectly referenced. From a viewplane perspective, the subject site is situated between the shoreline and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. It is also located between Kuakini Highway and Hualalai Mountain. As such, any development of the site will generate some -1 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 the Extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. As such, the proposed development should not result in the further diminution of coastal visual impact. Similarly, the views of Hualalai Mountain would not be adversely impacted from Kuakini Highway, as the site does not directly front the Highway. Notwithstanding those circumstances, the height of the proposed structures will be no taller than 40 feet for the 3 -story structures and 30 feet for the 2 -story ones. The maximum height limit under the existing and proposed zoning designations is 45 feet. Then, too, 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. a scenic site. VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surroundina Land Uses The surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to moderately dense residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. There are residential subdivisions located generally makai of the Kuakini Highway. These include Kahakai Estates subdivision and al condominium project north of the subject area. On the mauka side of the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, there is the developing 384 -lot Pualani Estates residential subdivision. There is a small commercial office complex generally southwest of the subject site. On a separate parcel and in the same vicinity, there is a self -storage facility. There are also agricultural uses generally north of the subject site. The requested zoning would be consistent with the evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in this area. B. Economic Impacts The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the construction and related industries. 10 The nature of this project (housing) does not have any direct long- term economic impact. However, it does have an indirect impact by providing the needed social infrastructure — housing - to support developments in West Hawaii. In a sense, this type of project would be analogous to a school, which supports the needs of a community. A multiple -family residential zoning would also increase the tax revenues to the County, as opposed to the current agricultural zoning. However, there could be some real property tax consequences for the agriculturally- zoned properties proximate to this area. As the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to the higher residential use, there could be some fallout to neighboring properties. However, landowners intent on keeping their property for agricultural uses would have the option of dedicating their land for agricultural uses. C. AuriculturalImpacts The subject site has not been used for commercial agricultural purposes for over 25 years. With the exception of the agricultural activity generally north of the subject site, the surrounding areas consist of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Further, the soil classification system of the Land Study Bureau designates the site as Class E or "Very Poor". While it does have agricultural potential, it is not unique from an agricultural resource perspective. Thus, its removal from potential agricultural use should not compromise the agricultural objectives of the County. Given the above, the agricultural impacts resulting from this rezoning should be negligible, if at all. VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road and Traffic The subject site will utilize the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway as one of its two principal accesses. The other will be the Kuakini Highway. The former Highway is a 2 -lane State highway with a right-of-way that varies between 165 and 225 feet in the vicinity of the subject site. The roadway width is about 24 feet, with 10 -foot paved shoulders.. There is a striped median with a mauka left -turn lane that would serve the Pualani Estates subdivision. 11 The site immediately mauka, which is proposed for a neighborhood shopping complex, has 2 permitted accesses to the Highway. The northerly access —which fronts the entrance to the Pualani Estates subdivision — is proposed to be fully channelized and signalized by that developer. The southerly access will be limited to a right -in, right -out movement. A 60 -foot wide mauka/makai road is also planned through the site of the proposed shopping complex. This road will eventually connect to the Kuakini Highway and serve as the rental housing project's access. A traffic impact analysis report (TZAR) was prepared for this project and is found in its entirety in Appendix E. The TIAR assumed the project would be completed by 2008; the neighborhood shopping complex would be completed; and the intersection of the Highway and the Pualani Estates subdivision entrance road would be signalized. Based on those assumptions, the TIAR made the following findings: the project is expected to generate 118 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips to the roadway network. • A traffic signal at the Pualani Estates Subdivision road intersection is needed with or without this project. • The AM peak with or without the proposed shopping complex would be Level of Service (LOS) C, while the PM peak would be at LOS D with the shopping complex. Without the shopping center, the PM peak would be at LOS C. • "The signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS in 2008 with the additional traffic created by the apartment complex,...." As noted above, the TZAR assumed that the intersection at the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway has to be improved with traffic signals and a left -turn lane in the northbound direction; and possibly a right -tum deceleration lane to improve the operation and safety at the intersection. B. Water Water will be secured from a 12 -inch County water line fronting the subject site along the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway extension. It 12 is anticipated that the proposed development would need no more • than 6,000 gallons of or 10 units of water per day. It should be noted that the subject and adjacent parcels have a total of 510 water commitments. C. Wastewater There is a sewer line that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject area. The applicant will connect to this line. D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers who will dispose of the refuse at the county landfill at Pu'uanahulu. During the course of preparing the land for this project, the applicant intends to retain as much of the material on the property. This should thus minimize disposal at approved disposal sites. This and other waste reduction methods will be reflected in the required solid waste management plan to help address this situation. E. Other Government Services , As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access to a number of services. 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. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals on the island. This residential project is intended to address the rental housing needs of the community. As such, while it is not necessarily growth inducing, it will have school -aged occupants. In that regard, it is noted that the site is proximate to the Kealakehe (K-12) School complex. There is also the Kahakai Elementary School located within a mile of the subject side. . 13 J There are also public parks in within a 2 -mile radius. Additionally, the applicant intends to have about an acre of park area within the project that would also serve as a drainageway. Given the project location, no extension of government services would be required. Further, the existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the demand expected from this project F. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the current use, which is open space. This will continue until the full improvements are made, which will hopefully be before the middle part of next year. This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long-term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created in the short-term. By providing needed housing, this project will have an indirect long-term benefit to the island's economy. Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State and County's fiscal resources. This project will provide needed housing in an area that would be proximate to places of employment and shopping. The required physical infrastructure - if needed -will be implemented by the applicant to mitigate potential impacts of this project. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources (such as botanical and avifaunal) would not appear to be significant. 14 There are no known burials or archaeological sites recommended • for preservation on the subject site. Nevertheless, in the event there are inadvertent finds, they will be treated pursuant to acceptable practices and policies of the State. C. Mitigative Measures The applicant intends to provide any required off and on-site infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project. These will include on-site drainage system, landscaping, water, and wastewater improvements. All of these will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit implementation phases of this project. Off-site traffic -related improvements at the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway will also be provided by the applicant and/or the developer of the proposed shopping center. These will consist of a northbound left -turn lane, participation in the installation of traffic signals, and the like. Relative to archaeological features, if any inadvertent discoveries are made during any phase of this project, the Planning Department will be notified and appropriate mitigation will be taken before work is resumed. Landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as well • as along the boundaries. The landscaping would be consistent with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect No Proiect Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its present vacant, cleared use. Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan. 2. Development Based on Existing A -5a Zoning Under this alternative, the area of the requested zoning may still not be utilized agriculturally, given its current condition. The site would probably be subdivided into 2 lots. 15 3. Residential Rezoning Another option could be to utilize this site for a single-family residential project. While that would still be consistent with the General LUPAG's map Medium Density designation, this option would not help address the rental housing needs of the community. 4. Evaluation of Alternatives Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use of the land. The land could be subdivided, but its agricultural uses would be minimal. There would also be diminished tax revenues and less services to the public. While alternative residential densities — such as a single- family residential subdivision - are possible, the need for rental housing appears to be even greater. Then, too, this project is located in an area proximate to places of employment and services. The 2 -lot alternative could not provide some traffic relief, as it would be developed with the existing zoning. The requested RM zoning, however, could provide an opportunity to address this need, not only at the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, but by helping improve a new road connection with the Kuakini Highway. In that regard, the project in totality 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 zoning alternative. IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies A. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. 16 The LUPAG map designates the site Medium Density, a . designation that allows the requested RM -2.5 zoning. Accordingly, this request would be consistent with the LUPAG map. B. General Plan Policies The requested zoning would also be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow: Housina Goals • 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. Policies • Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and moderate income households. Land Use Element (Multiple -Residential) Goals To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. 9 17 • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. Policies 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. StandaMs • Areas shall be protected from incompatible uses by transition zones. • Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. • Development shall not be permitted in natural hazard areas unless proper on-site improvements are provided. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. • Recreational area and/or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential development. Discussion 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 providing the social support (housing) needed to sustain a strong economy. Furthermore, the project should add sustained revenues to the County and State coffers. The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or IJ encouragement of solar energy and design features to take 18 advantage of wind patterns. 0 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. While proximate to a floodway, the project area is outside of it. 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 not have any archaeological sites. However, work will cease if unanticipated archaeological remains are discovered during the construction phase of this project. 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. A floral study was done which also concluded that there would be no impact to endangered plant life. As this is a residential project, it will directly fulfill the goals and objectives - as noted above - of the housing element. Specifically, the more pertinent goals are: 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 0 19 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 nearly a mile from the ocean, it is also separated by other developments from the ocean. As such, 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. New County - standard road leading to the project site will be constructed. 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. Finally, in terms of the Land Use element (including the multiple residential), 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 Ef 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 generally compatible with the surrounding area. There are single-family residential and multiple -family residential zonings within % mile from the subject site. A proposed shopping center is to be located mauka of the subject site, while there is an existing smaller office complex located along Kuakini Highway less than % mile from the 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 generally bounded by urban and urbanizing uses. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity. C. Zoning If the request were approved, the site would be developed into a multiple -family residential rental complex. All structures and improvements would be developed consistent with the Zoning Code. No variances from the Code are anticipated. D. Hawaii State Plan Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the State. Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and goals and the project's relationship follows: Goals • A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity, • and growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawaii's present and future generations 21 V A desired physical environment characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and caring of participation in family life. Discussion The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities for current and future residents of the island; contribute to the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and County revenues; and complement and support other economic uses and in tum, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and regional economies. This short-term employment opportunity would come without adversely affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant life listed as either endangered or threatened on the subject site. Then, too, there are no known significant archaeological features on the site that need to be preserved. Any other inadvertent finds will be addressed pursuant to the requirements of the State DLNR-HPD. Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly adverse. All required infrastructures will be in place by the applicant and/or other developers prior to occupancy of any portion of the project. These include traffic improvements, and the wastewater and water system. Furthermore, the provision and/or retention of natural landscaped buffers around the perimeter of and selected portions within the project site would also help mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to existing and potential neighboring commercial or agricultural properties. G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Manauement Proaram The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas 22 M proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special • Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made. In that regard, please note the following: The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions in Chapters V, VI, and VII). Any effect that may result will be minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly outweighed by public interest. • The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the CZM program. Specifically: • there would be no impact to the area's recreational resources. This is not a shoreline property; • the site does not have any known historical resources. Any inadvertent finds will be addressed pursuant to the requirements of the State DLNR-HPD. • the project will not affect any scenic and open space • resources; • the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted; • the project will help stabilize employment opportunities by providing the needed housing, and hence furthering the economic uses of the site; • the site is more than a mile from the shoreline, and thus there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine resource impacts; and • public participation will be achieved through the hearings on this request. The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Code. State Land Use Urban Standards As the requested area covers less than fifteen (15) acres, the 23 ` County can process the request. Pursuant to the Planning J Commission Rule No. 13, the request must meet certain standards. These standards and their justification follow: J Conformity to the General Plan The project's relationship and conformity are demonstrated in sections IX A and B above. 2. Relationship to State Land Use Urban District Standards The State Land Use Commission's Rules provide the standards for determining the Urban district boundaries (Section 15-15-18).- Their -relationship to this request are noted as follows: a. "City -Like" Characteristics A concentration of people, structures, streets, and ruralturban level of services characterize this area. There are residences in this area; a neighborhood commercial center and a self -storage facility adjoining and/or proximate to the subject site. b. Factors of Urban Characteristics The site is proximate to centers of trading and employment It is within an area where there are existing commercial and residential uses. It is also adjacent to a proposed shopping complex. All of the related urban amenities and services such as school, parks, and protective services are also located less than three (3) miles from the site. As such, basic governmental and utility services are readily available to this area. This reclassification will not necessarily result in providing a sufficient urban reserve area for growth, as the applicant intends to develop the property immediately. Further, the site represents more of an "in -filling" and as such, would not really be suitable for a growth reserve area. Nonetheless, its approval and development could make fringe properties more suitable for reserves. 24 C. Natural Hazards • Topographically, the site is suitable for development. It does not have slopes in excess of 20 degrees. The site has no known unstable soil condition. Although there is a floodway proximate and within the lower portion of the subject site, drainage improvements will be made of this area to minimize impact to the proposed area of development. It is outside of the tsunami zone and is not located within the high volcanic hazard area. It is located within Zone 4, comparable to other parts of North Kona. Although within the highest seismic zone (Zone 4), all improvements will be designed to meet with the prevailing building code. The applicable code is predicated on zone 4. d. Contiguous to Urban Areas Although the site is not contiguous to an urban area, it is functionally contiguous. There is a mini storage to its immediate south. There is also an office complex . south and makai of the mini storage facility. There are residentially zoned properties directly across of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway extension. e. Relationship to County Growth Plans This site does not represent the creation of a new urban concentration, as the surrounding area is already an urban -like environment. The subject site is designated on the General Plan LUPAG map for Medium Density Urban uses. The requested Multiple -family Residential (RM -2.5) zone is thus consistent with the General Plan. f. "Scatterization" Impact As the site does conform to the standards described earlier, this standard really does not apply. This applies to a situation where an amendment creates a potential "spot" zoning and thereby increasing the need to extend public services at considerable • taxpayers' expense. In this situation, the general area 25 \ is already urban in character, and the subject site is contiguous to this developing area. Its development should thus not result in the expansion or extension of government services. g. Slope of Property There is a benign slope running in a mauka/makai direction. However, the difference — with the exception of the floodway at the bottom portion of the site —is less than 10 percent. The slope would not render the site undevelopable or pose an extraordinary development risk. Accordingly, the development of this site would not be violative of the ,'more than 20% slope" standard. 26 APPENDICES Jun -07-2004 01:04au Ffox- T-344 F. 002/003 F-057 Y ChdscopherI Yacn Meow Awe Roy R. Tak= om amudu of P7AM41NG DEPARTMENT 101 Pouayt Star, Sft S • H tai Yftnri 91720.3043 (806) 9118288 • Fox (808) 9614742 June 4, 2004 BIM Brooks WastPm Development Inc. PO Box 28M tonus -!Cana, HI 96745 Dear Mr. eroww. FINAL PLAT NAP FINAL SUDOWISION APPROVAL NO. 7814 SUl3DMDvL..WEvM 13EVELOFMENT, INC. 'Pudani Mah1 Subdivision" Proposed Consolidation or).a A. Lot 8, and Lot 2 And Resub(lVOm utb tats 1 b 5, Inclusive And the Des)gnallon of Earn MIS 1 to 4, lndusto At Puspuasild td and Pnapuaaniui tY, Nod Kona, Island of Hvw . Hawaii 7MK� -7-R17.007 019 1123 DM and Mr MM, 1) This is to admowladge receipt of ten (10) oo*s of the anal plat map dated May 31, 2004; one (1) CAD of final plat map; and Cergmtbn of Staking for the referenced app9mtbn. Please be informed that final subdivision approval for nxordabon is hereby granted io the final plid map as attached herewith inasmuch as all requkamenle of the Subdivision Coda, Chapter 23 have been met You may wish to consultyour adomeyand surveyor for the preparation of the necessary legal documents and description of the cosW final plat map for the purpose of mcordaiiorn with Bre State of Hawaw Bureau of Conveyances, By a opy of this letter, we are Warding a copy of to certified FM plat map to the listed officers tar their fila. / Hamel Coal* & an F4Ud nppomm oy PrAWda and lawa]m' V APPENDIX A Jun -01-1004 01:04ps From - Bill Brooks WNFM Developmerrt kr — Page 2 June 4, 2004 Copies of the c erhTied final plat map are endosed• CHFOT13PHERJ.YUEN Planning DftdDr. - ETCinrn r�wPouSueauoeasiw��w.a�pP+trnrml.IFfMklTn4dac Encs, - 2 Certified FPM Jr� Manager, DM WCaMed FM Dicedor, DPW wlCsdifed FPM District Environmend ftnh Program Chief, DOH w/Certifed FPM DlsbictEngineer. DDTw/Certifled FPM PLNGKONA w/CerMul FPM DPW-ENGADNA Tex Maps and Records Supervisor I Warbled FPM A CAD Real Property Tax Division -Kona WmfTred FPM Ifime Surveying, LLG Steven S.C. Lim, Esq„ Cartsmith Ball, LLP SUB 7392 7-344 P.003/002 F-357 0 1mr02-2004 11:53am frac T-311 P.006/006 F-725 P N Ll Ll o Federal Emergency Management,Agency cZ Washington, D.C. 20472 P��NG 56CJ MAY 0 5 2004 CERTIFIED IAAM IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Casc No.; 04-09-03078 The Honorable Harry Kith Cottuntmity. Hawaii County, FU Mayor, County of Hawaii Community No.., 155166 25 Aupuni Street . 10o,,M 96720 104 Dear Mayor Kim: This responds to a requesr that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the e$xtive Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for your community, in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood rncnranca Program (NFIP) regulations. Ina letter dated November 21, 2003, Mr. Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief, Engineering Division, Dcpartmeat of Public Works; County of Hawaii, requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that updated topographic intonation; channdiastion of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from Hawaii Belt Road to approximately 1,500 feet downstream; and construction of quadruple 10 -foot by l0 -foot reinforced -concrete box culverts approximately 200 feet } downstream of Hawaii Belt Road would have on the flood hazard information abown on the effective FMM and FIS report. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Mr. Joe Swanson, P.E., Senior Vice President, and Ms. Laurie S. Matin, P.E., CFM, both with Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., and Mr, Kuba. In a letter dated May 3, 1995, we acknowledged that an elevation used in the original hydraulic analysis for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 was incorrect by 50 feet, and we stated that subsequent map revisions should include the corrected results. Thereto% these data were used as the corrected effective data for this CLOMR request- We equest We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain -management criteria of the NFIP. The submitted existing conditions HEC -RAS hydraulic computcr model, dated April 5, 2004, based on updated topographic information, was used as the base conditions model in our review of the proposed & nditions model for this CLOMR request We believe that, if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the plan entitled 'Tmprovemeat Plans for Pualani Makai Channel Improvements to Waiaba Drainageway Splitflow No. 2," prepared by Kinney -Rom and Associates, Inc., dated October 29, 2003, and the data listed below are received, a revision to the FIRM would be warranted. As a result of the revised data described above, theAlevations of the flood having a 1 -percent ebanoe of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) increased compared to the effective Base Flood. Elevations (BFF9) for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from just upstream of Hawaii Belt Road to just downstream ofHualalai Road. The maximmo. iucrmase in BFE, approximately47 fee% occurred appro?amately 1,200 feet upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. APPENDIX B n5%10/2004 15:17 FAX 05/07/04 FRI 15:27 FAX 703 089 3468 M1t:HAFS1, BAIIEX Our review of existing conditions revealed that the BFEs increased in some areas and decreased in other areas compared to the corrected effective BFEs for Waiaba Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 5'fact, occurred. approximately 1,600 fed downstream of Hawaii$eft Road. Tba Ylmimam. de m -e in BFI;, nppro rc5`rna-tay-5 fea' , occurred appcoX-17MSMy 550 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. As, a result of the proposed project, the BFEs will decrease compared to the existing conditions BFEs for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from Hawaii Belt Road to approximately 1,400 feet downstream. The maximum decrease. in BFE, approximately 8 fed, will occur approximately 550 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. As a result of existing conditions and the proposed project, the BFEs will increase in some areas and decrease in other arras compared to the corrected effective BFEs for Waiahs Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 1,250 fed upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 5 feel, will occt>r approximately 1,600 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 13 feet, will occur approximately 550 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. As a result of existing conditions and the proposed proj ecs, the width of the Special Flood Hazard Arca (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the base flood, will increase in some area and decrease in // other areas compared to the effective SFHA width along WaiahaDrainageway Splitflow No. 2 from l� approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in SFHA width, approximately 100 feet, will occur approximately 1,800 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Tho mArimurn demease in SFHA width, approximately 450 feet, will occur approximately 100 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Asa result of existing conditions and the proposed project, the width of the regulatory floodway will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective floodway, width along Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from approximately 2,000 fact downstream to approximately 100 fed downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in floodway width, approximately 50 feet, will occur approximately 1,800 fed downstream of Hawaii Belt Road_ The maximum decrease in floodway width, approximately 50 feet, will occur approximately 100 fact downstream of Hawaii Belt Road . Upon completion of tho project, your community may submit the data listed below and request drat we make a final detemtivation on revising the effective FIRM and FIS report_ Detailed application and certification forms, which were used in processing this request; must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the reap revision request far.the area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1, entitled "Overview & Concurrence Fern," must be included- (A copy of this form is enclosed.) • Q The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as -built conditions differ from the conceptual plans. Ifrequired, please submit new forms (copies of which are . enclosed) or annotated copies of tho previously submitted forms showing the revised information Form 2, entitled "Riverim Hydrology & Hydraulics Form" 05/10/2004.15:17 FAX I3j005 0055/67/04 FBI 15:28 FAX 703 900 9466 Hle;l&h;L BmLElt J 3 Form 3, entitled "Riverine, Structures Form" Hydraulic analyses, for as -built conditions, of the base flood and the regulatory floodxay, togerlux with a topographic workmap showing the revised floodplain and floodway boundaries; must be submitted with Form 2. Effective Scptomber 1, 2002, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. in accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is $3,800 and must be received before we can begin processing the request Please note, however, that the fee schedule is subj cot to change, and requesters are required to submit the fec in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or meaty order, made payable in U -S. funds to the Natioul Flood Insurances hmmzm or by credit card. The paymer[t must be forwarded to the following addresa: Federal Emergency Maringement Agency Fee -Charge system Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, VA 22116-3173 • As built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has beers completed, FEMA., will initiate EL IR revision to the FM and FIS report. Becaitise .. the BFEs would change as a result of the ptojea'90 day appeal period would be initiated, during which community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised BFEs based on scientific or technical dare. The basis of this CLOMR is, in whole or in part, a chsoriel-modification/culvert project. NFIFregulations, as cited in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7), require that cortuoun+ties acsure that the flood -carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplainmanagement regulations. Consequently, theultiroate responsibility for maintenance of the modified channel and culverts rests with Your community. This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain Management criteria established under the NFr !. Your community is responsible for approving 911 floodplain development and for ensuring all necessary permits been roceived. State, county required by Federal or State law have , and comitainiry officials; blued on ser higher standards for construction in the knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may SFHA- If the State, county, or community has adopted:m6re restrictive of comprehensive floodplain managcmgtt criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minirrtuiti NF1? cntcna. If you have any questions regarding floodplain m9nagernent regulations for your community ori theNFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your commtmity- Information on Jthe CCO for your communitymay be obtained by calling the Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Quua 05'(10/2004 15:17 FAX L�JODB 05/07/04 t<!tl 15:28 FAX 703 960 34tl8 f411:24ALL.tf.'.AL''K `j 4 Division of FEMA in Oakland, California, at (510) 627-7103. If you have any questions reganiing this CLOMR, pleaso call our Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1 -877 -FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Max M Yuan, P.E., Project Engineer For. Doug Bebomo, P -E., CFM, Acting Chief Hamd Identification Section Hazard Identification Section Mitigation Division Mitigation Division Emergency Preparedness Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate and Response Directorate Enalosures ca Mr. Galen M. Kuba Division Chief Engineering Division Department of Public Works County of Hawaii • Mr. Jac Swanson, P -E, Senior Vice President lGinley-Hom and Associates, Inc. TENT 8r: i Harry Kim Mayor . qui 8934 i NUV-IH-U;J d:U2rm; ('90unig of Anftraii Disk Kactau Mana8ing Dwedar DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IDI Faushl ha=01.81Ire 7 - Hao.11swe119672"224 (808) 9615321 - Fae (BOB) 961 9 November 18, 2003 Mr. Joseph C, Swanson, P -E., Project Manager Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 rHuc Ile Bruce C. McClure Direaear Raerald K. Takahashi Depstr Drrena Subject: Pualani Makai CLOMR Application Waiaha Drainagcway Splitflow No -2 TMK:7-5-017:019 This is to follow the meeting with our staff on November 17, 2003 regarding the subject. We discussed issues that must be addressed with your submittal of a required grading permit application to construct the channel and culvert depicted in the subject application. The issues itleluded the following: • How critical is the shape of the typical drop structure to maintaining the flow velocities predicted by the hydraulic model'?'1"he rock -excavation will likely not be uniform and erodable material may be encountered. Will hardening of the drop edges and area below the drop be needed to preserve the necessary energy dissipation and prevent scour and undermining? • Provide details, and specifications for hardening areas of erodable materials if encountered below freeboard elevation and any unstable slopes. Provide for quality control during construction. Address the ownership and maintenance of the channel. The capacity of the watercourse to convey the base flood must be maintained. Access for maintenance roust be provided throughout. Fencing of the channel should be provided (required for a dedicable channel). Adherence to the Storm Drainage Standard, October 1970 is required for a channel to be dedicable. Ensure no adverse impact to the existing sewerline. Pualam Makai- CLOMR • November 19, 2003 p.2of2 In addition please address the following: • Ensure that supercicvation and freeboard is provided for in the channel depth. • Ensure that thefloodplain alteration does not create increased erosion hazard to downstream property and there is no adverse impact w adjacent properties or Kuakini Highway. • Provide an erosion control plan with necessary details. Comply with Chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Department of Be" which inquires as NPDES permit for certain construction activity. • Show grading quantities on the plans. Our signature on the CLOMR application does not imply approval for any development of rite property other than the flood plain alteration subject to the above. We recommend you communicate with the Planning Department and other affected agencies regarding proposed uses of the property. Completion of the map revision process by the applicant, to include obtaining the • required Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) wren the flood plain is altered, is required. To that end we may seek to tie the completion of the LOMB to any other permit process such as a f certificate of occupancy or final subdivision approval. F = If you have any questions, please contact Kiran Emler of our Kona office at 327-3530. Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief Engineering Division KE c: ENG-HILO/KONA 0 Technical Support Data Notebook for Waiaha, Drainageway S_plitflow No. 2, Hawaii County, Hawaii In Support of a CLOMR Application Pualani Makai Prepared for: Westpro Development, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 202 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Copyright ® 2003 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. October 2003 KHA Project #091888001 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley- Hom and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents 0 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose.. .......... .................................................... ...................... v ........................................ ........ 1 1.2 Authority.........................................................................................................................................1 1.3 .Location......................................................................:..................................................................1 1.4 General Site Characteristics..........................................................................................................3 1.4.1 Topography............................................................................................................................3 1.5 Methodology Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics.........................................................................3 1.5.1 Hj drology...............................................................................................................................3 1.5.2 Hydraulics..............................................................................................................................3 1.6 Results...........................................................................................................................................3 2 Study Documentation Abstract..............................................................................................................4 3 Survey and Mapping Information...........................................................................................................5 3.1 Field Survey Information................................................................................................................5 3.2 Mapping.........................................................................................................................................5 4 Hydrology....................................... .........................................6 5 Hydraulics..............................................................................................................................................7 5.1 Method Description........................................................................................................................7 5.2 Work Study Maps..........................................................................................................................7 5,3 Parameter Estimation....................................................................................................................8 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients.. ................... ................................................................................... 8 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients................................................................................8 5.4 Cross Section Description.............................................................................................................8 5.5 Modeling Considerations.............................................................................................................10 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis......................................................................................10 5.5.2 Bridges and Culverts...........................................................................................................10 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes....:...........................................................................................................10 5.5.4 Islands and Flow Splits... ..................................................................................................... 10 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas.........................................................................................................11 5.5.6 Supercritical Flow................................................................................................................11 5.6 Floodway Modeling ..,..11 5.7 Problems Encountered During the Study....................................................................................11 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions..........................................................................................11 5.7.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages..............................................................................11 5.8 Calibration....................................................................................................................................12 5.9 Final Results............................................................................................................:...................12 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results..................................................................................................12 5.9.2 Verification of Results..........................................................................................................16 6 Erosion and Sediment Transport.........................................................................................................17 7 FIS Report Data...................................................................................................................................18 7.1 Summary of Discharges..............................:.............:................................................................. .18 7.2 Floodway Data................................................................:............................................................19 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook 0 r1 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Maps 7.4 Flood Profiles ....................................... List of Appendices ......................................................... ............20 .............................................21 APPENDIX A References APPENDIX B Data Collection and Field Photos APPENDIX C Survey Field Notes APPENDIX D Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation APPENDIX E Hydraulic Analysis Supporting Documentation APPENDIX F Work Maps APPENDIX G 60% Construction Plans List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ....................................... List of Tables Table 1: Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA Submittals. Table 2: Culvert Summary Table ................. ...................... :...... Table 3: Post -Project Conditions Standard Table 1 ................. Table 4: Post -Project Conditions Culvert Results .................... Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 ..............................2 S 10 ..........................12 RE Technical Data Notebook i 1.1 Purpose Introduction This floodplain/floodway delineation study was conducted to apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2. The CLOMR application is based on new topographic information, proposed channelization, and a new box culvert.. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Zone AE, which is defined as a special flood hazard area inundated by 100 -year flood; base flood elevations determined. The required FEMA application forms are included in this report. This report includes a duplicate effective model and an existing conditions hydraulic model that were used to prepare a proposed or project conditions model with the new channel and culvert in place. The CLOMR is requested based on the results of the post project conditions analysis with the channel and culvert in place. 1.2 Authority Mr. Bill Brooks of Westpro Development, Inc. (Kailua-Kona, Hawaii) retained the services of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the design of a flood channel in the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 through the proposed Pualani Makai commercial development. This report includes all supporting technical documentation for the CLOMR application. Acting on behalf of the client, the contact for this study from Kimley-Horn is: Mr. Joseph C. Swanson, P. E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 (808) 987-4162 1.3 Location The project consists of channelization of approximately 0.34 river miles of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from FIS Section G to FIS Section J (80 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Highway to 200 feet upstream of Kuakini Highway). The study area location is provided in Figure 1. Waiaha Drainageway Spiitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook 9 Figure 1: Vicinity Map VICINITY MAP N. T. S. �< T �R�qO Technical Data Notebook 1.4 General Site Characteristics • 1.4.1 Topography The upland areas of the watershed are contoured crop lands and wooded areas. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 has medium trees and heavy brush and ill-defined banks. The channel bottom is comprised of tall grasses, and lava rock, including areas with lava tubes. The bottom width of the channel averages 150 feet within the delineated portion with the exception of the area just west of the Hawaii Belt Road where it reaches a maximum width of 470 ft. See Appendix B for field reconnaissance photos. 1.5 Methodology Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics 1.5.1 Hydrology Hydrologic analysis was not performed for this project. The 100 -year discharge used for this CLOMR was extracted from the "North Kona Flood Plain Management Study" (SCS, 1984) by the Soil Conservation Service. The 100 -year flood discharge listed in Table C-3 (page 1 of 4) for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is 2,670 cfs throughout the study reach. . 1.5.2 Hydraulics Hydraulic modeling was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -River Analysis System (HEC -RAS) program, version 3.3.1. Manning's roughness coefficient values were verified from field reconnaissance and extracted from the effective HEC -2 model. A digital terrain model (DTM) was used to create cross sections for hydraulic modeling within the project reach 1.6 Results The limits of flooding for the effective and proposed (project) 100 -year flood are shown in Appendix F — Work Map. Waiaha Drainaqeway Splitflow No.2 Technical Data NoteWOK 0 Study Documentation Abstract Table 1: Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA Submittals Study Documentation Abstract Initial Restudy CLOMR LOMR Other for FEMA Submittals Study SECTION 2.1: Study Documentation for FEMA Submittals 2.1.1 Date Study Accepted 2.1.2 Study Contractor Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc Contact Joseph C. Swanson, P.E. (Project Manager) Robert A. Eichinger, P.E, H (ydraulic , Address 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Street, 7600 N. 15 StrerSuite 250 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 Phone (808)987-4162 (602)944-5500 Internal Reference Number 091888001 09188800 2.1.3 FEMA Technical Review Contractor Contact(s) Address Phone Internal Reference Number 2.1.4 FEMA Regional Reviewer Phone 2.1.5 Stale Technical Reviewer Phone 2.1.6 Loral Technical Reviewer Mr. Kiran Emler, P.E. Civil Engineer V Phone Hawaii County (808)327-3530 2.1.7 Reach Description Waiaha Drainageway Splittlow No. 2, Hawaii Belt Road to Kuakini Highway. FIRM Map No. 1551660713D, Panel 713 of 1900; FIRM Map No'. 1551660926E, Panel 926 of 1900. FIS Section G to FIS Section J 2.1.8 USGS Quad Sheet(s) with original Hawaii County TMK Map, Zone 7, Section 5, Plat 17, 19, 23, 25 and 26 (3'° Division) photo date & latest photo revision Web site: http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/mapsttmk/zone.htm date 2.1.9 Unique Conditions and Problems None 2.1.10 Coordination of Q's Discharges 100 -year discharge from 1984 SCS "North Kona Flood Plain Study" (Agency, Date, Comments) 100 -year discharge through study reach is 2,570 cfs. f SECTION 2.2: FEMA Forms (following pages) nrai anAwav Solitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE OM -21 No. 3067-0748 Expires September 36, 21 Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instnrctk searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not requ to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this forth. Send comments regan the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emerge Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is require obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ® CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ❑ LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or fli elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 480287 City of Katy Harris County TX TX 480301 0005D 48201C 022013 02/08/83 09/28190 155166 Hawaii County HI 0713D 713 05/16/94 35166 Hawaii County Hi 0926E 926 061021 2. Flooding Source: Waiaha Dminageway Splitflow No. 2 3. Project Name/Identifier. CLOMR - Paulani Makai (Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 FIS Cross Section G - J) 4. FEMA zone designations affected: AE, X (choices: A, AH, AO, Al -A30, A99, AE, AR, V. V1430, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ® Improved Methodology/Data • Regulatory Fioodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ® Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Structures: ® Channelization ❑ Levee/Floodwall $I Bridge/Culvert ❑ Dam 9 Fill 0 Other, Attach Description . C. REVIEW fFE' As the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ® Yes Fee amount $4 0. 00.00 ❑ No, Attach Explanation Please see the FEMA Web site at-http://www.fema.gov/mltttsd/frm fees.htm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. D. SIGNATURE ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement maybe punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Joe Swanson, P.E. Company. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: 75143 Hualalai Road BOB- 331-2779 808-331-2799 Suite 101 E -Mail Address: joe.swanson@kimley-hom.00m Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Signature of Requester (required): Date: -10/30/2003 1 As the community offidal responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or Is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFRA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Gommunity Official's Name and Idle: Kiram Elmer,.P.E., Civil Engineer V Telephone No.: 808.327-3530 i ommunity Name: Hawaii County, HI Community Official's Signature (required): Date: Community # 155166 ' CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifiers Name: Joe Swanson, P.E. OSE Cicens wait 11003-C Expiration Date: ftp'. -A/2,0/Z004 Company Name: Kimley-Nom and Assc a , R p F€@�pg11e - N 0-331-2779 Fax No.: - Inc. GIryE�R AL .: 80&331-2799 No Signature: . Date: 10/30/2003 Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations ® Riverme Structures form (Form 3) Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts, addition/revision of levee/floodwall, addition/revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Forth (forth 4) New or revised coastal elevations Seal (Optional) - r1 r-,> l Ln•m ltmr. ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM O.M.B No. 3067-0148 F%pirer September 30,,A PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instruction searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are n required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Ser comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Managemer Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of a forth is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to tt above address. Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splitfiow No. 2 Note: Fill out one forth for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ® Not revised (skip to section 2) ❑ No existing analysis ❑ Improved data . ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1% -Annual -Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) FIS (cfs) Revised (ds) 0 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ❑❑ Precipitation/Runoff Model rl-R-20, HEC -1, HEC -HMS etc.) ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/mifttsdten_modl.htm. 4. Review/Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, than attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. 1. Reach to be Revised Downstream Limit Upstream Limit 12. Hydraulic Method Used B. HYDRAULICS Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Above Kuakini Highway FIS G FP 200.41 FP 200.41 FW200.34 FW 200.34 Below Hawaii Belt Highway FIS J FP 310.06 FP 299.24 FW 310.00 FW 299.24 ti. MTUKAULI" 1, Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models YFEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/mitttsdifrm_soft.htm.. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK - RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach.an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies will result in reduced review time. HEG2/HEC-RAS models reviewed with CHECK-2/CHECK-RAS? ❑ Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model' Natural File Name: Plan: Duplicate Floodway File Name: Plan: Duplicatef Corrected Effective Model' Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Existing or Pre -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Plan: ExistingCond Floodway File Name: Plan: ExisbngCond Revised or Post -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Plan: ProposedFP/FW Floodway file Name: Plan: ProposedFP/FW Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: 'Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains (Zone A) — for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA, This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/miVtsd/en—modi.htm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1% -annual -chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community, easements and boundaries boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated o show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the -- affective 1 %- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? []Yes ® No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 fooL 2. Does the request Involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? 44 1_� If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(ax3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(aX14). Please see the MT -2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(6x1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1% -annual -chance floodplains jstudied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions,) 4, For LOMR requests, does this request require.property, owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT O.M.B. No. 3067-0148 Expires September 30,2& Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructior searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are r required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Se comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Manageme Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of t form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to t above address. Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below. Channelization ................complete Section B Bridge/Culvert. ................ complete Section C Dam...............................complete Section D Levee/Floodwall .............complete Section E Sediment Transport ........ complete Section F (if required) Description Of Structure Name of Structure: Paulani Makai Box Culvert Type (check one): ❑ Channelization ® Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall Location of Structure: 200 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Highway on Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 Downstream Limit/Cross Section: HEC -RAS 10.45 Upstream Limit/Cross Section: HEC -RAS 10.65 2. Name of Structure: Paulani Makal Channel Type (check one): 21 Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwali Location of Structure: 80 feet below Hawaii Belt Highway to 160 feet above Kuakini Highway Downstream Limit/Cross Section: FIS G or HEC -RAS Over station Upstream Umit/Cross Section: FIS J or HEC -RAS river station 3. Name of Structure: Type (check one) Location of Structure: ❑ Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed. 1 ❑ Dam ❑ Dam ❑ Dam B. CHANNELIZATION Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 JName of Structure: Paulani Makai Channel 1. Accessory Structures The channelization Incudes (check one): ❑ Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)] ED Drop structures [I Superelevated sections ® Transitions in cross sectional geometry ❑ Debris basin/detention basin [] Energy dissipater ❑ Other (Describe): 2. Drawing Checklist. Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions. 3. Hydraulic Considerations The channel was designed to carry 2,670 (cfs) and/or the 100 -year flood. The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one): ® Subcritical flow ❑ Critical flow ❑ Supercritical flow ❑ Energy grade line If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic Jump is controlled without affecting the stability of the channel. ❑ Inlet to channel [I Outlet of channel [] At Drop Structures ❑ At Transitions ❑ Other locations (specify): 4. Sediment Transport Considerations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. C. BRIDGE)CULVERT Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splittiow No.2 . Name of Structure: Paulani Make! Box Culvert 1. This revision reflects (check one): ® New bridgelculvert not modeled in the FIS ❑ Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS ❑ New analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model- used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC -2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HYB): HEC -RAS Version 3.1.1 If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could.not analyze the structures. Attach justification. 3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check the information that has been provided): ® Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length) ® Erosion Protection * Shape (culverts only) ® Low Chord Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ® Material - ® Top of Road Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ❑ Beveling or Rounding ® Structure Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ❑ Wing Wall Angle ® Stream Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ❑ Skew Angle ® Cross-Secflon Locations ® Distances Between Cross Sections 4. Sediment Transport Considerations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes JR No If yes, then fill out Section F {Sediment Transport), If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. Response to Item No. 4 Sediment Transport Characteristics for B. Channelization and C. Bridge/Culvert MT -2 Form 3 Paulani Makai CLOMR Sediment Transport was not considered. The Hawaii Belt Highway embankment and proposed upstream detention basin (by others under construction) will retain sediment and debris before entering the proposed Paulani Makai Channelization. The 100 -year flow velocities will move sediment through the proposed channel. 0 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PAYMENT INFORMATION FORM „ommunity Name: Hawaii County, Hawaii Project Identifier: Paulani Makai Channelization and Box Culvert THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED, ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FEE, TO ONE OF TWO POST OFFICE BOXES (SEE BELOW) OR FAXED TO THE FAX NUMBER BELOW. j, Type of Request: MT -1 application fee t MT -2 application fee J (Insert 3173 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) External Data Requests (EDRs) (Insert 398 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) Federal Emergency Management Agency Revisions Fee -Collection System Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, Virginia 22116 Fax: (703) 849-0282 Request No.: (if known) Amount $4,00.00 INITIAL FEE' F-1FINALFEE ❑ FEE BALANCE" E] MASTER CARD ❑ VISA ❑ CHECK ❑ MONEY ORDER `Note: Check only for EDR and/or Alluvial Fan requests (as appropriate). "Note: Check only if submitting a corrected fee for an ongoing request '-COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD EXP. DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 Month Year CARD NUMBER Date Signature NAME (AS IT APPEARS ON CARD): (please print or type) ADDRESS: (for your credit card receipt -please print or type) PHONE: 3 Survey and Mapping Information . 3.1 Field Survey Information Topographic mapping is from a survey of existing conditions upon Portion R.P. No. 6716, L.C. Aw. No. 4887, Part 2 to Thomas Sams; R. P. No. 7819, L.C. Aw. 8559-8, Apana 8 to Wm. C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159). at Puapuaaiki 1st and Puapuaanui 1st, North Kona, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii TMK: (3)7-5-17:19. The survey was performed on August 22, 2003 by Thomas G. Pattison, L. P. L. S. of Pattison Land Surveying, Inc. 3.2 Mapping The topographic mapping was provided with 1 foot contour intervals in AutoCAD format. The vertical datum was assumed from shown reference benchmark, a found nail in the centerline of the Hawaii Belt Road as referenced to mean sea level. The property boundary was provided from referenced records as listed above. Survey notes and certified topographic mapping is provided in Appendix C. 0 11 nlafn.n.WSV SDllttiDW No. 2 Technical Data Notebook J 4 Hydrology J J The regulatory flow rate of 2,670 cfs was used per the 1984 SCS "North Kona Flood Plain Study'. ... . . — ,.. I..n _....1 - n I BQIIU l U01. 5 5.1 Method Description Hydraulics 10 The portion of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 being studied is located between the Hawaii Belt Road on the east and Kuakini Highway on the west. The Drainageway regulatory FIS HEC- 2 model (FIS Section A through FIS Section J) was obtained from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. This model was originally run on April 10, 1992 using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -2 program, version 4.6.0. The study reach begins at HEC -2 Section 8 (FIS Section G - upstream of Kuakini Highway) and ends at HEC- 2 Section 11 (FIS Section J - downstream of Hawaii Belt Road). The floodplain of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is wide and flat with poorly defined banks. Trees, grasses and other vegetation grow on a lava rock bed. The Effective HEC -2 model (OVR01,dat) of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 obtained from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in September of 2003, was converted to a HEC -RAS model. The • HEC -RAS model was then updated to reflect current topography. ( The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS, Version 3.1.1 was used to conduct the hydraulic modeling. The study uses one-dimensional, steady flow, water surface profile calculations and the model is based on standard step -backwater methods using hydraulic cross-sections to describe the floodplain. The starting (initial) conditions were derived from the effective HEC -2 model at the most downstream FIS cross section. Starting water surface elevation was 6.0 feet at a downstream slope of 0.14 feet/foot for normal depth computations. 5.2 Work Study Maps This study uses new topography provided by Pattison Land Surveying, Inc., and created from field survey performed August 22, 2003. Dig itial files were created and used with 1 -foot contour intervals. The surveyed topography was supplemented with the existing FIS aerial topographic work study maps (Contour data derived from R.M. Towill Corp., Honolulu, HI, 1984 for the 1984 SCS report "North Kona Flood Plain Study"). The scale of these work study maps is 1 inch equals 400 feet with 5 -foot contour intervals at elevations below 250 feet and 10 -foot contour intervals above 250 feet (Mean sea level was the vertical reference). The KHA work study map provided as part of this report (see Appendix F) were prepared from a w;c n,oi,a .ww Snlitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook combination of digital topography and scanned images of the existing work maps. These maps are two-dimensional TIF images with no vertical component. The Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) work map is attached in Appendix F. It includes original SCS 1984 "North Kona Flood Plain Study" topographic mapping along with the existing FIS cross-section locations and floodplain and floodway boundaries. KHA has enhanced the work map to show cross-section stationing and labeling major features; The KHA project or proposed conditions water surface elevations, floodplain, and floodway are depicted on the work map. 5.3 Parameter Estimation 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients A review of the Manning's n -values used in the Effective HEC -2 model determined the values to be 0.1 within the overbank areas and 0.06 —_ 0.08 within the channel. Kimley-Horn used the same Manning's n -values as used in the Effective HEC -2 model for the HEC -RAS duplicate effective model, existing conditions model, and a portion of the proposed conditions model. The proposed conditions model channel n -value is 0.035 for the channelized section of the study reach. 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients Expansion and contraction coefficients in the Effective HEC -22 model are 0.3 and 0.1, respectively. Expansion coefficients were added at the existing culvert under the Hawaii Belt Road and the proposed box culvert in the channelized reach. Expansion and contraction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.3 respectively were used at the culverts, for the collector channel, and the upstream transition section to more accurately reflect the hydraulic characteristics at the culverts. 5.4 Cross Section Description The hydraulic HEC -2 cross-section numbers and locations remain unchanged from the Effective FIS study. It should be noted that the beginning of each cross-section line is cross-section station 100. Technical Data NoleDOOK Effective Model: The Effective HEC -2 FIS model was obtained from the Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. Kimley-Horn reproduced the effective model and executed the input file in HEC -2. The reproduced effective model is provided on disk in Appendix E. Hardcopy printouts of the data file (waiaha.dat) and output file (WAIAHA.out) are provided in Error! Reference source not found.. The following models (plans) are contained in the HEC -RAS project file (WAIAHA.prj) and are provided on CD disk in Appendix E. The disk contains all associated project files (geometry, flow, plan, run, and output). Duplicate Effective Model (Plan): This HEC -RAS plan is the imported HEC -2 effective FIS model data. No changes were made to the imported file. _Kimley-Hom checked the HEC -RAS output versus the output from the reproduced HEC -2 model. The HEC -RAS model matched the output (water surface elevations, top widths, etc.) from the HEC -2 effective model. Existing Conditions Model (Plan): (� = This HEC -RAS plan updates the duplicate effective model by the addition of cross sections and incorporates new detailed topography. The FIS sections were updated with the new detailed topography (1 -foot contour intervals) and new sections were -added in pertinent locations. The bank stations within the project limits were checked to assess their accuracy as compared to the topography on the work map. Bank stations were then adjusted in the model where appropriate. The existing conditions model ties into the effective FIS at FIS cross section G (HEC -2 model section 8) at the downstream limit and at cross section J (HEC -2 model section 11) at the upstream limit. An existing 96 -inch corrugated metal pipe culvert crossing is located at Hawaii Belt Road and the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2. This culvert was installed in 1982, prior to the 1984 FIS study. It is, however, shown in Appendix A of the North Kona Study on Sheet 6 of 13, as well as the FIS flood profile for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2, but it was not included in the HEC -2 model prepared in 1984 as provided to KHA by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. The culvert does not have the capacity for the 100 -year flood discharge for the Drainageway Both the North Kona Study and the FIS indicate that overtopping does not occur, when, as demonstrated in Kimley-Nom's hydraulic analysis, overtopping of Hawaii Belt Road does occur under the 100- j k, year event. Waiahe Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 - Technical Data Notebook J Post -Project Conditions Model (Plan): The Existing Conditions HEC -RAS Model was used to create the Post -Project or Proposed Conditions HEC -RAS plan. The post -project conditions model was created to reflect channelization of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2, the addition of a new four -barrel 10 -foot span by 10 -foot rise reinforced concrete box culvert, a new upstream collector channel, and transition section. Proposed model cross-sections are located at the same locations as in the Existing Conditions Model in addition to several new cross sections to model flow transitions and channel drops in the channelized reach. The proposed model ties into the same FIS cross sections as the existing conditions mode. 5.5 Modeling Considerations 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis The floodplain analysis was conducted according to FEMA criteria for natural channels. A sub- } critical analysis was performed to follow the Effective FIS study. Drop structures have been employed in the proposed channel as energy dissipators. The maximum drop is 3 feet. With the exception of the weirs of the drop structures, the profile remains sub -critical for the entire revised reach. 5.5.2 Bridges and Culverts There is one existing culvert at Hawaii Belt Road, and one proposed culvert located 200 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the culverts. Table 2: Culvert Summary Table 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes There are no existing or proposed levees or dikes within the study reach. 5.5.4 Islands and Flow Splits There are no islands or split flows modeled within the study reach. Technical Data Notebook 1 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas The HEC -RAS ineffective flow option partitions a cross-section between those areas that actively convey flow and those sections where water has little or no velocity. For purposes of floodplain mapping, floodwater is still shown in the ineffective flow area, but the cross-sectional area is not utilized for purposes of calculating the water surface. The only application of the ineffective flow option was applied for the Hawaii Belt Road 96 -inch culvert. 5.5.6 Supercritical Flow Supercritical flow was not modeled within the referenced reach to match the Effective FIS HEC - 2 model. 5.6 Floodway Modeling In the reach of proposed channelization, the floodway limit was set equal to the floodplain limit. Downstream of the channelization, floodway limits were defined by utilizing encroachment methods 1 and 4 in HEC -RAS. The procedure is based on calculating a natural profile as the first profile of a multiple profile run. Subsequent profiles were initially calculated with encroachment method 4. This method was used to get a rough estimate of the encroachment stations. A target increase of 1 -foot of rise was used to determine the encroachments based on equal conveyance reduction. Engineering judgment was used to refine the encroachment stations and encroachment method 1 was incorporated to define the floodway. No changes in floodplain or floodway limits were made for FIS cross sections A through G. 5.7 Problems Encountered During the Study 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions No special problems were encountered during the study. 5.7.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages There are no model error messages. The model warning messages regarding conveyance ratio, energy loss, and velocity head changes between cross-sections were reviewed. These messages usually indicate a possible need for additional cross-sections. It was determined that additional cross-sections are not necessary. The model warning messages regarding divided flow were reviewed. It was determined that no modeling adjustments were necessary. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook C-] r� 5.8 Calibration At the downstream study limit (HEC -2 Section 8 or FIS Section G) the floodplain and floodway water surface elevations and top widths match the effective FIS water surface elevations. At the upstream study limit (HEC -2 Section 11 or FIS Section J) the proposed/project floodplain and . floodway water surface elevations have been reduced over the effective FIS water surface €levatidns. The floodway encroachment stations match the effective floodway stations at downstream limit (no change). The proposed/project floodway was mapped to the channelized banks through the channelized reach of the project. This includes the transition section upstream of the new box culvert. 5.9 Final Results 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results The results of the hydraulic modeling are summarized in the tables on the following pages. Table 3: Post -Project Conditions Standard Table 1 12.3 ILSM PF 1 2670 310 324.19 324.2 0.000086 0.76 --------------------- 3824.4 571.35 0.04 12.3 PF 2 2670. 310 324.19 324.2 0.000086 0.76 3824.4 571.35 0.04 12 PF 1 2670 307 324.17 324.19 0.000397 1.33 2903.66 671.88 0.09 12 PF 2 2670 307 324.17 324.19 0.000397 1.33 2903.66 671.88 0.09 11.8 PF 1 2670 307 324.16 318.9 324.18 0.000398 1.33 2900.97 671.63 0.09 11.8 PF 2 2670 307 324.16 318.9 324.18 0.000398 1.33 2900.97 671.63 0.09 11.6 Culvert 11.4 PF 1 2670 302 313.86 313.86 314.85 0.07233 8.07 352.86 212.32 0.94 11.4 PF 2 2670 302 313.86 313.86 314.85 0.07233 8.07 352.86 212.32 0.94 670 290.5 299.29 299.3 0.00002 0.79 3384.55 385 0.05 670 290.5 299.29 299.3 0.00002 0.79 3384.55 385 0.05 Op7nl 670 290.4 299.29 299.3 0.000019 0.78 3422.95 385 0.05 6290.4 299.29 299.3 0.000019 0.78 3422.95 385 0.05 11 PFI 2670 290.4 299.24 299.29 0.000023 1.78 1502.68 170 0.11 11 PF 2 2670 290.4 299.24 299.29 0.000023 1.78 1502.68 1 170 0.11 - Technical Uata Table 3: Continued Waiaha Drainageway SplitFlow No. 2 Data Notebook 10.9 PF 1 2670 290.3 296.99 299.23 0.000132 3.94 677.73 78 0.24 10.9 PF2 2670 290.3 298.99 299.23 0.000132 3.94 677.73 78 0.24 10.65 PF 1 2670 289.95 298.4 294.72 299.17 0.000508 7.02 380.32 45 0.43 10.65 PF 2 2670 289.95 298.4 294.72 299.17 0.000508 7.02 380.32 45 0.43 10.55 Culvert 10.45 PF 1 2670 1 289.6 296.23 297.47 0.005032 8.95 298.39 45 0.61 10.45 PF2 2670 289.6 296.23 297.47 0.005032 8.95 298.39 45 0.61 10.21 PF 1 2670 289.6 294.57 294.57 297.08 0.014009 12.71 210.02 42.25 1 10.21 PF2 2670 289.6 294.57 294.57 297.08 0.014007 12.71 210.03 42.25 1 10.2 PF 1 2670 286.6 293.3 294.69 0.005669 9.45 262.5 42.17 0.64 10.2 PF2 2670 286.6 293.3 f 294.69 0.005657 9.44 282.71 42.17 0.64 , 10 PF 1 2670 286.5 292.58 291.68 294.45 0.008584 10.98 243.21 40 0.78 10 PF2 2670 286.5 292.59 291.66 294.46 0.00854 10.96 243.62 40 0.78 9.975 PF 1 1 2670 286.35 291.53 291.53 294.11 0.014012 12.9 207.02 40 9.975 PF2 2670 286.35 291.51 291.51 294.11 0.014175 12.95 206.23 40 1 - 9.97 1 PF 1 2670 1 283.35 1 289.64 - 291.39. 0.007761 10.62. 251.47 40 0.75 9.97 PF2 2670 283.35 269.64 291.39 0.007732 10.6 251.78 40 0.74 9.95 PF 1 2670. 283.2 289.4 288.38 291.2 0.008101 10.77 247.92 40 0.76 9.95 PF2 2670 283.2 289.41 288.36 291.2 0.008068 10.76 248.25 40 0.76 9.925 PF 1 2670 283.1 288.28 288.28 290.86 0.014011 12.9 207.02 40 . 1 9.925 PF2 2670 283.1 288.26 288.26 290.86 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 9.92 PF 1 2670 280.1 286.49 285.26 288.18 0.007403 10.45 255.44 40 0.73 9.92 PF2 2670 280.1 286,49 285.26 288.19 0.007376 10.44 255.75 40 0.73 9.855 PF 1 2670 279.85 285.03 285.03WO.014012 011 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.855 PF2 2670 279.85 285.01 285.014176 12.95 206.23, 40 1 9.85 PF 1 2670 276.85 263.14 282.03756 10.62 251.52 40 0.75 9.85 PF2 2670 276.85 283.15 282.01729 10.6 251.81 40 0.74 9.8 PF 1 2670 276.6 281.78 281.78012 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.8 PF2 2670 275.6 281.76 281.76 284.36 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 1 2670 273.6 280.11 281.74 0.006997 10.26 260.27 40 0.71 XPF F 2 2670 273.6 280.11 281.74 0.006973 10.25 260.57 40 0.71 Waiaha Drainageway SplitFlow No. 2 Data Notebook II Table 3: Continued J j 9.765 P912F67O27.1 273.35 278.53 278.53 281.11 0.014011 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.765 P273.35 278.51 278.51 261.11 0.014171 12.95 206.25 40 1 9.76 P270.35 276.7 278.41 0.007541 10.52 253.88 40 0.74 9.76 P70.35 276.7 278.42 0.007524 10.51 254.07 40 0.73 9.75 P270 276.6 278.19 0.0.osm 10.11 264.12 40 0.69' 9.75 P270 276.61 278.19 0.00668 10.1 264.32 40 0.69 9.735 P270.1, 275.28 275.28 277.86 0.014012 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.735 PF 2 1 2670 270.1 275.26 275.26 277.86 0.014174 12.95 205.24 J 40 1 9.73 PF 1 2670 267.1 273.29 272.28 275.09 0.008146 10.79 247.47 40 0.76 9.73 PF 2 2670 267.1' 273.3 272.26 275.1 0 .0081 11 10.77 247.82 40 0.76 9.715 PF 1 2670 267 272.18 272.18 274.76 0.014013 12.9 207.01 40 1 9.715 PF 2 2670 267 272.15 272.16 274.76 0.014175 12.95 206.23 40 1 9.71 PF 1 2670 1 264 11 270.56 272.17 0.006832 10.16 262.36 40 0.7 9.71 PF 2 2670 264 270.56, 272.17 0.00682 10.17 262.5 40 6.7 9.65 PF 1 2670 263.6 269.91 268.78 271.65 0.007675 10.58 252.4 40' 0.74 9.65 PF 2 2670 263.6 269.92 268.76 271.65 0.007647 10.57 252.7 40 0.74 9.635 PF 1 2670 263.5 268.67 266.67 271.26 0.014017 12.9 206.99 40 1 9.635 PF 2 2670 263.5 268.66 268.66 271.26 0.014176 12.95 206.23 40 1 9.63 PF 1 2670 260.5 267.44 268.88 0.005761 9.61 277.71 40 0.64 9.63 PF 2 2670 260.5 267.45 268.88 0.005741 9.6 278.04 40 0.64 9.55 PF 1 2670. 259.73 264.9 264.9 - 267.49 0.014019 12.9 206.98 40 1 9.55 PF 2 2670 259.73 264.89 264.89 267.49 0.014172 12.95 206.25 9.54 PF 1 2670 256.73 263.73 265.14 0.005627 9.54 279.91 40 0.64 9.54 PF 2 2670 256.73 263.74 265,15 0.005607 9.53 280.23 40 I0.63 9.46 PF 1 2670 256 261.17 261:17 263.76 0.014022 . 12.9 _ 206.97 40 1 9.46 PF 2 2670 256 261.16 261.16 1 263.76 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 9.45 PF 1 2670 253 260.05 261.44 0.005502 9.47 262.02 40 0.63 9.45 PF 2 2670 253 260.06 261.45 0.005483 9.46 282.34 40 0.63 9.36 PF 1 2670 252.1 257.27 257.27 259.86 0.014027 12.9 206.94 40 1 9.36 PF 2 2670 252.1 1 257.26 257.26 259.86 0.014171 12.95 206.25 40 1 9.35 PF 1 2670 249.08 255.6 254.25 257.23 0.006968 10.24 260.63 40 0.71 9.35 PF 2 2670 249.08 255.6 254.24 257.23 0.006949 10.24 260.87 40 0.71 Mroinan.WAV Rnlitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Table 3: Continued 9.31 PF 1 2670 248.7 253.87 253.87 256.46 0.014052 12.91 206.82 40 1 9.31 PF 2 2670 248.7 253.86 253.86 256.46 0.014169 12.94 206.26 40 1 9.3 PF 1 2670 245.7 252.88 254.22 0.005209 9.3 287.23 40 0.61 9.3 PF 2 2670 245.7 '252.89 254.23 0.005197 9.29 287.46 40 0.61 9.05 PF 1 2670 244]3 249.9 - 249.9 1 262.49 0.014068 12.91 206.76 40.01 1 9.05 PF 2 2670 244.73 249.89 249.89 252.49 0.014169 12.94 206.28 40.01 1 9.04 PF 1 2670 241.73 248.01 246.9 249.760.007792 10.63 251.15 40.01 0.75 9.04 PF 2 2670 241.73 248.01 249.76 0.007789 10.63 251.19 40.01 0.75 9 1 PF 1 2670 241.55 246.72 1 246.72 249.31 0.014063 12.91 206.78 40.01 1 9 PF 2 2670 241.55 246.72 246.7 249.31 0.014045 12.91 206.87 40.01 1 8.8 PF 1 2670 241.05 245.87 245.87 247.49 1 0.010109 11.27 401.41 152 0.91 8.8 PF 2 2670 241.05 245:85S.046734 47.81 0.012243 12.04 306.15 80.19 0.97 8.7 PF 1 2670 237 241.21242.08 0.044401 7.49 356.47 166.83 0.9 . 8.7 PF 2 2670 237 241.39242.13 0.033749 6.89 387.37 168.56 0.8 8.4 PF 1 2670 228 233.73.34.52 0.053548 7.38 413.88 264.75 0. 8.4 PF 2 2670 228. 233.59.34.74 0.071408 8.61 310.13 135 1 200.4100.74 0.008475 4.58 582.65, 204.09 0.48 200,3400.77 0.008625 5.27 506.2 142 0.49 U22670 194.9395.57 0.04724 6.93 385.04 263.26. 1.01 194.995.68 0.046734 7.05 378.52 250 1.01 6 PF 1 2670 185 186.75 186.75 187.59 0.044476 7.39 361.2 213.96 1 6 PF 2 2670 185 186.74 186.74 187.59 0.044733 7.41 360.56 213.94 1.01 5 PF 1 2670 140 - 144.29 144.06 145.11 0.055216 7.25 368.13 171.61 0.87 5 PF 2 2670 140 144.17 144.17 145.59 0:070176 9.56 279.15 100 1.01 4 PF 1 2670 90 92.76 92.76 93.47 0.048345 6.75 395.75 286.91 1.01 4 PF 2 2670 90 93.36 93.15 94.5 0.031508 8.56 311.75 110 0.9 3 PF 1 2670 54 55.41 55.23 55.64 0.029495 3.87 689.62 794.01 0.73 3 PF 2 2670 54 55.78 55.78 56.59 0.046217 7.23 369.05 230 1.01 2 PF 1 2670 40 43.62 42.34 43.73 0.055828 2.61 1023.64 565.13 0.34 2 PF 2 2670 40 44.32 42.32 44.46 0.032091 3.04 879.69 250 0.2 1 PF 1 2670 5 5.85 5.52 5.95 0.140108 2.5 1067.56 1250 0.48 1 PF 2 2670 5 6.16 6.16 6.75 0.565637 6.14 434.76 375 1.01 Waiaha Drainageway Splitllow No. 2 i ecnnicai vasa i J J Table 4: Post -Project Conditions Culvert Results 12 PF 1 324.19 324.17 0.02 0 0 815.1 1446.68 408.22 671.88 12 PF 2 324.19 324.17 0.02 0 0 815.1 1446.68 408.22 671.88 11.8 PF 1 324.18 324.15 0.02 814.74 1447.17 408.09 671.63 11.8 PF 2 324.18 324.16 0.02 814.74 1447.17 406.09 671.63 11:6 Gulvert 11.4 PF 1 314.85 313.86 0.99 D 0.49 42.08 2600 27.92 212.32 11.4 PF 2 314.85 313.86 W*1 0 0.49 42.08 2600 27.92 212.32 11.3 PF 1 299.3 299.29 0.01 0 0 2670 385 11.3 PF 2 299.3 299.29 0.01 0 0 2670. 385 10.9 PF 1 299.23 298.99 0.24 0.01 0.05 2670 78 10.9 PF 2 299.23 298.99 0.24 0.01 0.05 2670 78 10.65 PF 1 299.17 298.4 0.77 2670 45 10.65 PF 2 299.17 298.4 0.77 2670 45 10.55 Culvert 10.45 PF 1 297.47 296.23 1.24 0.27 0.13 2670 45 10.45 PF 2 297.47 296.23 1.24 0.27 0.13 2670 45 10.21 PF 1 297.08 294.57 2.51 0.01 0.34 2670 42.25 10.21 PF 2 297.08 294.57 2.51 0.01 0.34 2670 42.25 5.9.2 Verification of Results A review of the results indicates a reasonable water surface profile for the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 study reach. A review of calculated flow velocities in each hydraulic model indicates that they fall in a reasonable range given the physical characteristics of the proposed channelization project. Floodway revisions are supported with the hydraulic modeling performed. Waiaha Drainageway SplitFlow No. 2 Flnnrinlain Delineation Study 16 Technical Data Notebook 6 Erosion and Sediment Transport . This section does not apply to this study. 1, Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 17 Technical Data Notebook 7 FIS Report Data 7.1 Summary of Discharges No revisions were made to the effective Flood Insurance Study Summary of Discharges. The 100 -year discharge used in this CLOMR application through the entire study reach was 2,670 cis (see SCS 1984 "North Kona Flood Plain Study"). Waiaha Drainageway SplitFlow No. 2 18 Technical Uata Note000K 7.2 Floodway Data Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 19 Technical Data Notebook }2 QW W IAC (D�00 X000 rc 000QooQooa z Z Q z 3 O c7007N1� m M1� O N x'01 O � LL V OO1�t000 N N N N w = 3 > W z w a w LL y LL a— 7 U) >3 V t4v0 W = 00 Ci p7p(ON0) fM to tV V w m O v o m 2 30 voa-- --NNN N W 0 °o J LL O V6 m g m O V r O N W g NjNK co V 0 Nm .d. 0 W v of O O V m m N N N N m W C > O F Z O ou W h O N��stO za "'I mom 6C46.= LL Q W W a LL O m N Ol Of (O 1� Z W Ow cD CD I�O� OOY O Oc7 SNC') M NN N� Q W � 3 y� O O O LL O O 3 LL S N N N N w Z z O O O O O O O N� V O O O t n O t n O N v~i �c`rNMMM<�� W 'p U z 0 O y r U � Z z N. O N 1 O c Z c uwi W LL (D S a LL N J C U y >m > LL LL }2 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Maps Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Floodplain Delineation Stndv 20 Technical Data P5: _ <4 f F B I BOTANICAL SURVEY PUALANI MAKAI NORTH KONA, HAWAI'I 05 Winona P. Char CHAR & ASSOCIATES Botanical Consultants Honolulu, Hawai'i Prepared for: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT INC. October 2003 APPENDIX C COP1 • BOTANICAL SURVEY PUALANI MAKAI NORTH KONA, HAWAI'I by Winona P. Char CHAR & ASSOCIATES Botanical Consultants Honolulu, Hawai'i Prepared for: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT INC. October 2003 APPENDIX C copy E BOTANICAL SURVEY PUALANI MAKAI NORTH KONA, HAWAII INTRODUCTION The approximately 63.4 -acre Pualani Makai project site is located on TMK: 7-5-17: Parcels 1, 19, 23, 25, and 26. The project site is bounded by a plant nursery to the north, the Hawaii Belt Road to the east, a medical/dental office complex to the south, and Kuakini Highway to the west. Elevation ranges from about 215 feet above mean sea level (msl) along its northwest corner to about 335 feet msl at its southeast corner. Substrate on the Pualani Makai project site consists of pahoehoe , lava overlain by well -drained, shallow soils; low,. rocky outcroppings are scattered throughout the site (Sato et al. 1973). The vegetation on the site is typical of that found on the lower slopes around Kailua-Kona and consists of woodland and scrub forest dominated, by trees of kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and 'opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce) and koa haole or ekoa (Leucaena leucocephala) shrubs. Field studies to assess the botanical resources on the ±63.4 -acre project site were conducted on 04 September 2003 by a team of two botanists. The primary objectives of the field studies were to: 1) prepare a general description of the vegetation on the site; 2) inventory the flora; 3) search for threatened and endangered species as well as species of concern; and 4) identify areas of potential environmental problems or concerns and propose appropriate mitigation measures. 06AIMMIDION. M Prior to undertaking the field studies, a search was made of the pertinent literature to familiarize the principal investigator with other botanical studies conducted in the general area. A topographic map and a recent, colored, oblique aerial photograph were examined to determine vegetation cover patterns, terrain characteristics, access, boundaries, and reference points. A walk-through (pedestrian) survey method was used; the project site is easily accessed from the highways which border the east and west boundaries. In the field, notes were made on plant associations and distribution, substrate types; disturbances, drainage, exposure, topography, etc. Plant identifications were made in the field; plants which could not be positively identified were collected for later determination in the herbarium, and for comparison with the most recent taxonomic literature. The species recorded are indicative of the season ("rainy" vs. "dry") and the environmental conditions at the time of the survey. A survey taken at a different time of the year, and under varying environmental conditions would no doubt yield slight variations in the species list, especially of the weedy, annual plants. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION An earlier botanical study of the project site was made by Whistler in 1990. This study included the easement along Kuakini Highway and part of the new reservoir site. For the most part, the vegetation composition has not changed significantly since the 1990 study. The vegetation consists of kiawe and 'opiuma forest with scattered koa haole thickets. However, the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) now forms a very N dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. • Tree canopy cover is from 40 to 60% on the project site with the kiawe and 'opiuma trees 15 to 30 feet tall; some of the larger kiawe trees, especially on the northwest portion of the property, can reach 45 feet in height. Thickets of koa haole shrubs, 5 to 12 feet tall, are scattered here and there. Along.the western half of the project site, however, koa haole thickets, 18 to 20 feet tall, become abundant and make up 50% of the woody cover. Dense, tall, robust clumps of Guinea grass dominate the understory especially on those areas with soil. Most of the other species tend to occur on the rocky outcroppings where there is less competition from the Guinea grass. On these areas, succulent, annual species such as fameflower (Talinum fruticosum), pigweed (Portulaca oleracea), Portulaca pilosa, and air plant (Bryophyllum pinnatum) as well as other weedy herbs including false mallow (Malvastrum coromandelianum), Sida cordi£olia; 'uhaloa (Waltheria indica), wild spider flower (Cleome gynandra), etc., are common to abundant. Prickly shrubs of lantana (Lantana camara), 3 to 4 feet tall, are locally common in areas with shallow, stony soil. The larger rock outcroppings are covered by lichens. A few native species are associated: with these larger outcroppings. These are the 'ilihe'e (Plumbago zeylanica), a scandent shrub with clusters of white flowers; koali 'awa (Ipomoea indica), a member of the morning glory family with pink to pale blue flowers; and 'ala'ala wai nui (Peperomia blanda var. floribunda), a small succulent with fuzzy leaves. An inventory of all the plants observed on the project site during the field studies is presented in the checklist at the end of this report. 0 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Pualani Makai project site has been used for grazing cattle for a long time. As a result, the vegetation is dominated by introduced or alien species such as kiawe, 'opiuma, koa haole, and Guinea grass. Introduced species are all those plants which were brought to the islands by humans, intentionally or accidentally, after Western contact, that is, Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are 'uhaloa, 'ilihe'e, 'ilima (Sida fallax), koali 'awa, and 'ala.'ala wai nui. In the earlier 1990 botanical survey, the five native species mentioned above as well as kakalaioa (Caesalpinia bonduc), spurflower (Plectranthus parviflorus), and one plant of alahe'e (Psydrax odorata) were reported from the project site. All of these plants are indigenous, that is, they are native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere. None of.the plants recorded from the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a, 1999b; Wagner et al. 1999). All of the plants can be found in similar dry, lowland, disturbed habitats throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In conclusion, the proposed development of the Pualani Makai site is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. 4 LITERATURE CITED Evenhuis, N.L. and L.G. Eldredge, editors. 1999-2002. Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers Nos. 58-70. Sato, H.H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil survey of the island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1999a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list, plants. March 23, 1999. Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. December 31, 1999. Wagner, W.L., M.M. Bruegmann, D.R. Herbst; and J. Q.C. Lau. 1999. Hawaiian vascular plants at risk: 1999. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers No. 60. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii. 2 vols. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop.Museum Press, Honolulu. Bishop Museum Special Publication 83. Wagner, W.L. and D.R. Herbst. 1999. Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii, pp. 1855-1918. In Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst,. and S.H. Sohmer, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii. Revised edition. 2 vols. University of Hawai'i Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Whistler, A. (Char & Associates). 1990. Phase II, North Kona District, Hawai'i August 1990. 5 Botanical survey, Pualani Development -- Prepared for S. Fuke & Associates. J PLANT SPECIES LIST -- Pualani Makai The following checklist is an inventory of all the plants observed on the Pualani Makai project site during the field studies. The plant species are arranged alphabetically by families into each of two groups: Dicots and Monocot.s. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the flowering plants are in accordance with Wagner et al. (1990) and Wagner and Herbst (1999). The few recent name changes are those reported in the Hawaii Biological Survey series (Evenhuis and Eldridge, editors, 1999-2002). For each species, the following information is provided: 1. Scientific name with author citation. 2. Common English. and/or Hawaiian name(s), when known. 3. Biogeographic status. The following symbols are used: I = indigenous = native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere. I? = questionably indigenous = data not clear if dispersal to the islands by natural or human -related mechanisms, but but weight of evidence suggests probably natural. X = introduced or alien = all those plants brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans after Western contact, that is, Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778. I Scientific name Common name Status DICOTS ACANTHACEAE (Acanthus family) Barleria cristata L. barleria X AMARANTHACEAE (Amaranthus family) Amaranthus spinosus L. spiny amaranth, pakai. kuku X Amaranthus viridis L. slender amaranth, pakai X ANACARDIACEAE (Mango family) Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi Christmas berry, wiielaiki X APOCYNACEAE (Dogbane family) Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don periwinkle X ARISTOLOCHIACEAE (Birthwort family) Aristolochia littoralis Parodi Dutchman's pipe, pelican flower X ASCLEPIADACEAE (Milkweed family) Stapelia gigantea N.E. Brown carrion flower, Zulu giant X ASTERACEAE (Daisy family) Bidens pilosa L. Spanish needle, beggar's tick X Emilia fosbergii Nicolson flora's paintbrush, pualele X Tridax procumbens L. coat buttons X CACTACEAE (Cactus family) Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. panini, papipi X CAPPARACEAE (Caper family) Cleome gynandra L. wild spider flower, hoho.hina X CARICACEAE.(Papaya family) Carica papaya L. papaya, mikana X CLUSIAC-EAE (Mangosteen family) Clusia rosea Jacq. autograph tree, copey, Scotch attorney X CONVOLVULACEAE (Morning glory family) Ipomoea indica (J. Burm.) Merr. koali 'awa, koali 'awahia I Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gawl. field bindweed X CRASSULACEAE.(Orpine family) Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Oken air plant, life plant, 'oliwa ku kahakai X rl Scientific name Common name Status CUCURBITACEAE (Gourd family) Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt coccinia, ivy gourd X. Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach wild cucumber, hedgehog gourd, teasel gourd X Momordica charantia L. wild bittermelon X EUPHORBIACEAE (Spurge family) Chamaesyce hirta (L:) Millsp. hairy spurge, garden spurge X Phyllanthus tenellus Roxb. X Ricinus communis L. castor bean, koli, pa'aiia X FABACEAE (Pea family) Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. klu X Chamaecrista nictitans (.L.) Moench partridge pea, lauki X Crotolaria incana L. fuzzy rattlepod, kukaehoki X Desmanthus pernambucanus (L.) Thellung slender mimosa X Desmodium tortdosum'(Sw.) DC Florda beggarweed X Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. indigo, 'iniko X Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit koa haole, ekoa X 1 Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. 'opiums X Prosopis pallida (Numb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Kunth kiawe X Senna occidentalis (L.) Link coffee senna, 'auko'i X LAMIACEAE (Mint family) Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) R. Br. lion's ear X MALVACEAE (Mallow family) Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet hairy abutilon X Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke false mallow, hauuoi X Sida cordifolia L. X Sida fallax Walp. 'ilima I Sida rhombifolia L. Cuba jute X Sida spinosa L. prickly Sida X MORACEAE (Mulberry family) Ficus elastica Roxb. ex Hornem. Indian rubber tree X Ficus microcarpa L.f. Chinese banyan X NYCTAGINACEAE (Four-o'clock family) Boerhavia coccinea Mill. X E Scientific name Common name Status . PASSIFLORACEAE (Passion flower family) Passiflora foetida L. running pop, pohapoha PHYTOLACCACEAE (Pokeweed family) Rivina humilis L. PIPERACEAE (Pepper family) Peperomia blanda var. floribunda (Miq.) H. Huber PLUMBAGINACEAE (Leadwort family) Plumbago zeylanica L. PORTULACACEAE (Purslane family) Portulaca oleracea L. Portulaca pil.osa L. Talinum fruticosum (L.) Juss. RUTACEAE (Citrus family) Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack STERCULIACEAE (Cacao family) Waltheria indica L. TILIACEAE (Linden family) Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq VERBENACEAE (Verbena family) Lantana camara L. Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl MONOCOTS COMMELINACEAE (Spiderwort family) Commelina benghalensis L. POACEAE (Grass family) Chloris barbata (L.) Sw. Eleusine indica (L..) Gaertn. Melinis minutiflora (Willd.) Zizka Panicum maximum Jacq: Pennisetum.setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov. coral berry, rouge plant 'ala'ala wai nui 'ilie'e, hilie'e pigweed, 'akulikuli kula talinum, fameflower mock orange 'uhaloa, hi'aloa, kanakaloa bur bush lantana, lakana Jamaica vervain, owi, of hairy honohono swollen fingergrass, mau'ulei wiregrass, manienie ali'i Natal redtop, Natal grass Guinea grass fountain grass 9 EI X I I X X X X 1? • I V PHR May 28, 2004 Project 2290 Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Historical • Cultural Resource FILA' Studies & services 224 Waianuenue Avenue • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 969-1763 - FAX (808) 961-6998 P.O. Box 23305 • G.M.F., Guam 96921 • (671) 472-3117 • FAX (671) 472-3131 Dr. P. Holland McEldowney, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division Kakuhihewa Building Room 555 601 KamokilaBoulevard Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 Subect: Submissionfor Review PHBI Report 2290-060104(4 Draft) Pualani Makai Project Land ofPuapuaa 1 and 2, North Kona District Island ofHawai'i (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26) Dear Dr. McEldowney: Enclosed for your approval is a copy of PHR1 Report 2290-060104, for the Pualani Makai project in North Kona. This is the latest revised version (4" Draft) addressing the review comments in your letter dated 20 April 2004; Log Na2004.1248; Doc No:0404MM04). For your convenience, your review comments are reproduced here (attached), and we have individually addressed each comment Thank you for your assistance on this project If you have any questions, please call me at our main Hilo office (808)969-1763. sincerely your, Paul H. Rosendahl; Pfi D. President and Principal Archaeologist Enol: One bound copy ofFHJUReport 2290-060104 Attachment: SHPD Review Comments and PHRI Responses cc: Bill Brooks, Wesipro Development, Inc., without report MaryAnne Maigret, SHPD Kona Office, with report APPENDIXD-.1 Attachment (current responses are in blue) Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (third Draft) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Makai Project (Carlson and Rosendahl, Match 2064, PHRI Report 2290-030104) Ahupuaa of Puapuaa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3)7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26 (Carlson and Rosendah12004) Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 4 Review and Clarification of Site Function Uncertainties: In our December 16, 2003 review letter, we asked for additional work to determine the total number of features on the subject property. Appendix D, Page D-8, "Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features" addresses this request We believe the new discussion of feature types and density within each of the eight surveyed zones provides a much better indication of the density and distribution of the mounds and modified outcrops on the subject property. Over 1, 000 modified outcrops and mounds are described. Modified outcrops outnumber mounds, and although differences in density and distribution are described, these differences are attributed to either topographic conditions or previous land disturbance from cattle ranching. You report that the presumed agricultural features do not cluster around presumed habitation complexes. While the additional fieldwork conducted in February 2004 was successful in confirming the relative abundance and general distribution patterns of what you call "minor" agricultural features in the project area, there is no . interpretation of the data in terms of the number of sites and their significance. You need to provide a discussion of the number of sites that might be represented and their significance, and also include recommended site treatments. We believe that given the large number of features some additional work is warranted to investigate agricultural practices and the relationship of the agricultural features to sites you have interpreted as residential. PHRI Response: PHRI has amended the report to state that the over one thousand mounds and outcrops in the project area are part of a single site - the Kona Field System (SIHP Site 6601). We have added information concerning the significance of the Site 6601 features and recommended site treatments in the Conclusion section. We do not understand what the additional investigations might constitute, and for what purpose. Please provide guidance on this matter. We are currently recommending no further workfor the features. Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 7: Previous Archaeological Work Amendix D The remainder of your attachment responds to our request that you integratelreconcile the Rechtman 2002 study with your inventory report one of the particular items we wanted you to address was Rechtman's comments regarding Sites 14123, 14124, and 14126, which he believed aright be a complex of ceremonial features. Presently, you consider 14123 to be a habitation/agriculture site (no longer ceremonial), an excellent example of a site type, and have recommended it for preservation. Site 14124 is considered a habitationlagriculture/burial complex, significant under Criterion C, D and E. only the burial feature is recommended for preservation. No further work is recommended for the other two sites. Site 14126 is presently considered an historic feature related to sugar cane cultivation (the possible burial tested negative), and no further work is recommended. PFIRI Response: We assume you mean "no further work is recommended for the other two features. - The current recommendation is that Site 14124 undergo detailed mapping, and Site 14123 undergo excavation at Feature C, the enclosure. Site 14126 is not considered a historic feature relating to sugar cane cultivation. Appendix D, page 6, stated "it is possible; therefore, that Site 14126, Feature B, relates to historic sugar cane and associated railroad activities; it is not possible, however, to confirm this. " PHRI will test Site 14126, Feature A, the enclosure, in order to provide information concerning research questions being formulated for the data recovery plan. It is possible that this may provide information concerning Feature B possibly being used as a historic loading platform. You do not support a hypothesis for ceremonial use at any of these sites. Attachment, Page 2, Paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14123, you state that "We believe the original (our emphasis) PM interpretation that the site was for habitation/agriculture should stand for the following reasons: Your argument is based on 1) the presence of seven "planting areas or water catchment areas in the near vicinity of the site, 2) A lack of vital criteria by which heiau can be discerned 3) The presence of a burial in Site 14124 does not make it a heiau. You have also collected new evidence, and argue that Site 14126 is related to historic sugar cultivation and a railroad line. PHRI Response: We reiterate that only Feature B, Site 14126, may be related to historic sugar cultivation and a railroad line; Feature A of Site 14126 is a prehistoric enclosure. We believe the original site description in your Inventory Survey for Sites 14123 and 14124 should be reviewed: Sites 14123 and 14124 are lame complexes centered around large pahcehoe and as bedrock outcrops (See Figures 6-10 and B-12 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments. They both have well-built walls which extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However,the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5 by 5 meter area on the edge of 1 the outcrop that is paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This area grades off into jumbled rubble and boulders, yet a large area in the vicinity of these paved area is quite open and level. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The finrction of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function. The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop itself has a large enclosure -like form The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large, essentially rectangular platform. This feature has been interpreted as a possible burial platform. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to any other site in the project area and warrant extensive further work and possibly preservation "as is." The evolving review and interpretation of these sites, evaluation of their significance, and their recommended treatments over the last three drafts is as follows: 1992 Original Draft: PHRI presents site description for 14123 with two features thought to be ceremonial. Table 11 lists Site 14123 as significant under Criteria C, D, and provisionally under E. Provisionally recommended for preservation with interpretive development 2nd draft, (2003) Site description and Table D-1, dated January 2003, Site 14123 becomes significant under Criterion C and D only following negative results for burial in Feature E. Site is still recommended for preservation with interpretive development. 3rd Draft (2004) Site 14123 still considered significant under Criterion C and D, is recommended for both no father work and preservation "as is. " V The original interpretation of 14123 was ceremonial. It is only in the third draft when the ceremonial designation is . not supported. Our understanding was that the ceremonial aspect of the site was tied to the large pahoehoe pavement at Feature A, not to the possible burial at Feature E. The only new information concerns the absence of a burial there, so we are not sure why this change was made. PILU Response: After receiving your latest review letter, a careful review of the site was made, and PMU visited the site several times in order to better understand the site's function. This led to the conclusion that the site may have had a ceremonial aspect. This is primarily due to the fact that when the site was recently inspected, in April 2004, it was found that some of the large pahoehoe slabs at Feature A may have been placed there, due to the presence of what appeared to be paving beneath some of the slabs. Other large slabs, however, appeared natural, having been partially broken from the surface by geological uplift (see revised Conclusion section). Rechtman suggested that not only was 14123 a possible ceremonial site, but that Sites 14124 and 14126 may be related complexes, and therefore, ceremonial in nature as well. We believe that the link between 14123 and 14124 should be explored further, and pending the outcome of our discussion below of Site 14126, additional work at 14126 might be necessary, but to answer different research questions. Response: We have examined the information for the sites and have visited the sites, and we have concluded that no link is apparent. Proximity is not a factor, the sites are 75-100 feet from each other, many other sites in the project area are 7_s-100 feet fi-om each other. When comparing the two sites, Site 14124 has walls, a burial, and several depressions. Site 1413 has walLs, several depressions, a possible ceremonial "stage, " and habitation caves. That these two sites have walls and depressions in common does not seem to its to warrant the conclusion that they therefore are linked, as these feature types are not uncommon at other sites in tie project area. The fact that Site 14123 may be a ceremonial site is not proof of a link with a nearby site, but rather the opposite: it points out rhe uniqueness of the site . In short, we cannot justify that the three sites are related, and therefore we are not stating this in the report PHRI will however, allow that Site 14123 may have had a ceremonial aspect and may be a heiau, based on the archaeological evidence, and we have revised the report to reflect this. PHRI will excavate Feature C at Site 14123 (at SHPD request for further research), and Feature A at Site 14126 (for different research goals) in the hope that this may provide farther information concerning the function of the sites. With respect to 14123 and 141.24, we offer the following comments on your three arguments against any ceremonial function for these two sites: First PMU argument against ceremonial function: 1) Recently, on 2/16104, PHRI re -inspected Site 14123. At least seven planting areas or water catchment areas were noted in the near vicinity of the site. These are holes in as lava bedrock that measure approximately 1 to 15 in wide by 1.5 to 2.0 in in depth. They were not aligned or patterned in any way, and are not judged to be foundation holes for haku lele, due to their size and random distribution. The site description for 14123, Feature A, mentions three "faced depressions" that "may have served as water catchment depressions." The map for 14123 does not depict these features. If you now note seven of these features, they, along with the originally reported depressions, should be portrayed on a map before conclusions about their distribution or patterning can be discussed, or their presumed function. Certainly, the presence of pit features does not in itself indicate ceremonial function, but we feel their presence within the overall context of the site should be further explored. PHRI Response: As noted, theplanting areas were in the vicinity of Feature A, but were not mapped in as being a part of the site. We will map the pit features during data recovery work, and also examine the implications of these features. We're also not convinced that you have any evidence for assigning agricultural use to these pits. Given the presence of over a thousand small planting features and soil on this property, what unique purpose would two -meter deep pits serve in proximity to the slab pavement and burial platform at 14123 and 14124, respectively? They are noted also at Site 14102, Feature C, but the depths are not provided so their similarity to these pits is not known. PHRI Response: We agree they could be water catchment pits or they could be agricultural pits. Your reference to the "over a thousand small planting features" is incorrect The thousand or so modified outcrops and clearing mounds are the result of clearing the area ofstones; in other words, they are only "agricultural" in that they are the result of clearing land to create areas suitable for planting. We have nor suggested that the features themselves were used for agriculture. Second PHRI argument against ceremonial function: Rechtman does not state the criteria by which he has judged Site 14123 to be a heiau. The SHPD has repeatedly stated that judgmental criteria must be given in the order to support a site'. s function. Site 14123, in our opinion, does not meet the criteria for heiau Hammatt et al. (1997) compiled a list of heiau attributes, drawing from sources such as Bennett (1930), Valerie (1985), Kirch (1985), Kolb (1991), and Stokes and Dye (1991). The attributes included upright stones and branch coral, prominent location on bluff and cliff tops, historic references, area, and architectural attributes, which include depressions (used for bone pits or to support idols), altars, paving, multiple levels or tiers, and large, free-standing walls. Site 14123 meets only one of the criteria: its location on a bluff. Comment: We disagree. If you apply the criteria you mention, it is arguable that the architectural attributes, paving, depressions, and prominent topographic location criteria are met if you apply the criteria to Site 14124 as well, it includes prominent topographic location, depressions, and free standing walls PHRI Response: We'd like to point out that the sites are not on prominent bluffs, as suggested earlier. They are, rather, on upthrusted areas of bedrock that more or less resemble huge outcrops. The only criteria that the sites meet are architectural: the site/sites have pits, paving, and multiple levels, which are also common features in many sites. As mentioned earlier, however, PHRI has allowed that the site may be a possible heiau, and this is noted in the Conclusions. Third PHRI argument against ceremonial fimction Concerning Rechtman's statement that Sites 14124, 14123 and 14126 form a complex, again no arguments are presented by Rechtman to substantiate this. Site 14124 contains a burial, but this alone is not sufficient to make it part of a complex, since isolated burials can and do exist in many locations. Proximity of the three sites is also certainly not a criteria, since there are other sites all over the project area with similar distances between them. We do not think you should dismiss a possible relationship between these sites - .PH Response: PHRI maintains that the evidence that these sites are associated is lacking to the point where we would rather not speculate. Perhaps the planned data recovery work at the sites will provide some useful information with which to address this topic. Burial function and proximity are not the only aspects of this site to consider. The original PHRI site description finds them both `unique within the project area," both sites are nestled into the same boulder outcrop feature, and similar types of pits are described in both sites PMU Response: The sites are not "nestled into the same boulder outcrop feature. " They are on separate outcrops of the same general type. Yes, they are unique in their settings, but one must keep in mind that their similar settings may have, in essence, more to do with the vagaries of geological formation, rather than the conscious actions of humans. The condition of the skeletal remains at 14124 Feature C suggests it is not a typical interment, and this, coupled with the possible ceremonial use of 14123 Feature A, is interesting. PHRI Response: It's true that that remains are not typical, but neither are they uncommon. We also feel you should examine 14124 Feature B, the walls, with a more critical eye and explain what the "boundary" interpretation is all about What is the wall demarcating? PHRI Response: We aren't sure what the "boundary" interpretation is, since an emlanation is not given in the original survey report; however, bared on the information available it may be delineating a boundary of the complex itself, since it was thought the sites may represent a complex. Perhaps rhe function of the wall will become clearer after re-mapping and reexamination during data recovery work Since both sites are assessed as significant under Criterion D and Criterion C, and Site 14124 is now significant under Criterion E because of its burial function, we feel both sites should be recommended for preservation with additional mapping and excavation to provide better interpretation and to justify adequate preservation buffers. PHRI Response: As mentioned, additional mapping and excavation will be done during data recovery work, and Site 14123 and Site 14124-C (burial) are recommended forpreservation. Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph I Concerning Site 14126 and its relationship to Site 14123 (as hypothesized by Rechtman), you offer an alternative interpretation of this site, which you feel discourages the interpretation that Sites 14123, 14124 and 14126 fora a complex. You believe Site 14126 may be related to historic sugar cane cultivation and associated railroad activities because you found a railroad tie and a piece of railroad engine equipment near the site, and the platform resembles those documented by Hunt and McDermott (1993) in the Puainako Street Extension Project This is quite interesting and a topic worth exploring in the regions of Kona where sugar was produced. Please clarify if your intent is to suggest that sugar was cultivated on or near the subject property, or, if the loading platform idea connects to transportation networks for sugar products unrelated to the growing areas. We're puzzled at your statement that "A review of a portion of the 1928 USGS Kailua Quadrangle depicts a railroad (sugarcane) line on the subject property in approximately the same area as Site 14126." We are not aware of any studies documenting a rail line at this elevation The West Hawaii Railroad, which was associated with sugar cultivation in the mauka regions of North Kona, is at a higher elevation in this ahupua'a. If you wish to pursue this interpretation you need to provide not only the map you believe depicts a rail line on the subject property, but some supporting historical documentation as well. You also need to provide photos of the railroad equipment and a reference for your interpretation of these artifacts. You may want to expand your discussion, as such a finding would have significant implications for the interpretation of functional and age for other features on the property as well. PHRI Response: We don't wish to pursue this further. We merely wished to state that the fact that a railroad rail and a possible piece of railroad equipment was found, and the fact that the platform resembles those documented by Hunt and McDermott (1993) in the Puainako Street Extension Project, is interesting and may provide another explanation for the existence of the platform. It is true that it is difficult to tell from the 1928 map exactly where the railroad line is. J Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph 5 Our apologies for our mistake in stating the total number of platforms identified in the survey. You correctly point out that Table 2, not Table It, indicates there were 13 identified in the initial survey. (There is a Table 11, by the way, it is on Pages 40-41, Titled "Rationale for Site Significance and Treatment") We understand that no new platforms were identified during the most recent fieldwork We appreciate your field staff having compared the Rechtman field notes and sketch map to PHRI sites in the field - we understand this was a challenging task in light of the absence of clear field markings of the sites observed by Dr. Rechtman. Of the thirteen platforms, four were tested. Of the four, one, Site 14124 Feature C tested positive for human remains. All of the remaining platforms are recommended for data recovery. We feel the additional untested platforms cannot be ruled out as burial features and should therefore be subjected to testing before we approve this report, or, a functional interpretation of possible burial" applied, so that any additional burials identified during the additional work can be incorporated into your Burial Treatment Plan with a determination from the Hawaii Island Burial Council. PIIRI Response: It may be worthwhile to review the individual platform site descriptions. These are provided as an attachment to this letter. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (the features/sites in the site descriptions have been assigned numbers) are built upon bedrock outcrop with insufficient volume of rock to contain a burial. Number 3 was field inspected by PHRI in February 2004. Number 4 was tested by PHRI in February 2004, with negative results. Numbers 10, 11, 11, and 13 J were initially recorded as burials or possible burials. YYhen PHRI conducts afield survey, all suspicious mounds or platforms are recorded as burials or possible burials and are tested. This is a matter of routine procedure. Originally, none of the platforms resting on bedrock and judged to lack- sufficient rock material to provide space for a. burial were designated as possible burials for that reason. The reason that PHRI does not believe the platforms listed above should be re-evaluated or tested are therefore two: (1) platforms originally designated possible or burial platforms have been checked by PHRI (or in one case, RC,' this was originally slated to be tested by PIW); (2) the remaining plarforms are on bedrock with insufficient bedrock to provide space for a burial. Hawever, since the SIPD continues to request testing, we are proposing the following testing program, although our position remains that the evidence indicates no further testing is necessary. We will amend Table D-1 to state "possible burial to be tested" for the following platform sites: Sites 14079 (single feature), Site 14102-B; Site 14104-8, Site 14105-E, Site 14107-D and E, and Site 14108 (singlefeature). PHRI also is wondering if SHPD would provide a rationale to serve as a guide to burial testing in the future. Does SHPD now want all platforms, regardless of appearance or likelihood to contain burials, tested? What criteria in physical appearance would be used to determine whether or not to test for burials? In the past, this has been left up to the crew supervisor to determine. Attachment, Page 7, paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14091, we now agree that accepting Rechtman's findings, along with the profile that indicates the bubble is about 2 meters wide is probably preferable to opening up the feature again - Comments on Revised App radix D Item 6, Page D-4: Thank you for providing the map of Site 14132, the burial cave. We would like you to include the plan view maps and profiles from Rechiman's testing for Sites 14091 and 14129 as well, which are found in his report along with the map of 14132. FMUResponse: This is now included in Append x D-1 For test excavations at Site 14123, Feature E, Site 14124, Feature C, and Site 14126, Feature B, you have provided profiles in Figure D-3. The excavation descriptions in Appendix D indicate that 14123E and 14126 did not contain any cultural material, and that is reflected in the profiles you provided. However, for Site 14124, Feature C, the burial, we do not understand why you provided. a south wall profile when the human remains and pahoehoe slabs which apparently were associated with the remains are described in the eastern portion of the unit Please provide the relevant profile information from this excavation. FhW Response: The pahoehoe slabs were in the eastern one-hafof the platform, and the HSR scattered parts were scattered in a general area in all directions. Neither the pahoehoe slabs nor the scattered bone parts were in any o the sidewalls. Page D-12, Subsequent Work in General Vicinity Paragraph 4 The Graves (1991) report you refer to, PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, was for the portion of the current subject property known as the Wastewater Treatment Facility area, which is addressed under Item #2 in Appendix D. Data recovery at 14 sites was completed If there is now a completed, final data recovery report for this area we'd like you to summarize it here. PHU Response: A final report has never been completed or submitted, however, the information is complete enough to summarize and this has been done (subsequent work in general vicinity section). The data recovery report you do summarize would appear to be for the property situated immediately upslope from the current subject property,. last described in Graves (1991), Interim Report 962-032291. You state that 58 Sites underwent Data Recovery, with 394 auger tests and 176 excavation units. Surely this information could be more fully discussed, as it has a direct bearing on the interpretation of the sites in the remainder of the property. PHRIResponse: This has been done. Additional Needed Revisions Please update Table 2; and create a Revised and Updated Summary of Identified Sites and Features. Add a column that indicates the date and study in which the field tasks were completed (to distinguish between Haun OR, PHRI OR, Rechtr= due diligence, PHRI additional testing, etc, etc.) There have been substantial updates and changes since the original draft and the report currently lacks a comprehensive reference table. Please place it in Appendix D to accompany Table D-1, Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments (Ian 2003). PhW Response: This has been done. Since there are now nine additional investigationstfield sessions on the subject property since the original 1990 survey, each with bearing on the revised significance assessments and recommended treatments, please prepare a revised Conclusions and Discussion section (presently pp. 33-37). Updated conclusions and recommendations will combine effectively with the revised tables PHRIResponse: This has been done. Site Significance and Recommendations, Table D -1 - Why are Features B and C of Site 14091 designated under Criterion E? Only feature A tested positive for a burial • PhW Response: This is an error, and has been corrected. Features B and C are no longer designated under Criterion E. Per your summary of Site 14081 and the SHPD "conditional approval for the [Wastewater Treatment data recovery] area", Site 14081 was to have been designated an excellent example of a site type with a recommendation for preservation "as is". You have now altered your recommendation for further data collection only, with significance assessed only under Criterion D. The original designation under Criterion C was apparently misapplied and applies only to the value of the subsurface deposits, which you feel is more correctly addressed under Criterion D and data recovery excavations. This is acceptable. Site 14123: We would like to see additional investigations at this site to better interpret the site, as it is assessed as significant as an excellent example of a site type. PHRI Response: We will place excavation units within Site 14123 enclosure, Feature C, and have changed the recommendation for the site to Further Data Recovery. Site 14124: Due to what we feel at-- reasonable similarities between Site 14123 and 14124, with additional concerns about the relationship between Feature C and Feature A, we would like to see all three features preserved and additional work undertaken to clarify the function of these features and their relationship to Site 14123. PHRI Response: At Site MIN there is no midden to excavate. Feature C platform has been excavated and Feature C has been tested for human remains. PHRI recommends documenting and mapping the "excavated depressions" around the site. Per the telephone conversation with PMU on 514104, we recommend preservation, after further mapping of Features A and B, of Feature C burial only. We will place excavation units within Site 14123 enclosure, Feature C, and have changed the recommendation for the site to preservation and further data recovery. Site 14126: Your interpretation of this Site during the most recent field investigations needs to be reconsidered before we accept your recommendation for no further work. If you maintain your belief that the site is historic, additional work through data recovery may be warranted. PHRI Response: Site 14126, Feature A enclosure is slated for additional data recovery. This may turn up additional data concerning the possibility that the site is historic. Site Descriptions 1. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14079 PHRI: 764-8 SITE TYPE: Platform/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, pasture grasses, air plants, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 10.75 in by 9.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is crudely constructed of boulders stacked around a bedrock outcrop. Its outer wall is faced in a number of areas. Fill of cobble and boulder rubble forms most of the interior of the feature. However, there is a small soil -filled area in the approximate center of the feature. Along the NE side of this soil area is a boulder with a shallow, concave bowl in its upper surface; it may have served as a salt pan Site 14080 is situated c. 3 meters to the south of this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14102 PHRI: 764-33 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: $oa-haole, grasses. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of seven features: an enclosure (Feature A), a modified • outcrop/platform (Feature B), and four pit depressions in an outcrop (Feature C). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 6.80 in by 0.00 in (approm) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a crudely stacked boulder wall, forming an enclosure that is partly laid on a natural outcrop to the east The wall is broken to the west by cattle where it abuts a second large natural pahoehoe outcrop, at Feature C. 2. FEATURE B: Platform/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: AgriculturetHabitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.92 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform appears primarily natural Only slight modification exists, through piling and arranging boulders. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14104 PERI: 764-35 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Feature) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION:Lantana, opiuma, grasses, haloa, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: two platforms (Features A and B), and two mounds (Features C and D) 3. FEATURE A: Platform . FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 5.0 m by 1.40 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is well constructed It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and u boulder-filled floor. It sits on a prominent knoll. 4. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 7.00 to by 1.30 m (appro)L) DESCRIPTION: This platform is similar to Feature A, but is less substantial and well -constructed It is built on and around a bedrock outcrop and is boulder -faced on three sides. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 m by 2.00 to by 0.60 m (approx.) FEATURE D: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.00 m by 2.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of boulders and cobbles. It is nearly terraced on the uphill, east side. It slopes makai. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14105 PHRI: 764-36 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-hoole, opiuma, laawe, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY. Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: two terraces (Features A and C), and a platform (Feature B). The overall site measures c. 25.0 m (E -W) by 24.0 m (N -S). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 m by 9.00 m by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of boulders stacked two courses high, creating a retaining wall which is filled behind with cobbles and earth. 5. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Indeterminat&Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 12.00 to by 6.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is constructed of stacked boulders around a bedrock outcrop, leveled with cobble and boulder fill. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14107 PHRI: 764-38 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, Idawe, opiums, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture (Features B, C and F) DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of six features: a wall (Feature A), caves (F and two platforms (Features 0 and E). The overall complex measures c. 44 m to 27 m It is situated directly south of site14106. FEATURE A: Wall J FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 14.00 m by 1.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is S-shaped and constructed of roughly -faced boulders. The wall appears to follow a natural bedrock contour. FEATURE B: Cave . FUNCTION: Habitation DIIYfENSIONS: 5.50 m by 4.50 in by 1.45 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE C: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.10 in by 4.10 in by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. 6. FEATURE D: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 13.50 in by 8.50 m by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a square boulder alignment, with a boulder and cobble pavement inside. Cattle and vegetation have impacted the area A rock alignment runs in at, L -shape to the west 7. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 5.80 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is a square structure built out from a natural bedrock outcrop, with a low terrace on the east side. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles extending from the outcrop to form a raised, flat surface. FEATURE F: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DEWENSIONS: 6.85 m by 4.90 in by 1.00 m (approx-) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a roughly circular, natural lava blister. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated within this cave. They produced a coral abrader, two adze fragments, and a moderate amount of midden. S: SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14108 PHRI: 764-39 SITE TYPE: Platform/enclosure TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, ldawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INIEGRM: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 16.00 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a platform/enclosure constructed by piling boulders and cobbles on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. The outcrop itself forms portions of the walls and platform. The enclosure is breached or tumbled down to the west, makai of the platform SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14114 PHRI: 764-45 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Glass, ldawe, opiums, koa-haole, vines. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A). a terrace/wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). FEATURE A: Terrace • FUNCTION: Agriculture DEgENSIONS: 6.20 m by 3.00 m by 0.70 m (approx ) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles abutting a bedrock outcrop. Cattle and vegetation have impacted this feature. There is a small, faced depression on top of the feature at the north end. FEATURE B: Terracetwall FUNCTION: Agriculture DB ENSIONS: 19.00 in by 1.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a sinuous terrace that forms a wall in some sections. It is faced in places, and constructed of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. 9. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.40 in by 6.00 in by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly square, raised platform with two levels. It is roughly -faced in areas and abuts an outcrop at the west side. The surfaces of the two levels are rough, but essentially level. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14123 PHRI: 76454 SITE TYPE: Complex (5 Features) TOPOGR .PHY: Undulating slope around a large outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiums, papaya, autograph tree, vines, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag.-ceremonial?-poss. burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of five features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), two caves (Features B and a wall (Feature C), and a paved surface (Feature E). The overall complex measures c. 80 m by 37 m. This is a large outcrop that has been modified and built onto in a number of areas. This site warrants extensive examination ^ and further work, and possibly preservation. It is the largest sin -ale site in the project area r , FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 50.00 m by 35.00 m by 1.06 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This modified outcrop is basically a large rectangle. The northeast to northwest sides of the feature seems to be the most modified. The northwest section has an area paved with large. c. LO m by 1.5 m slabs of pahoehoe. This may have served as a ceremonial area. Three faced depressions noted atop the outcrop may have served as water catchment depressions. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 2.50 m by 0.92 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a natural lava blister arch with two entries. Midden was observed on the interior surface of this cave. FEATURE C: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 34.00 m by 1.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is an irregularly shaped walled enclosure. A portion of the wall's extent is situated on the top west side of Feature A, in the vicinity of the paved area. The interior of this feature is heavily overgrown. FEATURE D: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS. 11.50 m by 6.70 in by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a natural blister with a boulder -stacked, double-faced wall encircling the entry. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated inside this cave. Numerous volcanic glass and basalt flakes, an adze fragment, two abraders, and a moderate amount of midden were recovered. 10. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation-poss. burial DIMENSIONS: 4.50 m by 3.00 to by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A • faced depression is present on the top of the feature. This may be agriculturally related. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14124 PHRI: 76455 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large bedrock outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag. DESCRIPTION: This site is similar in general fort to site 14123, except that it exhibits a lesser degree of modification. It consists of three features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), a wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). The overall complex measures c.44 in by 38 m. This is a large outcrop that has been modified in a number of areas on and around it This site warrants extensive examination and fitrther work, and possibly preservation. FEATURE A. Modified outcrop FUNCTION. Agriculture DIXENSIONS: 44.00 m by 38.00 m by 4.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly circular outcrop with a wall built on it, running northeast and northwest. There are several excavated depressions over its extent FEATURE B: Wall(s) FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 1)13.50 m by 0.10 m by1.35 m (approx.) 2)19.00 m by 1.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) . 3) 5.00 m by 1.00 m by 0.65 to (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Three double faced -walls of stacked boulders run around the north and east margins of Feature A. These three sections may have been connected at one time. 11. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Burial DIMENSIONS: 5.70 m by 4.00 m by 0.85 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of faced -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 m to c. 0.40 m. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14 126 PHRI: 764-57 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: an enclosure (Feature A), and a platform (Feature B). The overall complex measures 19.0 m (N -S) by 6.5 m (E -W). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation -Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.50 m by 3.50 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure consists of a roughly circular, well -faced, stacked boulder and cobble wall. 12. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture/bunal? DIMENSIONS: 3.00 m by 3.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is circular in shape, crudely -faced on all sides, and essentially level, although it is collapsing to the east 13. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14129 PHRI: 76460 SITE TYPE: Platform TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, lantana, kiawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture-Possrble burial DIMENSIONS: 2.5Cm by 2.50 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a circular platform constructed of large boulder slabs crudely -stacked and faced, and filled with a cobbles and limited slab pavement. There is a small cairn of piled rocks on top of the platform on the SW edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. Ll U 0 649 Report 2290-060104 Archaeological Inventory Survey Pualani Makai Project Lands of Puapua`a 1" and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii Paul a RosendaW, Ph.D., Inc. Archaeological • Historical • Cultural Resource Management Studies & Services APPENDIX D-2 Report 2290-060104 Archaeological Inventory Survey Pualani Makai Project Lands of Puapuata 1" and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawai6l (T-MK:3-7-5-17:1519,23,25,26) Arne K. Carlson, B.A. • Supervisory Archaeologist and Paul H. Rosendahl, PhD. Principal Archaeologist PREPARED FOR - - - - Mr. Bill Brooks, Project Director Westpro Development, Inc. - 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 202 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 _ 2004 PHRIPaul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Archaeological • Historical • Cultural Resource Management Studies & Services HAWAII: 224 Wuawenue Avenue * Hilo, Hawdi 96720 • (908) 969-1763 GUAM P.O. 8--23305 • G.MF., Gu 96921 • (671)172-3117 W PREFACE The fieldwork for the archaeological inventory for the Pualani.Makai project was completed in March 1990, and the report on the fieldwork findings was completed in June 1990. However, at the request of the former property owners (Pualani Development Company), and due to concerns related to development work, the report was never fully reviewed by the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Instead the SHPD was asked to review only sections of the report relevant to a portion of the parcel on which a proposed wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) was to be built (Graves 1991). The SHPD reviewed and approved the relevant sections (letter of October 22, 1990, from D. Hibbard, SHPD, to D. Kanuha, Director, Hawaii County Planning Department). Following SHPD approval, a data recovery plan for the WWTF portion was submitted to the SHPD (Jensen 1991), and the data recovery fieldwork was completed. An interim report on the data recovery fieldwork was submitted to the SHPD (Graves 1991), but again, for various reasons related to development work, a final report on the data recovery was never completed- Recently, ompleted Recently, the Pualani Makai project was reactivated PHRI was asked to resubmit for SHPD review, on. behalf of the new owner of the property, the final report on the archaeological inventory survey for the entire Pualani Makai project. Because much of the report was originally written in 1990, a number of concerns arose. The most important was that since 1990, SHPD review standards for archaeological inventory survey reports have..gradually- been revised and-upgraded.-P-HR.I-Principal. ArchaeologistDr_Paul I -L Rosendahl discussed this issue and other concerns with Dr. Ross Cordy, Chief Archaeologist, and Dr. Patrick McCoy, Hawaii Island Staff Archaeologist for the SHPD. Based on these conversations, it was felt that it would be fair and prudent to generally review the report following 1990 standards. PHRI proceeded to revise and complete the report, and to address additional concerns raised by the SHPD. One concern was whether the inventory report should exist as a stand-alone document, covering the overall project area, or whether it should leave out the approved WWTF section, or include new information gathered during subsequent W WTF data recovery work; or include new information from other subsequent archaeological projects conducted in the Pualani Makai project area. There have been several subsequent projects conducted, including: a burial testing project by PHU (Dunn 1990), another burial testing project by Robert Rechtman (done in 2000or 2001; copy of the report being obtained), an additional inventory survey .of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area done in 1995 (Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System; Head and Rosendahl 1996), a data recovery project for the Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System done by Alan Haim & Associates (copy of the report being obtained), and monitoring work at the Pualani Makai Utility Corridor by PHRI (currently in progress). It was decided that to avoid confusion, the report should for the most part stand alone. Rather than incorporate new information, references to the subsequent projects would be made, and any relevant information on the subsequent projects would be placed in an appendix. Hence, this preface explains the context within which this report was written, including subsequent projects, and Appendix D summarizes subsequent archaeological work and specifies the present status of significance assessments and general mitigation treatments for all sites for which further archaeological work (data recovery and/or reservation) remains to be done. - Also discussed with the SHPD were: (a) revisions to Table 10 (General Significance Assessments and Recommended Treatments); (b) addition of a section discussing settlement patterns and predicted site patterns for the project area; (c) addition of site plan maps, and (d) review and clarification of any site function uncertainties. As a result, the original Table 10 was revised to utilize current SHPD evaluation /oN criteria, a short summary of settlement patterns and predicted site patterns was added to the Introduction r section, and site plan maps were added as Appendix C. Per the. discussion with the SHPD, available drafted maps are included in Appendix' C, as are clear, legible photocopies of field maps. In regard to reviewing and clarification of any site function uncertainties, this concern arose from a comment made in the SEPI) review letter for the WWTF area (letter of October 22, 1990, from D. Hibbard, SHPD, to D. Kanuha, director, Hawai'i County Planning Department). In the letter it is stated "Tbere are a number of sites where function is not clear ... it might have been useful to have gathered more information to resolve these uncertainties." In this regard, PHRI reviewed the records for the sites mentioned in order to determine if definite functions could be assigned on the basis of extant information. It was determined that the original functional determinations should stand until further data collection (i.e., limited data recovery) can take place at the sites. Another issue concerning site function is the nature of habitation sites in the project In general, the designation "habitation" was not refined into the sub -designations "temporary" or "permanent." The reasons for this are detailed in the Conclusion section. Nevertheless, since it would be helpful in understanding significance assessments and treatments for habitation sites, an attempt was made during the revision of this report to present "likely" designations based on extant information. Table 11 includes these designations. Finally, Table 11 is a table recently added to the original report. The table summarizes final significance evaluations and proposed mitigation treatments for each site in the project area and should prove helpful to the reader, the reviewer, and to future archaeological investigators in the project area. Leonard Kubo Senior Editor June 2004 References Cited Dunn, A.E. 1990 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey:. Testing of Potential Burial Feature Pualani Development - Phase II, Land of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of. Hawaii (-TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). , PHRI Report 972-121290. .Prepared for Pualarii Development Company, c/o Mi. Sidney Puke & Associates. Graves, D.K. 1991 Pualani Residential Community .(Phase II), Archaeological Data Recovery, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa lst.and 2nd, NorthKOna District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Head, J.A., and P.H. Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System, Land of Puapua'''a 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5- 17:Por.1). PMU Report 1590-013096. Prepared for International Assets Limited c/o Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and .2dd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualani Development Company. iii SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL INVENTORY FINDINGS At the request of Mr. Sidney Fuke of Sidney Fuke & Associates, on behalf of their client, Pualani Development Company, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) in 1990 conducted a 100% coverage, variable -intensity archaeological inventory survey of the approximately 65 -acre Pualani Development - Phase H project area, in the Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3- 7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). The overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawaii State Land Use Commision, and (b) a Change of Zone Application to be made to the Hawaii County Planning Commission. Survey fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologist Arne K. Carlson, B.A. During field investigations, 64 sites consisting of 138 component features were identified. The sites range in physical condition from poor to good and consist of both single and multiple features. Formal feature types present include modified outcrop, C -shape, terrace, mound, wall, possible trail, cairn, enclosure, L -shape, platform, cave, and road. Probable functional interpretations were determined for most features. Functional feature types include habitation, boundary, transportation, marker, burial, possible burial, possible ceremonial, agriculture, possible agriculture, and features of indeterminate function. Field investigations also included limited subsurface tesfing. of seven sites. Thirteen 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated. Carbon samples from two sites were submitted for C-14 age determination analysis. Two sites were found to contain relatively rich prehistoric cultural deposits. Of the 64 sites identified, 57 are assessed as significant solely for information content At 17 of these 56 sites, sufficient information has been collected and no further archaeological work is recommended. Further data collection is recommended for 40 of the 56 sites. Of the remaining seven sites, four are assessed°as potentially culturally significant and valuable for information content. These sites may contain burials; °further data collection is recommended for them, and preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended, pending data collection results. Two sites are assessed as significant for information content, as excellent examples of site types, and as potentially culturally significant One of these sites may be a ceremonial site and both sites may contain burials. For these two sites, further data collection is recommended, and preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended, pending data collection results. The final'site is evaluated as significant for information content and as culturally significant. This site is a burial cave containing the remains of at least four individuals. Further data collection and preservation "as is" are recommended. iv Contents Introduction Background 1 Scope of Work 1 Project Area Description • 2 Previous Archaeological Work 4 Summary of Historical Documentary Research 5 Summary of Ahupua'a Settlement and Predicted, Site Types 6 Field Methods and Procedures 7 Findings • 10 Surface Findings 10 Summary of Subsurface Findings and Surface Collections 20 Summary of Test Excavations 1 20 Data Analyses 0 25 Age Determinations • '25 Indigenous Artifacts 27 Ecofactual Remains 30 Conclusion 33 Discussion 33 - General Significance Assessment and Recommended General Treatments 37 References Cited 44 Appendix A: Historical .Documentary Research A -I by Helen Wong -Smith, MA. . Appendix B: Site Descriptions B -I Appendix C: Additional Figures a C -I Appendix D: Summary of Subsequent Archaeological Work in the Pualani Makai Project Area and Vicinity, and Updated Significance Assessments and Recommended Mitigation Treatments for Project Area Sites D-1 (* Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map 3 Figure 2. She Location Map I I_ Figure A-1. Copies of Surveys and Maps of Lands Belonging to the Estate of Lunalilio A-4 Figure B-1. Site14073, Plan Map • B-3 Figure B-2. She 14074, View to N (Neg. 1430-3) B-5 Figure B-3. Site 14074, Plan Map B-6 Figure 8-4. She 14076, Plan Map • B-8 Figure B-5. She 14076, Feature.F (Right), Feature G (Left), and Feature H (Background), View.to NE (Neg. 1430-7) 8-10 Figure B-6. She 14081, Plan Map • 8=11 Figure B-7. She 14107, Plan Map • B-24 Figure B-8. She 1411 1, Plan Map • B-27 Figure B-9. She 14123, Plan Map • B-32 Figure 8-10. Site 14123, Feature A, Pahoehoe Slab -Paved Area, View to S (Neg. 1432-I8) B-33 Figure B-11. She 14124, Plan Map • B-35 Figure 13.12. She 14126, Feature B, View to N (Neg.1432-34) 8-37 Figure 613. Site 14127 Plan Map • 8-38 Figure 8-14. She 14129, View to S (Neg. 1434-30) B-40 Figure 8-15. sites 5143 and 14130 • , B-42 Figure B -I6, Site 14132, Plan Map B-43 Figure C -l. She 5136, Wall, View to the East (PHRI Neg. 1430-I IA) C-3 Figure G2. Sae'S 139 (a) Plan Map (p) View to the South (PHRI Neg. 1431-27) C-4 Figure C-3. She 5144, Wall, View to the Southeast (PHRI Neg. 1434-3 /A) C-5 Figure C-4. Site 14075 • . C-6 Figure C-5. She 14077, Features A -D C-7 Figure C-6..Site 14078, FeaturesA-DC-8 Figure C-7. She 14075, She 14079, and Site 14080 C-9 . Figure C-8. She 14082, Features A-E C-10 Figure G9. She 14083, Features A -F • C-1 I Figure GIO. Site 14084, Features A -C C-12 Figure C-11. Site 14085, Features A -H C-13 Figure C-12. Site 14086 C-14 Figure C-13. She 14087, Old Kailua-Keauhou Road, View to die South (PHRI Neg. '1430-15A) C-15 Figure C-14. She 14088, Old Road, View to the North (PHRI Neg. 1430-16A) C-16 Figure C -I5. She 14089, WaII, View to the West (PHRI Neg. 1430-18A) -C-17 Figure C-16. She 14090 C-18 Figure C-17. Site 14041, Features A -C C-19 Figure C-18 She 14091 C-10 Figure C-19. She 14093 C -2I Figure C-20. She 14094 C-22 Figure C-21. She 14095 C-23 Figure G22. She 14096 C-24 Figure C-23. Site 14098, Features A -D C-25 Figure C-24 Site 14099, Features A -F C-26 Figure C-25 Site 14100 C-27 Figure C-26 Site 14101 C-28 Figure C-27. Site 14102, Feature A C-29 Figure C-28. She 14101, Features 8 and C C-30 VI Figure C-29. She 14103 C-31 Figure C-30. Site 14104, Features A and B C-32 Figure C-31. 14105, Features A -C • C-33 Figure G-31. She 14106 C-34 Figure C-33. She 14108 C-35 Figure C-34. Site 14109, Features A and B C-36 Figure C-35. She 14110 C-3 7 Figure G36. She 14112, Wall, View to the West (PHRI Neg. 1430-34A) Figure G37. She 14114, Features A and 8 C-39 Figure C-38. She 14115 C-40 Figure C-39. Site 14116 C-41 Figure C-40. She 14117 C-42 Figure C-41. She 14118 C-43 Figure C-41. She 14119, Features A -D C-44 Figure 6-43. She 14120 C-45 Figure C-44. She 14121 C-46 Figure C-45. She 14122 C-47 Figure C-46. She 14126, Feature A and B C-48 Figure C-47. She 14127, Feature D, View to Northeast Figure C-48. Site 14118 C-50 Figure C-49. Site 14119 C-51 Figure C-50. She 14131 C-52 Figure D -I -Location of Subsequent Archaeological Work Figure D-2. Site 14132, Showing Locations of Burial Remains Figure D-3.She 14091, Feature A, Mound/Modijred Outcrop Figure D-4. She 14129, Platform D-7 Figure D-5. Unit Profiles - D-9 Figure D-6. Survey Areas D-12 Tables C-49 D-2 • D-5 • D-6 C-38 Table I. Correlation of Site Numbers • 9 Table 2. Summary of Identified Sites and Features 12 Table 3. Frequencies of Formal Feature Types • 18 Table 4. Frequencies of Functional Feature Types • 19 Table 5. Frequencies of Functional. Site Types, • 19 Table 6. Summary ofApporent She Ages • 21 Table 7. Summary of Radiocarbon Age Determinations 16 Table S. Detailed Distribution of Artifactual Remains 28 Table 9. Detailed Distribution of Ecofactual Remains 31 Table 10. Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments Table 11. Rationale for She Significance and Treatment 40 Table D- I. Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments Qune 2004) D-23 Table D-2. Final Summary of Identified Sites • D-15 Vii • 38 [NTRODUCTICON1 BACKGROUND At the request of Mr. Sidney Fuke of Sidney Fuke & Associates, on behalf of their client, Pualani Development Company, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted a 100% -coverage, variable - intensity archaeological inventory survey of the approximately 65 -acre Pualani Development - Phase II project area, in the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5- 17:1,19,23,25,26). The overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawai'i State Land Use Commission, and (b) a Change of Zone Application to be made to the Hawaii County Planning Commission. The survey fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologists Arne K. Carlson, B.A., and Will Shapiro, B.A., and under the overall direction of Principal Archaeologist Dr. Paul H. Rosendahl. Crewmembers included Field Archaeologists Fd Archer, Ranae Ganske, Robert Noah, and Steve Tachera. Approximately 35 man -days of labor were expended conducting the field work. Upon completion of the work, an interim report summarizing findings, general significance assessments, and recommended general treatments was provided to Mr. Sidney Fuke of Sidney Fuke-& Associates (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990). SCOPE OF WORK The basic purpose of the inventory survey was 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. It permits a general significanse 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 limited 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 project area, (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 and on familiarity with both the general project area and the current requirements of pertinent review authorities, and based on discussions with Mr. Fuke and with Ms. Virginia Goldstein, staff planner and historic sites specialist in the Hawai'i County Planning Department, and with Dr. Ross Cordy, chief archaeologist with the Hawai'i State Department of Land and Natural Resources -.Historic Sites Section/State Historic Preservation Office (DLNR-HSS/SHPO), the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an adequate and appropriate scope of work for the inventory survey: . 1. Conduct limited archaeological and historical documentary background research involving review and evaluation of readily available archaeological and historical literature, historic documents and records, and cartograghic sources relevant to the immediate project area; 2. Conduct 100% -coverage, variable -intensity (3090 ft intervals) ground survey of the project area, with the actual extent and intensity of coverage determined on the basis of (a) existing terrain and vegetation cover, and (b) nature and density of identified sites and features; 3. Conduct limited subsurface excavations at selected sites and features identified within the project area to (a) 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 and field data, and prepare appropriate reports. The inventory survey was carried out in accordance with the standards for inventory -level survey recommended by Hawai'i State Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Sites Section/State Historic Preservation Office (DLNR-HSS/SHPO). The significance of all identified remains were to be assessed in terms of Rules Goveming Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-42, Hawaii Revised Statutes (DLNR 2001). DLNR-SHPD and the Hawaii County Planning Department both use these criteria to evaluate eligibility for both the Hawaii State and National Register of Historic.Places. Identified remains were also to be assessed in terms of PHRI CRM (Cultural Resource (� Management) value modes, which are discussed further in the Conclusion section of this report. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The Pualani Development - Phase H project area (Figure I) consists of approximately 65 acres located in the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5- 17:1,19,23,25,26). It is bounded on the west by the old Kuakini Highway, on the east by the New Kuakini Highway Realignment, on the north by a stone wall following the south boundary of the Land of Kahului 2nd, and on the south by a stone wall following the north boundary of the Lands of Holualoa Ist and 2nd. The entire project area falls within the area defined as the Kona Field System (50-10-37-6601'), a very large archaeological complex consisting of aboriginal Hawaiian dryland cultivation and habitation features. A number of ethnohistoric planting subzones crosscuts the Kona Field System. Schilt (1984:6) summarizes these zones. The project area falls in the approximate center of the kula (coastal area) subzone which ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). In addition, Schilt (1984), while conducting an archaeological survey of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor, designated the entire section of the corridor that fell within Puapua'a Ist and 2nd as a part of a large Garden complex, that continued both mauka and makai of the realignment corridor. The project area lies southwest of Hualalai volcano. Rainfall in the project area ranges between 30-40 inches per year, and the mean annual temperature is approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (Armstrong 1983). Terrain within the project area consists predominantly of gently sloping and undulating slopes and ridges, with numerous bedrock outcrops. Elevation ranges from approximately 180 feet above mean sea Figure 1. Project Location Map - _ -- 3 Ka na'- Ko 1 1 ` a�1 k—m : FA IUA +s - .�m . °B s 10 Is 20 9'. neoHa } i 'aakai .._•^�' r :0 - •I, v alert ,• T nkt• •• Ta , Park ,. ..,•• '"i�� N Pa I� U L W `,.• L.. ' \ •�{.. \ � �.'\ � � ell B U P !� \ I ± �apuaa pr .\ \ . ,I :•s 1 Figure 1. Project Location Map - _ -- 3 level to approximately 300 feet AMSL. The underlying bedrock is made up of HuaWai pahoehoe and 'ad flows (Steams 1966). There are many bedrock outcrops in the area. Soil in the area consists of moderately to poorly drained, extremely rocky organic peat formed over underlying lava bedrock. This soil is classified as part of the Punaluu Series (Soil Conservation Service 1973). The area is drained by two small intermittent streams. The project area falls within the Lantana-Koa Haole Shrub vegetation zone (Armstrong 1983). Vegetation cover is relatively thick and homogenous. It consists primarily of an overstory of kiawe (Prosopis pallida [Numb. and Bonpl. ex Willd.] HBK), opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce [Roxb.] Benth.), monkey pod (Samanea saman [Jacq.] Merr.), kukui (Aleurites moluccana [L.] Willd.), and koa-haole (Leucaena leucocephala [Lam.] de Wit). Understory species consist of grasses, lantana (Lantana camara L.), bitter yam (Dioscorea bulbifera L.), laua'e (Microsorium scolopendria [Burin.] Copel.), air plant (Bryophyllum pinnatum [Lam.] Kurz.), and panini (Opuntia sp.). Recent/modern human modifications to the landscape are apparent in a few portions of the project area. The most visible of these is the old Kailua-Keahou Road running just mauka of the old Kuakini Highway (the western boundary of the project area). There is evidence that an old dirt track ran east -west through the approximate center of the project area, although it is highly overgrown and not clearly visible in most areas. Cattle graze throughout the project area and have created many winding trails. A number of barbed wire fences run through the area as well;.these appear to have been neglected for a considerable time. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK The present survey was the second archaeological project within the overall Pualani Development area. The fust project was conducted by PHRI in 1988 and consisted of an archaeological inventory survey of land to the east, within Puapua'a Ist and 2nd, and directly inland of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor (Walker and Rosendahl 1988). The Realignment Corridor itself, which cuts across these ahupua'a, was investigated in the early 1980s by Schilt (1984). Both these projects have provided information that is directly applicable to the current project area. Schilt's work gives a relatively thorough outline of the range, frequency, and cultural nature of archaeological remains in the ahupua `a of Puapua'a (1984). Formal features types identified in the corridor include modified outcrops, platforms, enclosures, walls, trails, and open soil areas. Functional types determined for these sites include agriculture, habitation, and transportation. Schilt identified, among other miscellaneous features, "an almost continuous complex of gardening features" (1984:317) within Puapua'a Ist and 2nd, to which she assigned a single site designation (D7 -66)r She states that "there is also a continuation of the complex.makai of the ROW[the current project area], although sites makai tend to be in a poorer state of preservation" (1984:317). Schilt also commented. that this extensive complex extended mauka of the right-of-way, into the project area investigated by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). In total, six of the sites (walls, dryland agricultural features, and a kerbstone -lined trail) identified by Schilt extended mauka of the right-of-way (Walker and Rosendahl 1988:5). During the current project, it was found that at least five, and possibly six, of Schilt's sites extend makai into the current project area. Moreover, all five of these sites extend through the right-of-way, and are represented on both sides of the highway. Based on her relatively intensive investigations within the realignment corridor, including 36 volcanic Blass and six radiocarbon dates, Schilt developed a five phase cultural chronology for the region of the project area (1984:284).' During Phase I (Pioneer Settlement, c. AD 1050-1400) there was sporadic use of the area for habitation, mostly in the lowland slopes. During the later portion of this phase, development of the upland subzones of the Kona Field System may have started. During Phase II (Garden Developments c. AD 1400-1600/1650) small gardens began to be established and temporary habitation increased in the kula, or coastal subzone of the Kona Field Sytem (within which the project area is situated). Erosional deposition of soil, disrupted from development of upland areas, began to occur in the kula subzone during this time. During Phase III (Refuge, Habitation, and Intensive/Extensive Gardening, c. AD 1600/1650-1779), extensive agricultural development of the mauka portion of the kula had become established. Cultivated crops included sweet potato, wauke (used in making tapa), and probably gourds. Habitation was rarely permanent, however, but was more often seasonal or temporary. The dryland agricultural Kona Field System, dependant solely upon rainwater for irrigation, became fully developed during this period. An increase in social stratification, population, and overall cultural complexity at this time also resulted in an increase in warfare/social conflict. Defensive refuge caves began to be utilized. During Phase IV (Historic Habitation and Gardening, c. AD 1779-1850), cultivation of the kula slopes decreased, yet continued. Cultivated crops included not only traditional ones, but also included such crops as watermelon, cabbage, tobacco, and pineapple (1984:282). Permanent habitation was generally in the makai portions of the kula. Near the end of this period land began to be converted from agriculture to grazing. The final Phase V (c. AD 1850 -present) saw land use shift completely to grazing following the awards of kula lands to chiefs, missionaries, and others. Previous archaeological work conducted in the general vicinity of the project area, within or adjacent to the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, includes a reconnaissance survey at Waiono Meadows (Allen 1984), a survey of a shoreline parcel in Puapua'a (Hammatt 1980), reconnaissance surveys and excavations within or adjacent to Kahakai Elementary School (Dye 1978, McNeill 1982, Soehren 1981, Welch 1982, Walker and Rosendahl 1985a, Delimont et al. 1985), reconnaissance surveys within or adjacent to the Alii Drive Realignment Corridor (Ching et al. 1973, Hommon and Rosendahl 1983, Walker and Rosendahl 1985b), and a reconnaissance of a portion of Kahului 2nd (Soehren 1976). SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH The project area lies within the ahupua'a of Puapua'a,lst and 2nd, in the district of North Kona. These ahupua'a have been only rarely documented, and very briefly at that. The following discussion is a brief outline of the history of the area. Appendix A, the complete historical documentary research by Helen Wong Smith, presents more information on the history of the area, including legends, anecdotes, historical accounts, and information on Land Commission Awards. Early accounts relevant to Puapua'a include accounts concerning the Kailua-Kona area. These indicate that the high-ranking chiefs 'Umi-a-Liloa, Kalaniopu'u, and Kamehameha I resided in Kona. During the early historic period, Kailua was a preferred port as well as the center of island government. The earliest account specific to Puapua'a is by English missionary William Ellis. Ellis describes Puapua'a as green and agriculturally productive. He also describes Kauakaiakaola Heiau in detail (Ellis 1963). This heiau is situated in the Land of Puapua'a 1st outside the present project area, on the coast at Puapua'a Point. A study by Taylor (1948) provides comments on the acquisition of the heiau by a Mr. Curtis V. Crellin, on restoration of the heiau, and also on the land situated behind the heiau. Silva (in Walker and Rosendahl 1985a) indicates 19 Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were granted within the Land of Puapua'a. None of these appear to have been situated in the present project area. Kelly (1983), Barrere (1975), and Kuykendahl (1938, 1953, and 1973) have presented historical overviews of the Kona District and general Hawaiian historical research. Their accounts of events and Hawaiian lifeways in precontact and historic periods are relevant to the project area, but the accounts include no specific references to the project area. A prehistoric population increase after AD 1600 led to periodic warfare, presumably caused by population pressure and increasing social stratification (caves, modified into barricaded refuges, are considered evidence of this warfare). When Captain Cook arrived in AD 1778, warfare was still rife. Continued contact with the west revolutionized traditional Hawaiian warfare, and Kamehameha I emerged as the dominant chief. By AD 1795, Kamehameha I had conquered all the major Hawaiian Islands and established his power base in Kailua, Kona. By the mid- to late -1800s, as western contact increased and drastically altered traditional Hawaiian lifeways and land use practices, and as epidemics from introduced diseases greatly reduced the native population, the Kona Field System was essentially abandoned. Except for small, individually owned farms and large coffee plantations near Captain Cook and Kealakekua, traditional. farming was replaced by ranching (see above). Dependence on ranching, coffee cultivation, and small-scale farming continued until the late 1950s when economic emphasis shifted towards the tourist industry. SUMMARY .OF AHUPUA`A..SETTLEMENT AND PREDICTED SITE TYPES Previous archaeological and historical studies conducted within Puapua'a 1 and 2, and the near vicinity, indicate that settlement in the ahupua'a was similar to that described by Schilt in her five -phase, cultural chronology for the general vicinity. The reader is referred to the Previous Archaeological Work section in this report for a detailed summary of the Schilt phases. In brief, there was settlement of the coastal area associated with permanent habitation and ceremonial features, higher up were kula fields with scattered temporary and possibly permanent habitations. In the (ralu'ulu areas were more agricultural high elevation and high rainfall fields with temporary and a few permanent habitations. This graded into the forest zone higher up. Of particular relevance to the current project area, which is in the kula zone, Schilt notes that in Puapua'a, extending from her project area (Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor) makai (seaward) (and therefore into the current project area), there is a continuation of a complex of gardening features. She also notes that this same complex extends mauka from her project area, into the area investigated by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). In her project area, Schilt identified enclosures, modified outcrops, open soil areas, and trails, and these were assigned agriculture, habitation, transportation, and ranching functions. Dating analyses indicated agriculture and habitation took place initially about AD 1400-1650. Intensive agriculture and semi-permanent to permanent habitation took place generally about AD 1600/1650-1779 to early 1800s (Schilt277-278). Following this there was a decline of use that took place from AD 1799-1850. The findings in the Walker and Rosendabl (1988) project area, just inland of the current project area, confirmed Schilt's findings. Present in the area were numerous agricultural features, of which only a sample was recorded by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). Walker and Rosendahl estimated that if one accounted for every agricultural feature present, then agricultural features would comprise about 75% of all features in their project area. Walker and Rosendahl also identified habitation features associated with agriculture — terraces, C- and L -shapes, enclosures. Both Puapuaa 1 and 2 were found to contain major coastal -inland trails associated with habitation complexes. The Walker and Rosendahl project yielded only three hydration -rind age determinations dating overall to AD 1653-1729. The findings of Landrum et al. (1990) at the Kahakai Development Project Area, just makai (seaward) of the current project area, and extending to about 50 feet from the shoreline, identified agricultural features and many permanent and temporary habitations (platforms, terraces, enclosures, C -shapes, caves, rock shelters, modified outcrops). Numerous burials were also identified, and these were located in platforms, terraces, and lava blisters. Dating results indicated initial occupation of AD 610-890 at two features; however, this was seen as anomalous and perhaps related to short duration, transient exploitation in the area. In general, the dating ranges fell into the late prehistoric to early historic period, ranging from AD 1400-1600. The findings of Corbin (2002) on an approximate 10 -acre parcel inland of the current project area and adjacent to the Walker and Rosendahl (1988) project area revealed numerous agricultural modified outcrops and clearing mounds, associated with clearing for the cotton industry or prehistoric agriculture. Since 1990, several sites within the project area have been tested for possible burials. Site 14132 tested positive and had at least ten burials, and Site 14091 contained human skeletal remains (Rechtman Consulting; see Appendix D). Site 14124, Feature C tested positive, with disarticulated human remains of one individual found (PHRI Memorandum 2274-122402). In 1995 (Head and Rosendahl 1996; see Appendix D) conducted an inventory survey of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area and identified a trail_ remnant, a boundary wall, an agricultural platform, and a C -shape. These features were considered part of the overall Kona Field System. Based on the above, and considering all previous findings within the current project area and vicinity, it is predicted that within the project area will be found habitations, both temporary and permanent, and associated with the habitations may be burials and perhaps heiau. In the more inland areas there is likely to be numerous Kona Field System features in the form of cleared areas, mounds, modified outcrops, platforms, and terraces. Associated with the agricultural features may be scattered temporary habitations in the form of caves and small surface structures such as C -shapes, small platforms, and modified outcrops. Burials may be found in small platforms and in overhangs and caves. Running mauka-makai through the project area may be trails linking coastal and inland areas. Dating results for the current project area are predicted to generally date to post AD 1400. FIELD METHODS AND PROCEDURES Fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 by four crewmembers under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologists Arne K, Carlson, B.A., and Will Shapiro, B.A. Site identification was accomplished by way of systematic pedestrian transects oriented mauka-makai across the project area. Intervals between sweeping crewmembers were 30-50 feet, depending on vegetation and terrain encountered: Ground surface visibility varied greatly over the project area. Cattle trails allowed fair visibility in many areas. In other areas dense vegetation cover in a few cases made it difficult to delimit site areas, and to determine the presence or absence of portable remains. [If any of these sites are to undergo future data recovery work, they will have to be cleared of vegetation, and any newly discovered features will need to be added to the original inventory site description.] As sites were identified, they were assigned a PHRI temporary site number — a consecutive number prefixed by the PH U project number (e.g. 764-1). Sites were marked with pink and blue surveyor's flagging tape, and their locations were plotted on aerial photographs (scale I in = approximately 200 ft., and I in = approximately 100 -ft) furnished by the client. As well, each site or the primary feature within each site complex was marked with an aluminum tag bearing the site number, the date, the letters "PHRI", and the PHU project number (89-764), to aid in future site reidentification. Sites were tallied and were briefly described as to formal type, functional type, and number of observed component features. Recording and evaluation of identified sites was conducted subsequent to initial identification. • Additional sites and features located during this latter stage were added to the inventory, and were recorded and evaluated. Recording of sites was completed using standard PHRI site survey and feature record forms and consisted of written descriptions of each feature and site, and preparation of scaled maps and drawings of individual features and site complexes. Written descriptions included notation of site and feature dimensions, estimation of the limits of cultural deposits, notation of formal type and presumed functional type, and description of surrounding terrain and vegetation. In addition, features were photographed using 35 mm black -and -white film (PHRI Field Rolls 764:1-6). Sites were evaluated as to general significance assessment and recommended general treatment at the time of recording. Sites have either been assigned permanent State Inventory of Historic Places (SHU) site numbers, or have retained their old SIHP designation (see Table I - Correlation of Site Numbers). Five sites identified during the current survey had been previously recorded (see Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). One of these sites, Schilt's D7-66 (SHIP number 50-10-28/37-5137), is a large site including garden plots and related features — essentially a section of the Kona Field System. Many of the features identified during the current survey could be included in this site. However, in order to facilitate recording, no sites or features identified during the current project were assigned this number, or the SIHP designation of the Kona Field System (50-10-37-6601). Alternatively, it has simply been recognized, explicitly, that some of the newly identified sites and features do fall into these large agricultural complexes. Seven sites were subjected to limited subsurface test excavation in order to determine the nature of subsurface deposits and in order to recover samples for age,determination analysis. All test units were plotted on site maps. Units were dug by arbitrary 10 centimeter levels. Excavated soil was processed through nested 1/4- and 1/8 -inch mesh to facilitate recovery of portable artifacts and midden. One hundred percent of the cultural material (including midden, artifacts, and other samples) was extracted from the 1/4 - inch mesh, while diagnostic artifacts and judgmentally selected samples were extracted from the 1/8 -inch mesh. Soil samples were taken from selected test units and were described using standard procedures and terminology as set .forth in the Soil Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff 1962). Radiocarbon samples (charcoal concentrations) were recovered wbenever encountered. In addition to limited test excavations, judgmental/selective surface collection of -portable artifacts and midden was conducted at a number of sites. j Table I. CORRELATION OF SITE NUMBERS SIRP Site No. PHRI Temp. Schilt (1984) Walker &Rosendahl 50-10-37- or 28- Site No. 764- Site No. (1988) Site No. 28-5136 2 D7-65 T-9 14073 1 14074 3 14075 4 14076 5 14077 6 14078 7 14079 8 - _ 14080 9 14081 10 - 14082 22 - _ 14083 24 - 14084 25 - 14085 26 - _- _ 14086 27 - T-7 28137-5139 28 D7-67 _ 14087 11 14088 12 14089 - 14 - 2 37-5143 65 D7-70 T-17 5144 61 D6-14 14090 15 14091 16 14092 17 14093 18 14094 19 14095 20 14096 21 - _- 14097 23 - 14098. 29 - _ 14099 30 - 14100 - 31 - _ 14101 32 - _ 14102 33 - 14103 34 - _ 14104 35 - 14105 36 - 14106 37 - _ 14107 38 - 14108 39 - _ 14109 40 _ 14110 41 - _ 14111 42 - _ 14112 43 - _ 14113 44 _ 14114 45 - 14115 46 - _ 14116 47 - _ 14117 48 14118 49 14119 50 14120 51 14121 52 14122 53 14123 54 4124 55 4125 56 14126 57 14127 58 14128 59 14129 60 14130 62 14131 63 14132 64 - - -- FINDINGS SURFACE FINDINGS Sixty-four sites consisting of 138 component features were identified within the project area. These sites are summarized in Table 2 and their approximate locations are shown on Figure 2. Four of these sites had been identified during earlier archaeological projects (see Table 1 and Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). The remaining 59 sites are newly identified. Detailed descriptions for all identified sites are presented in Appendix B, which includes for each site: 1. Site number - State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers. SIHP numbers are four or five -digit numbers prefixed by 50-10-37- or 2$- (50=State of Hawai'i; 10=Island of Hawai'i; 37=USGS 7.5' series quad map ["Kealakekua, Hawaii "land 28=USGS 7.5' series quad map ["Kailua, Hawai'i " ]; 2. A site type designation - provides formal feature type for sites consisting of a single feature, or designates the site as a complex if the site is comprised of more than one feature. Also lists total number of features present; 3. A description of the terrain in the vicinity of the site; 4. A list of site vegetation - lists principal species of plants within and in the vicinity of the site; �• 5. A statement of site condition - overall state of preservation of the site (poor, fair, good, or excellent); 6. An assessment of site integrity - degree of post abandonment modification by human agencies (unaltered, partially altered, and completely altered), and nature of modifications, if any; 7. A probable age for the site -(e.g., historic or prehistoric); 8. An overall functional interpretation - probable or possible (?) overall function for each site; or, if a plausible function could not be determined, an indeterminate function was assigned;, 9. A site description - a brief description of the site including types of constituent features, portable remains present, if any, and other site data; and 10. Feature dimensions - maximum length, width, and height or depth. Dimensions immediately followed by a description of feature construction, associated portable remains, and other descriptive information. The identified sites consist of 25 complexes and 40 single -feature sites. Twenty-seven formal types are represented at the sites (see Tdble 3). These include mound/modified outcrop (14=29), wall (N=13), 10 74051 74078 \ 5108 .74078 • 14050 �' 14094 • W82 4085 \ • 14093 " • 14095 . 14083 • 14094 14088 14081: • 14085 14101 ;14100 - 77 078; �+ 14074 `\ .. - • 14085 . 14054 \ . 14083 • 14088 • 14075 14075 140 • 14087 F ` 1;11068 /ai« 14105 ; x �409D •' • 1`4107 F �\ .14132 11 • 14102 1f1 14104 / 7 • 14105 `\ •14110 •14108 (f • 14114 v • 14115 `\ \\ iy �' • 14t,17 `�a� \\' �� • 14118 h/ I ' ,�, 9� ( 14121 • i .14122 a 14710 ��• ` 14124 1 i 14123 \I •` 28� \, -tv, 14123 • 14127 51�A It • 14128 1 14130, L H • 14128 4>�' �C �"hyy • 14131 5/44.y� 11 0 300 800 � 0 60 100 150 Figure 2. SITE LOCATION MAP Table 2. *Cultural Resource Management Value Mode Assessment: SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED SITES AND FEATURES SIHP Formal Tentative *CRM Value #Field Work -Degme: H = Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX +Number of ccrrtponcnt features within complex. 5136 Wall Boundary L L L North boundary of project area separates Puapuaa 1st and Kahului 2nd 14073 Complex (15)+ Agriculture- M L L + + No comment A -O Mounds/ habitation? modified bedrock outcrops 14074 C -Shape Habitation- M L L + + + Tested this site agriculture? 14075 Wall Boundary M L L + - Kuaiwi wall? 14076 Complex(8) Habitation- M L L + - + Tested Feature A A Enclosure agriculture B Linear mound/ modified outcrop C -H Mounds/modified outcrops 14077 Enclosure/ Agriculture- M L L + - + No comment mod. outcrop habitation? 14078 Complex (2) - Agriculture M L L + - + No comment A Terrace B Terrace 14079 Platform/ Agriculture- M L L + - + No comment mod. outcrop habitation? *Cultural Resource Management Value Mode Assessment: -Nature: R = scientific research I = interpretive C = cultural -Degme: H = high M = moderate L = low #Field Work Tasks: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of ccrrtponcnt features within complex. 12 I Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX 14080 Complex (2) Agriculture - A Walled terrace possible B Linear mound- transportation L possible trail - No comment 14081 Cave Habitation 14082 Enclosure/ Agriculture mod. outcrop 14083 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14-084 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Terrace possible burial B Mod. outcrop C Mound west boundary of 14085 Complex (2) Agriculture A Caim L B Terrace/mod. outcrop 14086 Complex (3) Indeterminate - A Mound agriculture? B Linear mound C Linear mound SIHP 50-10-28/37- 5139 Wall Boundary 14087 Road Transportation 14088 Road Transportation 14089 Wall Boundary 5143 Alignment- Transportation trail section M L L + - - Kuaiwi wall? H L M + + +, Tested this site M L L + - + No comment M L L + - No comment M L L/H + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L Possibly bulldozer disturbance L L L - - - Separates Puapuaa 1st and 2nd L L L - - - Walled each side M L L - - - Research potential in terms of historic research L L L - - - Mauka boundary of Koakim Highway; west boundary of project area M L M + - - No comment Table 2. (cont.) SJHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX 5144 Wall Boundary L L L Forms south bndry. 14090 Modified outcrop 14091 Complex (3) A Mound/ 14101 mod. outcrop B Mod. outcrop C Mod. outcrop 14092 Walled terrace 14093 Mod. outcrop 14094 Complex (2) A Linear mound B Mound 14095 Mod. outcrop 14096 Mod. outcrop 14097 Mod. outcrop 14098 Complex (2) A, Mod. outcrop B Wall 14099 Mod. outcrop 14100 Complex (8) A Mod. outcrop/ L + C -shape B-H Mod. outcrops 14101 Cairn . 14102 Complex (7) A Enclosure B Mod. outcrop/ L + platform C 4 pit depressions of project area separates Puapuaa 1st and Holualoa 2nd Agriculture M L L + - - No comment Agriculture- M L L/H + - + No comment possible. burial Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture - habitation? Agriculture - water catchment? Agriculture - habitation? Marker Agriculmre- habitation?- M L L + L L L M L L + + No comment - No comment - No comment M L L + No comment L L L - No comment L L L - No comment M L L + + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment 14 1 Table 2. (cont.) S]HP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50.10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX M L L + - + No comment M L L + M L L + + No comment + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + + + Tested Feature F M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L 14103 Enclosure/ Agriculture - M L mod. outcrop habitation? 14104 Complex (4) Habitation - A Platform agriculture B Platform C Mound/mod.outcrop D Linear mound 14105 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Terrace habitation? B Platform C Terrace 14106 Wall Boundary 14107 Complex (6) Habitation - A Wall agriculture B Cave C Cave D Platform E Platform F Cave 14108 Platform/ Agriculture - enclosure habitation? 14109 Complex (2) Agriculture - A Mound/ habitation? mod. outcrop B Enclosure/ mod. outcrop 14110 Cairn Marker 14111 Complex (4) Habitation - A C -shape agriculture B L -shape C Mound D Mound 14112 Wall Boundary 14113 Wall Boundary M L L + - + No comment M L L + M L L + + No comment + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + + + Tested Feature F M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L No comment M L L + + + Tested Fea's A& B L L L - - - No comment L L L - - - No comment Table 2. (cont.) SHIP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R _IC DR SC EX 14114 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Terrace habitation? B Terrace/wall + C Platform L 14115 C -shape Habitation 14116 Wall Boundary 14117 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14118 3 mounds Agriculture 14119 Complex (4) Agriculture A -D Mounds/mod. outcrops 14120 Activity arra Indeterminate 14121 Mound Agriculture 14122 Complex (2) Agriculture A Terrace + B Mound L 14123 Complex (5) Habitation - A Mod. outcrop agriculture - B Cave ceremonial? - C Enclosure pons. burial D Cave L E Platform Historic activity 14124 Complex (3) Habitation - A Mod. outcrop agriculture - B Wall possible burial C Platform L 14125 Culvert with Drainage walls 14126 Complex (2) Habitation - A Enclosure agriculture - B Platform possible burial M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - - Kuaiwi wall? M L L + - - No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L Historic activity work area . M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment WH H WH + + + Tested Feature D M/H H M/H + + + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L/H + - + No comment E. Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC ER 14127 Complex (2) A Mound B Enclosure 14128 Terrace/ mod. outcrop Habitation WH L L + + + Tested Fea's A & B Habitation M L L + - + No comment 14129 Platform Agriculture- WH L L/H + - + No comment possible burial 14130 C-shaped terrace Habitation M L L + - + Original Feature B �./ 14131 Enclosure Habitation - agriculture 14132 Cave Burials 764-13 Subsumed under Site 764-12 was determined to be a continuation of previously recorded Site 5143 M L L + - + No comment M/H L H + - - No comment 17 Table 3. FREQUENCIES OF FORMAL FEATURE TYPES Formal Type Number Percent Mound/modified outcrop 28 20.3 Modified outcrop 21 15.2 Wall 12 8.7 Mound 11 8.0 Platform 10 7.2 Cave 7 5.1 Terrace 7 5.1 Enclosure 6 4.3 Linear mound 4 2.9 Enclosure/modified outcrop 4 2.9 Pit depression 4 2.9 C -shape 3 2.2 Cairn 3 2.2 Road 2 1.4 Terrace/modified outcrop 2 1.4 Walled terrace 2 1.4 Platform/modified outcrop 2 1.4 Activity area 1 0.7 C-shaped terrace 1 0.7 Culvert with walls 1 0.7 L -shape 1 0.7 C-shape/modified outcrop 1 0.7 Platform/enclosure 1 0.7 Terrace/wall 1 0.7 Alignmentkrail 1 0.7 Linear mound/modified outcrop 1 0.7 Linear mound/possible trail 1 0.7 1 TOTAL: 138 99.6 I platform (N=10), cave (N=7), terrace (N=7), enclosure (N=6),, linear mound (N=4), enclosure/modified butcrop (N=4), pit/de'p'ression (N=+1),t-shape (N=5), cairn (N=3), road_(N=2), terrace/modified outcrop (N=2), walled ierrace (N=2), platform/modified outcrop (N=2), activity area (N=1), C-shaped terrace (N=1),'culvert with walls (N=1), L -shape (N=1), C-shape/niodified outcrop (N=1), platform/enclosure (N=1), terracehvall (N=1), alignment/trail (N=1), linear mound/modified outcrop (N=1), and linear mound/possible trail (N=1). The number of features constructed by the modification of bedrock outcrops is 59,' or 43% of the total number of features. Probable functional interpretations were determined for most features (Table 4) and sites (Table.5). Seventeen functional site types are'represented by the 64 sites in the project area. Site types include agriculture (N=16, 25%), agriculture -possible habitation (N=11, 17.2%), boundary (N=9, 14.1%), habitation (N=S, 7.89/o), habitation -agriculture (N=S, 7.8%), agriculture -possible burial (N=3, 4.7%), W 0 Table 4. FREQUENCIES OF FUNCTIONAL FEATURE TYPES Functional Type Number Percent Agriculture 67 48.6 Habitation 18 13.0 Boundary 12 8.7 Agriculture -habitation? 12 8.7 Agriculture -burial? 4 2.9 Water catchment 4 2.9 Indeterminate -agriculture? 3 2.2 Marker 3 2.2 Transportation 3 2.2 Habitation -agriculture 3 2.2 Indeterminate 1 - 0.7 Burial 1 0.7 Ceremonial? 1 0.7 Drainage 1 0.7 Habitation -burial? 1 0.7 Habitation -agriculture? 1 0.7 Agriculture -transportation? 1 0.7 Agriculture -water catchment? 1 0.7 Indeterminate -habitation? 1 0.7 TOTAL: 138 99.9 Table 5. FREQUENCIES OF FUNCTIONAL SITE TYPES Functional Type Number Percent Agriculture 16 25.0 Agriculture -habitation? 11 17.2 Boundary 9 14.1 Habitation 5 7.8 Habitation -agriculture 5 7.8 Agriculture -burial? 3 - 4.7 Transportation 3 4.7 Marker 2 3.1 Habitation-agriculnae-burial? 2 3.1 Agriculture -water catchment? 1 1.6 Burial 1 1.6 Drainage 1 1.6 H abitation-agricultum- cercrnonial?-burial? 1 1.6 Indeterminate 1 1.6 Indeterminate -agriculture? 1 1.6 Habitation -agriculture? 1 1.6 Agriculture -transportation? 1 1.6 TOTAL: 64 1003 I transportation (N=3, 4.7%), marker (N=2, 3.1%), habitation -agriculture -possible burial (N=2, 3.1%), agriculture -possible water catchment (N=1, 1.6%), burial (N=1, 1.6%), drainage (N=1, 1.6%), habitation - agriculture -possible ceremonial- possible burial (N=1, 1.6%); indeterminate (N=1, 1.6%); indeterminate - possible agriculture (N=1, 1.6%); and agriculture -possible transportation (N=1, 1.6%). The number of sites with feature(s) having an agricultural function is 40, or 62.5%. A general age was determined for each site during recording. Table 6 summarizes the apparent ages of all the sites. The primary age distinction made was between prehistoric and historic. The age estimations were based on a number factors, including the nature of portable remains present, location, feature type, construction methods, and presumed functional type. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE FINDINGS AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS Limited subsurface testing was undertaken at seven sites (14074, 14076, 14081, 14107, 14111, 14123, and 14127). A total of 13 test units (3.25 sq m) were excavated. Test excavations were conducted primarily to recover samples for age determination analysis, and secondarily, to determine the nature of cultural remains and deposits. Sites were judgmentally selected for testing on the basis of a number of criteria, including (a) the presence of possible hearths, and (b) surficial indications of apparent, relatively deep, and/or rich cultural deposits. In addition, judgmental surface collections of artifacts and cultural material were conducted at four sites. The specimens collected included (a) those that were felt to be potentially time diagnostic, (b) those that were felt to be intrinsically significant, (c) those that were felt to be in danger of destruction or loss, and (d) those that were felt to be representative of the primary activities carried out at the sites. Surface collected specimens were plotted on site maps. Descriptions, tabulations, and analyses of the recovered samples and artifacts are presented in following sections, and test excavation units are summarized below. Results of the radiocarbon age determinations, and descriptions of portable artifacts and ecofactual remains are presented in the Data Analyses section. SUMMARY OF TEST EXCAVATIONS Site and Feature: 14074 Formal Type: C -shape Feature Function: Habitation -Agriculture? Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: (50 by 50 cm) Description: This unit was placed in the approximate center of a C -shape built on a raised bedrock outcrop (Figure B-3, Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 23 centimeters. A single stratum was identified overlying pahoehoe bedrock. The soil consisted of black (2.5Y 2/0) silty loam. Two charcoal samples were collected from this stratum. One of these was submitted for age determination analysis and provided a corrected age range of AD 1030-1470. No artifacts or midden were recovered from this unit. PIC Table 6. SUMMARY OF APPARENT SITE AGES Sites with a post -contact or possible post -contact component: 13 sites (20.3%x) 21 Site 50-10-37- or 28- Age Site 50-10-37- or 28- Age 28- 5136 Historic 14101 Prehistoric 14073 Prehistoric 14102 Prehistoric 14074 Prehistoric 14103 Prehistoric 14075 Prehistoric 14104 Prehistoric 14076 Prehistoric 14105 Prehistoric 14077 Prehistoric 14166 Historic 14078 Prehistoric 14107 Prehistoric 14079 Prehistoric 14108 Prehistoric 14080 Prehistoric 14109 Prehistoric 14081 Prehistoric 14110 Prehistoric 14082 Prehistoric 14111 Prehistoric 14083 Prehistoric 14L12 Historic 14084 Prehistoric 14113 Historic 14085 Prehistoric 14114 Prehistoric 14086 Prehistoric?/historic? 14115 Prehistoric } art/ 28/37-5139 Historic 14116 Prehistoric?/historic? 14087 Historic 14117 Prehistoric 14088 Historic 14118 Prehistoric 14089 Recent 14119 Prehistoric 37- 5143 Prehistoric 14120 Recent 5144 Historic 14121 Prehistoric 14090 Prehistoric 14122 Prehistoric 14091 Prehistoric 14123 Prehistoric 14092 Prehistoric 14124 Prehistoric 14093 Prehistoric 14125 Historic 14094 Prehistoric 14126 Prehistoric 14095 Prehistoric 14127 Prehistoric 14096 Prehistoric 14128 Prehistoric 14097 Prehistoric 14129 Prehistoric 14098 Prehistoric 14130 Prehistoric 14099 Prehistoric 14131 Prehistoric 14100 Prehistoric 14132 Prehistoric TOTALS: Prehistoric: 51 sites (79.7%x) Prehistoric?/historic? 2 sites (3.1%) Historic: 9 sites (14.1%x) Recent: 2 sites (3.1%x) 64 sites Sites with a prehistoric or possible prehistoric . component: 53 sites (82.8%x) Sites with a post -contact or possible post -contact component: 13 sites (20.3%x) 21 Site and Feature: 14076, Feature A Formal Type: Enclosure Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description:. This unit was placed in the center of a small soil -filled area on the outside, northern slope of an enclosure. The enclosure is built on a raised bedrock outcrop (Feature A, Figure B-4 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 18 centimeters. A single stratum was identified overlying decaying pahoehoe bedrock. The soil consisted of very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) loam. The only cultural material recovered was a small piece of waterworn coral which came from the surface of the unit. Based on these results, this patch of soil is interpreted as a small planting area. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the southwest comer of the interior of an enclosure (Feature A, Figure B-4 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 33 centimeters. Two strata were identified: Layer I consisted of a black (2.5Y 2/0) silt loam which extended to varying depths as a result of the undulating bedrock substratum, but which consistently terminated at c. 2 cm above the bedrock; Layer H consisted of an approximately 2 cm thick stratum of very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2), silty clay loam overlying bedrock. A small charcoal sample was recovered from Layer I, but was not submitted for age determination analysis. The only artifact recovered from the unit was a coral abrader. The unit produced moderate amounts of midden, primarily Cypraea sp. Site and Feature: 14081 Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed across the northeast comer of a shallow oval depression (HF -1) on the north side of the main chamber of the cave (Figure B-6 in Appendix B). The feature is interpreted as a firepit. The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters. The surface of the unit was covered with a 1-2 cm layer of ash flecked with charcoal. Below this was a stratum consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam; within this loam were small pockets of. charcoal and small cobbles, Three charcoal samples. recovered from this unit were submitted for age determination analysis. Two of them provided corrected age ranges of AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480. A third sample contained insufficient carbon. No evidence of the outline of the depression was evident in the profiles of the unit. However, this apparent deficiency may reflect the poor lighting in the cave. A few artifacts and a moderate amount of midden were recovered from the first 10 centimeters of the unit; the second level was sterile. Artifacts recovered include a bird bone pick, a fragment of worked bone, and six volcanic glass flakes. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the southwest portion of the main chamber of the cave in an area with abundant surface midden (Figure B-6 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (10YR 2/1-2/2) silt loam with small cobbles overlying bedrock. Three charcoal samples were recovered from this unit, two of which were submitted for age determination analysis. One -of them contained insufficient carbon, while the other provided a corrected age range of AD 1640 -present. A moderate amount of midden and a few artifacts, including modified bone and shell pieces and a number of volcanic glass flakes, were recovered from the unit. 22 Site and Feature: 14107, Feature F Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the central portion of a small blister cave (Figure B-8 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples were recovered from the unit. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden were recovered. Artifacts recovered include small adze fragments, an abrader of coral and one of an echinoid spine, and a modified piece of shell. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the central portion of the cave directly northeast of TU -1 (Figure B-8 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples were recovered from the unit. A single adze fragment and a small amount of midden were recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14111, Features A, B Formal Type: Feature B: L -shape; Feature A: C -shape Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric } Test Unit 1:50 by 50 cm \ Description: This unit was placed centrally along the inside of the ewtem leg of an L -shape (Feature B, Figure B-9 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 20 centimeters (although most of the unit terminated at 10 centimeters below surface). A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples, artifacts, or midden were recovered from the unit. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in a soil area along the southeast side of a C -shape (Feature A, Figure B-9 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters (although most of the unit terminated at 10-12 centimeters below surface). A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples or artifacts were recovered from the unit. A single cowrie shell fragment was recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14123, Feature D Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the northern portion of the main entrance chamber of a small cave (Feature D, Figure B-11 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 23 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (10YR 2/1-2/2) humic silt loam. Three charcoal samples were recovered from the unit. However, none of these were submitted for age determination analysis as they were small and it was thought they were probably contaminated by surface organic litter. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden were recovered. Artifacts recovered include a small adze fragment, a coral abrader, an echinoid abrader, and a number of volcanic glass.flakes. 23 Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the northern portion of the main entrance chamber of the cave, directly south of TU -1 (Figure B-11 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum consisting of black to very dark brown (lOYR 2/1-2/2) humic silt loam was identified. A single charcoal sample was recovered from the unit. However, it was not submitted for age determination analysis as it was small and was thought to be contaminated by surface organic litter. A small amount of midden and two volcanic glass flakes were recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14127, Features A, B Formal Type: Feature A: Mound; Feature B: Enclosure Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in a soil area in the central portion of a small mound (Feature A, Figure B-14 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 15 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) siltloam. A single charcoal sample was recovered from the. unit; it was not, however, submitted for age determination analysis, as it was very small. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden was recovered. Artifacts recovered include a coral abrader and two volcanic glass flakes. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the opening of a small cupboard in the northeast comer of an enclosure (Feature B, Figure B-14 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 18 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples, artifacts, or midden were recovered from the unit 24 W DATA ANALYSES AGE DETERMINATIONS Six samples collected from two sites (14074 and 14081) were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon age determination analysis. All of the samples consisted of charcoal. Beta Analytic determined that, after pretreatment, two samples (PHRI Lab. Nos. RC -751 and RC -753, both from Site 14081) had insufficient carbon for analysis. The charcoal samples were first examined for rootlets, then were given alternate acid and alkali soakings to remove carbonates and humic acids. All of the samples were small and were given extended counting time (four times the normal amount) to reduce statistical error. C -13/C-12 stable isotope ratios were determined for all samples. Results of age determination analyses are presented in Table 7. The results are reported as corrected calendric age ranges at two sigma (95.4% probability). The dates were calibrated according to tables presented in Stuiver and Pearson (1986). Site 14074 One C-14 sample from this site was analyzed. The sample yielded a calendric age range of AD 1030- 1470, placing this site'well into the prehistoric period. This is consistent with the single artifact (an adze) recovered from the surface of the site. It is not possible to estimate the duration of use of this site. However, based on the very limited cultural material recovered from the site during testing and recording, short-term use is probable. This date places the site in the Expansion Period (AD 1100-1650) of Kirch's (1985) Hawaiian cultural -historical sequence, and places it in the Pioneer Settlement Phase (AD 1050- 1400) -of Schist's (1984:276-277) chronological sequence for Kona. Interestingly, however, the nature of this site does not fit Schilt's model of cultural patterns during this phase. This is discussed further below. Site 14081 Five charcoal samples from this habitation cave were submitted for analysis. Samples RC -751 and RC -753 contained insufficient carbon after pretreatment. Two samples from TU -1, excavated in a hearth, yielded corrected age ranges of AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480. These dates place this site well into the prehistoric period, which is consistent with the artifacts recovered from the site- More specifically, they place the site in the Expansion Period (AD 1100-1650) of Kirch's (1985) Hawaiian cultural -historical sequence, and place it in the middle to late portion of the Pioneer Settlement Phase (AD 1050-1400) of Schilt's (1984:276-277) chronological sequence for Kona. The third sample, from TU -2, produced a corrected age range of AD 1640-1955. This date, which is somewhat inconsistent with the dates obtained from TU -1, may reflect a number of things. The first is that the sample may have been contaminated by small amounts of recent carbon, as it came from Level 1 of TU -2, and the charcoal was collected from the screen, and as such cannot be accepted as valid. Alternatively, the date may reflect a second and later occupation of the cave. However, no independent evidence for more than one occupation of the cave was collected (i.e., no stratification of cultural deposits was apparent and the collected artifact assemblage does not appear to reflect any changes over time): Given the limited level of investigation conducted at this site to date, further work is necessary in order to resolve the above question. 25 & Table 7. SUMMARY OF RADIOCARBON AGE DETERMINATIONS PHRI Lab, C-14 Age C-13/ C-13 Adjusted *Calendric Lab.No. No. Provenience Yrs. B.P. C-12 C-14 Age Range RC- BETA- Surface (one sigma) Ratio Yrs. B.P. Yrs. AD Site 14074 -25.7 630±130 1160-1480 TU -1; 748 37345 TU -1, 700±140 -26.6 670±140 1030-1470 Layer I, 0-10 cmbs Level 2, 751 37348 HF -1, — — — Insufficient 10-23 cmbs TU -1, carbon Site 14081 749 37346 HF -1, 490±100 -25.1 490±100 1280-1640 TU -1, Surface 750 37347 HF -1, 650±130 -25.7 630±130 1160-1480 TU -1; Layer I, Level 1, 0-10 cmbs 751 37348 HF -1, — — — Insufficient TU -1, carbon Layer I, Level 1, 10-11 cmbs 752 37349 TU -2, 50±100 -23.1 80±100 1640 -1955# - Layer I, Level 1, 0-10 cmbs 753 37350 TU -2, - — — Insufficient Layer I, carbon Level 2, 10-17 cmbs *Calibrated according to Stuiver and Pearson (1986). Range at two sigmas. # Denotes influence of bomb C-14. 26 INDIGENOUS ARTIFACTS Seventy-three (73) indigenous artifacts were recovered from various sites in the project area. Following Kjrch (1983:341), indigenous artifacts are defined as those fabricated using traditional Hawaiian manufacturing techniques and locally available raw materials. Artifacts were collected from the surface and from test excavations. No historic artifacts were recovered. The distribution of artifacts is presented in Table 8. Forty-seven (47) flaked and/or polished stone artifacts (basalt, scoria, and volcanic glass) were recovered (64.4% of the indigenous artifact assemblage). The remainder of the assemblage (26 pieces, 35.6%) is made up of modified bone and shell artifacts, and coral and echinoid items. A number of categories of artifacts are represented, including fishing gear, tools, ornaments, flaked stone/lithic debitage, domestic implements, recreational artifacts, and miscellaneous. Overall, the indigenous portable artifact assemblage is not fully representative of the range of traditional Hawaiian artifacts. Absent from the collection are domestic implements such as awls, stone pounders, grindstones, and shell scrapers. The following discussions describe selected artifacts from these various categories. Fishing Gear. Fishing gear includes one fishhook, and five octopus lures (all from the surface of Site AD81). Tli6 iislr?iook is rhade of bone and f iaaaff6s 33.8 rhm in length and 16.4 mm in width. It is a finished and complete rotating hook with an incurved point. It has a type HT4 head. This is typically a late fishhook form. The octopus lures are made from whole Cypraea sp, shells, a small hole perforated on each end. The lures are complete although in eroded condition. Tools. Tools consist of nine abraders (one scoria, six coral, and two edhinoid Xeterocen"tus mamillatus spine), and seven basalt adzes or fragments. The scoria abrader is a relatively large, tabular, rectangular abrader collected from the.surface of Site 14081. It measures 102.9 mm in length and 45.8 mm in width. The adzes and fragments are made from a fine-grained basalt that has been roughed -out (flaked) and subsequently polished to varying degrees. One of the adzes from Site 14074 is a complete blank with a small amount of polishing on one side. However, it appears to have been reworked; previous polishing has flaked off the surface. It measures 136.4 mm in length and 136.4 mm in width. Two adzes were collected from the surface of Site 14081. The fust of these is a small, complete adze with polishing on all sides. The working edge shows no sign of use. It measures 46.4 mm in length and 18.5 mm in width. The second specimen from Site 14081 is a complete adze that has been used and reworked to such an extent that it has become very short. It measures 82.1 mm in length, 57.7 num in width, and 40.3 mm in thickness. An adze fragment collected from Site 14107 consists of a fragment of the butt end. It is quite thin and exhibits signs of having been completely polished. It measures 31.9 mm in length, 25.8 mm in width and 9.7 mm in thickness. The remaining adze pieces are all fragments collected from various sites and which probably flaked off the original complete tool during use. Flaked Stone/Lithic Debitage. Thirty-eight unmodified flakes of volcanic glass and one flake of basalt were recovered from various sites. The basalt flakes and one of the volcanic glass flakes were collected from the surface of the project area. The flakes were small and are interpreted as either lithic debitage resulting from stone tool manufacture, or are possibly tools themselves although no evidence of retouching or utilization was observed on any of these flakes. Such tools have been interpreted as indigenous "pocketknives" (Barrera and Kirch 1973:185-186). Their function has been interpreted in many ways, as tools for the manufacture of fishhooks and other bone items, as knives for butchering and scaling fish, as bark scrapers, or as 2aih scrapers, to name a few. 27 9 0 w � F N p a I "I o 00 000-�-� 00 0 0 000 0 F H W LID F a m C F r'i F JD �!1 N F e7 w: n C4 Z O a z � C �$ �3aa>F�p'a "�n��'cm oa0�-�aCi L�mv 2fa 28 0 d L F Lm 29 �p C she uN.., n �o ••w m � E ti �F n�0 p 0 0 P O O O o o n F N A �n p IT, r F � o00 00000 -+o h r4 nw � =� d ,m C c7 owOM <cgv7h<�5w>° U Z� w¢ m 29 Modified/Other. Six modified bone pieces and two modified shell pieces were recovered. They are all pieces of indeterminate function with cut and/or abraded surfaces. Domestic Implements. The domestic implements collected from the project area include two bird bone picks recovered from Site 14081. Ornamental Artifacts. A drilled dogtooth was recovered from the surface of Site 14081. It measures 32.2 mm in length and 10.4 mm in width. Apparently, the first attempt at drilling the hole resulted in the tooth beginning to crack. This first attempt was abandoned before it went all the way through, and a second hole was drilled just below it. This piece almost certainly functioned as a pendant. Recreational Artifacts. A possible ulu maika gaming stone was recovered from the surface of Site 14081. It measures 45.2 mm in diameter and 26.4 mm thick. It is made of coral and its surface is quite weathered. It is interpreted as only a possible ulu maika because it is quite small. It may in fact be a circular coral abrader. ECOFACTUAL REMAINS The variety and distribution of ecofactual remains recovered from test unit excavations are summarized inT-able 9: A total of 513.33 g of midden was sorted -300.07 g of marine gastropod remains, 21.09 g of.bivalvia remains, 135.45 g of other (Echinoidea and Crustacea) remains, 28.36 g of vertebrate remains, and 42.44 g of vegetal remains, which includes kukui (Aleurites molucanna), and charcoal. Marine gastropods represent the majority of recovered midden (58A% total midden). The most common gastropods were Cypraeidae (233.24 g). and Conidae (37.92 g), which together represent 52.8% of the total midden recovered. The single greatest amount of midden recovered through excavation was from two test units at Site 14081. This site accounts for 64.7% of the total ecofactual remains recovered during the present project. The next largest amount of maiden recovered, accounting for an additional 18.9% of the total midden recovered, was from two test units at Site 14123. These two sites account for 83.6% of the total midden recovered from the project area. 30 L �g�SaooS a �vminS m h� V O• -'O �+ .+00 V O VOP O' m0 �S.h-� r N Sh-' mSSSm O i POS-' O F O r00 m00Its m O t F P • 4 C5 C5 N m V V N � VJ VJ O O V F F P P f N r O S O a f h O ooPO N acmm P h� C5 F V V a p p pph F p O SSS O� S S F S OSS S S O O O O O N m O O N 0 0 0 0 0 C C N N S m pA � 6. Is .� u w O O FFVVFI+I+i � O : q T q Tom. �UF`22U�Cg 31 ®cam FIN Mr.a �i , iy F C? F F �M- W Q F <M1 0 a h 32 CONCLUSION DISCUSSION Aside from the management of archaeological sites as cultural resources, archaeological investigation primarily revolves around a number of research issues aimed at describing past life -ways and outlining cultural developments and changes. Ideally, such research will lead to, or aid in explaining cultural changes and processes. Sites are examined in light of general questions of chronology, settlement and exploitative patterns, site and assemblage variability, material culture and technology, diet and economy, and socio -religious patterns. The degree to which a site can aid in addressing the above research questions is reflected in the value assigned to the site under the Scientific_Research category of significance (CRM value Category R in Table 2). The value assigned to the site under the Cultural significance category (CRM value Category C in Table 1) is an indicator of the degree to which the site reflects modern, yet traditional cultural sensibilities. While the value assigned to the site under the Interpretive significance category (CRM value Category I in Table 2) reflects the potential that the site holds to aid in edifying the public in terms of past life -ways. Without taking advantage of the research information potential offered by a site, the cultural significance and value of the site cannot be fully appreciated, and the interpretive potential of the site cannot be at tnahzed. The following discussion provides a summary of the research information gathered during the current project and presents some conclusions and ideas about the prehistory and history of the area. As a whole, the archaeological sites and features found within the Pualani Development - Phase II project area provide a significant archaeological data base with which to investigate prehistoric life -ways of the area, particularly in terms of agricultural land -use patterns and developments. The large number of agricultural sites and features demonstrates intensive agricultural use of the area in the past. In addition, evidence of early use of the area demonstrates exploitation of the area before the agricultural period. During the inventory survey, 64 sites consisting of 138 features were identified. The component features consist of 27 formal types representing 19 functional types. Nine of these functional types, however, are either indeterminate or are of a possible nature. The sites themselves consist of 17 functional types, which are made up of the functional types of the features and combinations of these types (Table 5). The tabulation of formal feature types presented in Table 3 is somewhat misleading in that it does not explicitly indicate the true magnitude of use of bedrock outcrops for feature construction. This is primarily because the formal type "modified outcrop" has been divided into a number of sub -types (i.e., mound/modified outcrop). In order to give an idea of the extent of outcrop use in the area, it is noted here that 42:8% of thetotalnumber of recorded features owe their structural form and integrity to bedrock outcrops. Moreover, this proportion does not include the less significant modified outcrops noted in the vicinities of many of the sites, but not recorded at this level of investigation. Also, this proportion does not account for the fact that many other features, although not modified outcrops per se, are built in integral relationship to unmodified outcrops, such that both features and outcrops create the overall essential form of any given site. Other formal types found within the project area include walls, platforms, caves, terraces, enclosures, linear mounds, pit, C -shape, L -shape, cairn, road, and alignment. As stated above, many of these, except the roads, caves, and most of the walls, to some extent owe their. general form to bedrock outcrops. 33 Features that have been interpreted as functioning for agricultural purposes are the most common features in the- project area. This is not surprising given that the project area is situated within the agricultural Kona Field System. Two previous archaeological projects in the immediate vicinity had much the same results (see Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). Schilt described the section of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor that fell within Puapua'a 1st and 2nd as containing "an almost continuous complex of gardening features..." (1984:317). She assigned this complex a single site designation (D7-66; SM Site 28/37-5137). During the current survey, clusters of features were assigned individual site designations; yet, it is recognized that many of the features recorded during the current survey, taken as a whole, form a makai extension of the agricultural complex fust noted by Schilt. Incidentally, many of the agricultural features recorded mauka of the realignment corridor could be ascribed to this agricultural site complex as well (Walker and Rosendahl 1988). Assigning individual designations to these features, rather than lumping all or many of them under the previously existing agricultural complex designation, was done in order to facilitate recording, to provide a realistic picture of the extent and density of features, and to facilitate the formulation of appropriate resource management goals and tasks. The ubiquitous features of this agricultural complex primarily consist of modified outcrops and mounds (see Figures B-1 and B -S in Appendix B). Many of the other formal feature types, such as platforms, linear mounds, terraces and the smaller habitation features (discussed below), also functioned for agricultural, or directly related, purposes as well. Generally, there appears to be a more dense distribution of agricultural features towards the mauka side of the project area, and a greater diversity of formal and functional feature types towards the makai side. This general distribution pattern, however, may not reflect the original pattern due to historic land modifications (road construction and other historic activiiies) in the makai portion of the project area. The agricultural features functioned as planting mounds/mediums and/or were created as a result of land clearing in order to increase the number and extent of agriculturally suitable soil areas. In the mauka side of the project area, there are a number of relatively extensive and level soil areas that are more or less surrounded by modified outcrops and rock mounds. Most of the agricultural features in the project area probably relate to Schilt's Cultural Phase III: Refuge, Habitation, and Intensive/ Extensive Gardening, which took .place c. AD 1600/1650-1779 (1984:284). This conclusion is based primarily on the fact that Schilt conducted relatively extensive investigations within Site D7-66 and ascribed this large garden complex to the above phase. Given that many of the sites identified in the current project area could be included in this large complex, there is little reason to ascribe the agricultural sites identified during the current survey to any other Phase. However, there is a possibility that this assumption may be at least partially incorrect. Site 14074 (see Figures B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B) was initially interpreted as a habitation feature. This interpretation Was based on formal type and the fact that an adze was found in the feature. However, testing of the feature produced no cultural remains as would be expected at a habitation site, and it is now thought that this feature may be agricultural. The single C-14 date obtained from the site (AD 1030-1470) places it well into Schilt's Phase I: Pioneer Settlement, which took place c. AD 1050-1400. If the site is agricultural, then a revision of Schilt's chronological phases may be necessary. Perhaps agricultural practices developed much earlier in this area than previously supposed, and that not all the agricultural sites in the area are representative of the intensive agricultural phase. Of course a single date from a 50 by 50 cm test unit excavated in a single site of questionable function is scanty evidence with which to revise an accepted chronology. Moreover, the date itself may be incorrect or misleading; it may simply be dating a plant that happened to live and die at the feature and, as such, have no cultural relevance. Nevertheless, the question is raised. Further work at this site and others in the project area is necessary in order to clarify this and other similar questions. Walls are another feature type in the project area related to agriculture. Most of the walls in the project area are historic (these are discussed below). The prehistoric walls identified include Sites 14075, 14080, 34 and possibly 14116. These walls may represent so-called kuaiwi walls of the Kona Field System, which functioned as boundaries delineating rectangular fields within the agricultural system. Such features are described by Schilt as "a maze of continuous walls of stacked stone, or in some cases of low earthen mounds (varying in height from 0.5 to 1.0 in and in width from 1.0 to 3.0 m)" (1984:3). The walls of Sites 14075 and 14080 are quite small, relatively insubstantial, and are in poor condition. The Site 14116 wall is low and squat, yet is quite massive and core -filled and is in moderate condition. The walls, however, hardly resemble a maze. This dissimilarity with the classic walls of the Kona Field system could be attributed to a few factors. The most likely would be that the area lies on the outskirts of the core of the field system, and the maze of walls was never fully developed in this region. Alternatively, earlier walls may have been destroyed during historic times by cattle grazing through the area, or the rocks may have been taken from the prehistoric walls to create the historic walls in the area (but this is unlikely given the surplus of rocks everywhere in the project area). Another alternative is that these features are not kuaiwi walls at all. The two insubstantial walls may in fact be the last remains of a mauka-makai running trail, and the third wall may once have formed a boundary. Such questions require further investigation, such as tracing out these walls and detailing their respective courses. A single trail section was positively identified in the project area Site 5143 (see Figure B-15 in Appendix B). This site consists of an alignment of boulders bordering a narrow trough-like depression. The extant portion of this trail runs within 10 meters of Site 14130. It was determined that this section was a continuation of a trail that runs mauka-makai along the southernboundary of Puapua'a 2nd. This trail was originally identified by Schilt (1984). The determination that the section within the current project area is a continuation of the trail identified by Schilt, was based solely on the location and orientation of a trail illustrated in Schilt (1984:219). Further investigation of this site is necessary; the route of the trail le� should be plotted Between 15 and 20 percent of the features identified within the project area have been interpreted (solely or partly) as habitation features. Most of these probably reflect temporary or seasonal occupation while gardening. During recording, however, little attempt was made at determining the degree of habitation. (i.e., permanent or temporary). In most cases such a determination was not possible given the current level of investigation. Much site clearing and excavation of features have to be done before such distinctions can be made. Schilt (1984) described the nature of habitation during the height of agricultural exploitation of the area in a number of ways: temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent. She described habitation sites as "situated atop small to large prominent outcrops" (1984:281); and in other cases as "caves... used intensively for temporary shelter and working areas" (1984:284). Habitation features of both these types have been identified in the current project area. The first type is represented at Sites 14074, 14076, 14104, 14111, 14115?, 14123, 14124, 14127, 14128; 14130, and 14131 (see Figures B-2, B-3, B=4, B-5, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B). These sites all contain habitation features such as C -shapes; platforms, and enclosures, situated prominently on outcrops and/or centrally within the site. The habitation features often have associated agricultural features, and in most cases midden was recovered or observed at these features. It should be noted that Sites 14123 and 14124 are significantly larger and more complex than the other sites. It seems likely that these two sites functioned for more than just temporary or seasonal habitation. Further investigation is needed in order to determine this. The second type of habitation feature (caves) is represented at Sites 14081, 14107, and 14123 (see Figures B-6, B-8, B-10, and B-11 in Appendix B). A number of these features exhibit structural modifications, primarily low, stacked walls around the entrances. Three of the cave features were tested during the current project. The first of these, Site 14081 clearly functioned as more than a temporary shelter or work area. Relatively substantial cultural deposits and a wide variety of artifacts were recovered. 35 In addition, two radiocarbon dates (AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480) from this site places its earliest occupation before the establishment of extensive agriculture in the area (as outlined by Schilt 1984:276- 284). A third date from this cave (AD 1640-1955) may represent a second, later occupation which took place during the most intensive period of agriculture in the area. Site 14081 may have also served as a refuge cave; such caves were not uncommon during this period (Schilt 1984: 276-284). The entrance is very narrow and appears to have been partly filled with boulder and cobble rubble. This narrowing of the entrance could represent a defensive modification to the cave. The other two caves that were tested (Site 14107 F:F; and Site 14123 F:D) fit well with Schilt's description of temporary shelters used while tending to agricultural crops. Their form, location and the limited variety of cultural remains recovered do not suggest more than temporary habitation. However, the cave at Site 14123 is a feature (along with another small cave) within a large complex that probably served more than just a temporary habitation function. Unfortunately, no dates were obtained for these two caves. Sites 14123 and 14124 are large complexes centered around large pahoehoe and 'ad bedrock outcrops (see Figures B-10 and B-12 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments. They both have well built walls which extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5 by 5 meter area on the edge of the outcrop that is paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This area grades off into jumbled rubble and boulders, yet a large area in the vicinity of this paved area is quite open and level. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks Eike a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function. The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is somewhat smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop itself has a large enclosure - like form. The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large, essentially rectangular platform. This feature has been interpreted as a possible burial platform. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to any other site in the project area and warrant extensive further work and possibly preservation "as is." A number of features have been evaluated as possible burials (see Figures B-13 and B-16 in Appendix B). These include features at Sites 14084, 14123, 14124, 14126, and 14129. It is unknown at this point whether or not these features are burials. Testing needs to be undertaken. Generally, these features are well constructed platforms or mounds, that appear to have been built with care and a greater amount of work than other features in the area. The only definite burials found in the project area are located in Site 14132 (see Figure B-17 in Appendix B). This site consists of a relatively small lava tube.. The remains of at least four individuals are located approximately 16 meters within the entrance of the tube. A second tube, running off the main tube was not explored as it is quite narrow and the long bones of .a single individual were situated "approximately a meter in frorn the opening. It was not deemed appropriate at the time of recording to disturb these bones in order to continue exploration of the tube. If these burials are not to be preserved "as is" further investigation will be required. The above discussion has focused on the prehistoric occupation and use of the .project area. While the archaeological landscape of the project area is dominated by prehistoric features, historic use of the area is represented as well. Historic use of the area, however, appears to have been limited in intensity and extent. The primary historic features are the walls that essentially run along and define the ahupua'a boundaries. These include Sites 5136, 5139, and 5144 (see Figure B-7 in Appendix B). These walls were probably constructed after AD 1850 and were maintained for an indeterminate period of time. It was during this time that ranching became the primary use of the area (Schilt 1984). Other walls in the area probably reflect such land use as well, including Sites 14106, 14112, and 14113. There does not appear to have been any historic habitation in the project area except perhaps at Site 14120. This site consists of a number of 36 Jhistoric features including a concrete foundation with raised sides and an overturned water wagon. This wagon is a large iron/steel tanker type vehicle/trailer? with steel wheels, and it is probably worth considering the idea of conserving the wagon as a historic relic. This historic activity area, which served an unknown function, lies between what is the current Kuakini Highway on the west side of the project area, and the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (Site 14087). The only other historic site of note in the area is what appears to be a section of the oldest N -S road that ran through the area. This road section consists of a cobble- and boulder -filled road bed retained by a stacked boulder terrace on the downslope side. It is a short section of road situated at the north end of the project area, between the two more recent roads. This site warrants a limited amount of historical documentary research which could potentially provide information useful in outlining historic transportation routes, not to mention information interesting in terms of local history. Overall, the project area offers good potential for examining past lifeways, particularly in terms of the development, nature, and overall system of prehistoric agriculture in the area. Early, pre -agricultural occupation is represented in at least one site, and probably others. The late prehistoric period is best represented in the project area; most of the agricultural features can be ascribed to this period (this assumption, however, could be questioned). The historic period appears to be represented almost solely by historic walls which probably directly relate to the shift in land use from agriculture to ranching. This shift would have occurred during the early historic period. Further archaeological investigation could provide valuable information, and such information could only enhance our understanding of past culture and lifeways in the area. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS AND I RECOMMENDED GENERAL TREATMENTS General significance assessments and recommended general. treatments for all identified sites are summarized in Table 10. Significance and treatment are summarized in further detail in Table 11. Specific fieldwork tasks for sites requiring further work are presented in Table 2. Significance categories used in the site evaluation process are based on Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-42, Hawaii Revised Statutes (DLNR 2001). The DLNR-SHPD uses these criteria for evaluating cultural resources. The site was assessed for integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and in terms of the following criteria: (1) Criterion A. Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (2) Criterion B. Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; (4) Criterion D. Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; (5) Criterion 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, beliefs, events or oral.accounts. 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" (Draft Report, August 1985). The guidelines define cultural value 37 Table 10. Summary of General Sienificance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments* Feature Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 28- 5136 + + _ _ + _ 14086 + _ _ _ + _ _ + _ _ 28/37- 5139 + - - + - - 14087 + + - - + 14088 + - + - 14089 + + - - + - - 37- 5144 + + - + - - 14093 + + _ _ + 14096 + + _ _ + _ _ 14097 + - + - - 14099 + + _ _ + 14106 + _ _ + 14110 + + _ + 14112 + + _ + 141.13 + + - + 14120 + + 14125 + + - + Subtotal: 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 28- 14073 + _ _ + _ + _ _ 14074 + + + _ _ 14075 + - + - 14076 + + _ + 14077 + + + 14078 + - + 14079 + + - + 14080 + _ _ _ + _ + 14081 + + _ + 14082 + + + 14083 + + - + 14085 + + _ + 37- 5143 + + _ + 14090 + + + 14092 + - + 14094 + + - + 14095 + + + 14098 + _ + 14100 + + _ + 14101 + + _ + 14102 + + - + 14103 + - + + 14104 + - + _ + 14105 + _ _ _ + _ + _ _ _ 14107 + + - + - - rhis table was created in 1990. It has since been revised and updated and it presented as Table D-1 in Appendix D. 38 Table 10. (Continued Feature Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation 19084 A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 14108 + + - + 14109 + + - + 14111 * + + 14114 - + + 14115 - + + 14116 - + + 14117 - + + 14118 * + + 14119 + + + 14121 + + 14122 + + 14127 + + + 14128 + + 14130 + + + 14131 + + Suhtntal: 0 0 0 40 0 40 0 0 0 28- 19084 + * + 37- 14091 + + * + 14126 + * + 14129 + + * + Subtotal: 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 14123 - - + + * + _ 14124 - - - + + * _ + Subtotal: 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 14132 + _ - + + + + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 Total: 0 0 2 64 7 47 17 0 7 *Provisional assessment final assessment pending further data collection General Significance Categories: A = Important for historical contribution to significant events and/or broad pauems of history B = Important for association with the lives of important individuals in history G = Excellent example of site type at local, region, island, State, or National level D = Important for information content E = Culturally significant Recommended General Treatments: FDL = Further data collection necessary (detailed recording, surface collections, and limited excavations, and possibly subsequent data recovery/mhigation excwadons) NFW = Nor further work of any kind necessary, sufficient data collected, no preservation potential PID = Preservation with some level of interpretive development recommended PAI = Preservation "as is", with no further work (and possible inclusion into landscaping) 39 Tihle I 1 Rnrinnnle fir Site Sicnifrcance and Treatment Note: See Table 10 for Key to Significance and Treatment Recommendations Uej Site it Si nf. SI nificance Rationale/Comments Treat. Treatment Details/Comments 5136 D Historic wall to mark ahupua'e boundary, collapsed and intersected NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation b various mads potential 5139 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 5143 D No comment _ FDC Trail continues upslope outside pmjed area; route of trail should be lotted 5144 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14073 D Agricultural and likely temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to tolled further information and needed to fully assess function possible excavation to assess function 14074 D No comment FDC Excavation of one unit revealed no cultural material; numerous unrecorded outcrops in area; further recordino of information needed 14075 D May be kuaiwi FDC Further examination of wall extending beyond site may confirm kuaiwitunctlon 14076 D Possible permanent habitation at Feature A FDC Detailed recording and examination to collect further information and further possible excavation to dad function 14077 D Agricultural and possibly temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to collect further information and needed to fully assess function possible excavation to assess function 14078 D Need further testing to further assess function FDC Detailed recording to collect further information and - test unit in soil filled area 14079 D Agricultural and possibly temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to collect further Information and needed to fully assess function excavation In soil area to further assess function 14080 D,C Agricultural or transportation; possible kuaiwi; or possibly a section FDG Detailed recording to tolled further infomation; of bail with low walls extending down either side. More information follow out possible trail or wall. needed to fully assess function 14081 D - Likelylemporary.habitatlon with high research potential. _ FDC Detailed recording. to .collect -further informatioq surface collection, further excavation of cultural deposits 14082 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of additional outcrops in vicinity 14083 D No comment FDC Detailed recording to collect further Information. 14084 D, E' Agriculture; composition and form suggests Feature C is a possible FDC, Numerous other unrecorded features ih vicinity. burial, hence E' designation PAI' Test Feature C for possible burial. PAI 9 burial. 14085 D No comment FDC Additional clearing and detailed recording to collect further information; possible excavation 14086 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation tential 14087 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14088 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation otential 14089 D No comment - NFW Sufficient information collected; nopreservation potential 14090 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of remaining information at site; . numerous unrecorded outgo s in vicinity 14091 D, E' Agriculture; composition and forth suggests Feature A is a possible FDC, Detailed recording of remaining Information at site; burial, hence E' designation PAI' testing of Feature A for possible burial. 14092 D No comment FDC Detailed recording to recover remaining information at sitepossible excavation 14093 D No comment NFW Information collected; no preservation tantlal Potential 14094 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of remaining information at site; numerous unrecorded mounds and modified outgo s In the vldni - 14095 D No comment FDC Further clearing may reveal additional features and cultural remains; detailed recording, possible excavation 14096 D No comment NFW Sufficient information cdlected; no preservation otential NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation 14097 D No comment otential 14098 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information function of Feature A and sslble excavation NFW Sot Information collected; no preservation 14099 D No comment ntial o ential 14100 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation at Feature A; further work FDC Further detailed recording of remainMg information to clad function and possible excavation Note: See Table 10 for Key to Significance and Treatment Recommendations Uej Site iF Slant. SI nificance Rationale/Comments Treat. Treatment Rationale/Comments 14101 D No comment FDC Further recording and possible excavation may determine what feature is marking 14102 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation at Feature;--A—and B; FDC Feature C may be for water catchment; further further work to clarify function recording and possible excavation may clarify function 14103 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording of site; unrecorded features In function vicini ssible excavation 14104 D Agdoultum and likely permanent habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information function and possible excavation to clarify function 14105 D Agriculture and likely temporary or permanent habitation at Feature FDC Further recording to collect remaining Information; B; further work to cladfy function possible excavation to determine more definite function 14106 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential. 14107 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording may clarify functions of features D and E; possible surface collection and further excavation Feature F tested. 14108 D Agriculture and temporary/permanent(?) habitation; further work to FDC Further recording and examination may clarify clarity function function; possible excavation 14109 D Agriculture and possible temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording and examination may clarity function function possible excavation 14110 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential -14111 D Likely temporary habitation, agriculture FDC Further recording and examination, surface - collection, and possible excavation. Features A and B have been tested 14112 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation 14113 D No comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation potential 14114 D Agriculture and possible temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording and examination may clarify function function;ssible excavation 14115 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording of remaining. Information; possible excavation ssible kuaW - —T—[)C Further recording may reveal age of wall comment FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information comment FDC Further detailed recording of remaining Information; possible excavation; numerous unrecorded mouimda in vicinity g comment FDC Further detailed recording _ of remaining Information, possible dismantling comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation potential comment -FDC Further examination and recording of remaining infommation . 14122 - D No comment FDG Further examination and recording of remaining information 14123 C, D, Permanent habitation; further work to clarify function and FDC, Further recording, testing, surface collection and significance PAI' possible preservation; largest single she in project E' area with si nlficaht da sits. 14124 C, D, Possible temporary habitation or -burial; further work to clarify FDC. Further recording, testing, surface collection and E• function and significance PAI* possible preservation 14125 D No comment NFW Suffident Information collected; no preservation tential - 14126 D, E- Possible temporary and possible burial; further work FDC, Further recording and examination; possible .habitation needed to clarify function PAI* excavation. Feature Bmay be burial 14727 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording, surface collection. Poasible excavation of surface midden. Tested Features A and B. 14128 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording and examination; possible excavation In surface midden Feature B tested Further recording and possible testing 14129 D, E' Possible burial; further work to clarify function and sign cence FDC. PAI' FDC Further recording and examination, and possible 14130 D Likely temporary habitation excavation K tle sits rioted Possible permanent habitation FDC Further recording, examination, and excavatAonn 14131 D cultural de sits. FDC, Further detailed recording and preservation a 14132 D, E Burial cave PAI *Provisional assessment, final assessment pending further data cogection 41 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 client management decisions regarding the subsequent treatment of resources, the general significance of the archaeological sites identified during the inventory survey was also evaluated in terms of PHRI CRM (Cultural Resource Management) value modes — potential scientific research, interpretive, and/or cultural values — which are derived from the above federal criteria. CRM value mode assessments for individual sites are presented in Table 2. In evaluating information content (CRM value = research value), all the sites located within the project area were examined in light of several major research issues identified during background research. These issues revolve around general questions of chronology, settlement and exploitative patterns, site and assemblage variability, material culture and technology, diet and economy, and socio -religious patterns. These research issues have been discussed in more detail in the preceding discussion section. In evaluating value as an excellent example of a site type (CRM value = interpretive value), sites located within the project area were examined in light of their possessing qualities that would potentially make them valuable for educational or interpretive purposes. Attributes that would provide a representative example of particular kinds of behavior, activities or conditions in the past, were examined. Sites with cultural significance (CRM value = cultural value) would include those sites with traditional uses and significant meaning in the present context of a traditional way of life, Burials and religious complexes fall within this category. Other site types that are assigned a high degree of cultural significance include those that have been shown — through historic documentary research, informant interviews, or other means— to possess significant cultural meaning to present day peoples and society as a whole. Of the 64 sites identified within the Pualard Development project area, 57 are assessed as significant solely for information content. No further work is recommended for 17 of these 56 sites. These 17 sites, primarily consisting of historic or recent land division walls, historic cattle walls, historic or recent roads, and small isolated modified outcrops presumably used for prehistoric agriculture, have been recorded and described at such a level as to sufficiently. mitigate their possible destruction. These sites were evaluated as of low overall significance, based on a number of criteria including: (a) the sites have no associated deposits and portable remains, (b) a number of the sites are recent in age, and (c) no significant information other than location and general form and function could be gathered from these sites.. The remaining 40 sites assessed as significant solely for information content require further data collection. A number of these sites appear to contain relatively rich subsurface deposits and/or surficial scatters of cultural remains. Further testing and/or surface collections need to be conducted at these sites in order to gather remaining significant information. In addition, many of these sites require further more detailed recording in terms of preparation of detailed maps. There is relatively dense vegetation cover at these sites, and considerable time and effort will be required to clear the sites and thereby allow more accurate, detailed site maps to be drawn. A few sites will probably require research -oriented mitigation excavations (e.g., Site 14081). Of the remaining seven sites, four are assessed as potentially culturally significant and valuable for information content. These sites may contain burials and are provisionally recommended for preservation "as is," pending further data collection. Further testing will have to be conducted at these sites to determine UA J whether or not the indicated features are burials, in addition to gathering further information from the sites. If the features are, in fact, burials, then preservation "as is" is recommended as the most desirable action. If this alternative is not possible or not preferred, then disinterments, in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and procedures, could possibly be undertaken (see below). Two sites (14123 and 14124) are assessed as significant for information content, as excellent examples of site types, and as potentially culturally significant. These are large sites that may contain burials, and one site may be a religious complex. Further data collection is recommended. Preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended pending further data collection results. The final site (14132) is a burial cave containing the remains of at least four individuals. Further data collection in terms of detailed recording is recommended, as well as preservation "as is." As above, with the possible burials, if this course of action is not possible or not preferred, then disinterments, in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and procedures, could possibly be undertaken. Disinterments must comply with Chapter 6E - Historic Preservation, Section 43 (flaw. Rev. Stat., as amended). The DLNR-HSS would be notified and would contact the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). A treatment plan for the burials would be worked out with DLNR-HSS. A search for direct lineal descendants — consisting of publishing in a newspaper of general circulation a public notice to notify possible direct lineal descendants — would be required. If direct lineal descendants are found, a plan for final disposition of the remains would have to be developed in consultation with the descendants and, prior to disinterment, a disinterment permit would have to be obtained from the State Department of Dearth. It is recommended that any disinterred remains eventually be reinterred at an appropriate facility either within the project area or in a nearby cemetery. Although several sites are recommended for preservation; it is not thought that such action would prevent or seriously constrain future development in the project area. Aside from the burials and possible burials, two sites in the southeast comer of the project area are recommended for preservation (14123 and 14124). It is believed that preservation of these sites "as is" would maintain their integrity for the future so that the apparent significant scientific, cultural, and interpretive values they possess is not lost. As an important initial step prior to further archaeological work in the project area, it is recommended that all identified sites 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 locational plotting 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 assessments and recommendations presented here have been based on the findings of a 100% coverage, variable -intensity surface and limited subsurface inventory survey of the project area. There is always the possibility, however remote, that potentially significant, unidentified cultural remains could be encountered in the course of future archaeological investigations or subsequent development activities. In such situations, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately. 43 REFERENCES CITED 0 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) Allen, M.S. 1984 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Waiono Meadows Development Project Area, Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, Holualoa 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 119-070584. Prepared for Waiono Meadows Ranch, Ltd. Armstrong, R.W. (ed.) 1983 Atlas of Hawai'i. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai'i. (Second edition) Barrera, W. Jr., and P.V. Kirch 1973 Basalt -glass Artifacts from Hawai'i: Their Dating and Prehistoric Uses. Journal of Polynesian Society 82(2):176-187. Barrere, D.B. 1975 Kamehameha in Kona: Two Documentary Studies. Pacific—Anthropological Records No. D. Dept. Anthro., &P. Bishop Museum. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 36 CFR Part 60 National Register of Historic Places. Washington, D.C.: Dept. Interior, National Park Service. Ching, F.K.W., E. Neller, S.L. Palama, and P.B. Griffm 1973 The Archaeology of North Kona, from the Ahupua'a of Kahului to the Ahupua'a of Kahalu'u. Surface Survey: Realignment of Ali'i Drive. Hawaiian Archaeological Journal 73-2. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc.. Corbin, A.B. 2003 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, Land of Puapua'a- nui, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5-17:21). PHRI Report 2308- 041503. Prepared for Uluwehi Properties, LLC. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) 2001 Chapter 284: Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-41, HRS, Projects. Hawaii. Administrative Rules; Title 13, Department of Land and Natural Resources; Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Division Rules. (May) (Draft rules) Delimont, K, A.E. Hann, and P.H. Rosendahl 1985 Intensive Survey and Test Excavations, Kahakai Development Project Area, Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 157-070185 (Draft). Prepared for K.G. (Hawaii) Construction. (With J. Landrum III) Dye, T.S. 1978 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Four Alternative Sites for the Kailua- Keauhou Elementary School, Ms. 031078, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Company Ltd. 44 Graves, D.K. 1991 Pualani Residential Community (Phase In, Archaeological Data Recovery, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa 1 st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHRI Interim Report 1055=060491, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Hammatt, H.H. 1980 Archaeological Survey of a Shoreline Property, TMK:7-5-20:22,34) Puapua'a, Kona, Hawai'i Island. Report 14-158. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii. Hommon, R.J., and P.H. Rosendahl 1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Ali'i Drive Realignment Corridors, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. Science Management, Inc. (Honolulu) and P.H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (Hilo). Prepared for Belt, Collins &Associates. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and god, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualani Development Company. KelLy,-M— 1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona, A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 83-2, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. J Kirch, P.V. 1983 Indigenous Artifacts. IN Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane-Waimea- Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawai'i: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Departmental Report Series 83-1, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. (Edited by J.T. Clark and P.V. Kirch, pp. 341-347). 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks; An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Kuykendall, R. S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1953 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1854-1874. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1967 The Hawaiian kingdom 1874-1893. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. McNeill, J.W, 1982 Appendix: Report on Archaeological Monitoring of the Kahakai Elementary School Site. IN Welch 1982:97-99. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report–Series 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. 45 Soehren, L.J. 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Portion of Kahului 2nd, North Kona, Hawai'i Island. 1981 Kahakai Elementary School Archaeological Surveillance of Soil Investigation. Letter report to Mr. Edward Masuoka, Chief, Project Management Branch, DPW, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai'i. (Cited in Welch 1982) Soil Survey Staff 1962 Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Dept. Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service. Handbook No. 18. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office. Stearns, H.T. 1966 Geology of the State of Hawaii. Palo Alto: Pacific Books, Publishers. Stuiver, M., and G.W. Pearson 1986 High -Precision Calibration of Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950 to 500 BC. Radiocarbon 28,pp.805-838. Soil Conservation Service 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Soil Conservation Service -and Univ. Hawaii Agri. Experiment Station. Taylor, C.B. 1948 The Restoration of a Heiau. Paradise of the Pacific 60:pp.46-49,125. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1985a Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kahakai Development Project Area, Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 141-111984. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction. 1985b Supplementary Report: Archaeological Reconnaissance of TMK Parcel 76 and the Alii Drive Realignment Corridor, Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kahakai Development Project Area; Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 141-013185. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction: 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision, Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 367-041988. Prepared for Pualani Development Company, Kailua-Kona. Welch, D.J. 1982 Archaeological Survey and Excavations of the Kahakai (Kailua-Kona) Elementary School Site, North Kona, Hawai'i. Ms. 051082. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. 46 A-1 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH by Helen Wong Smith, B.A. Historical research on Puapuaa 1st and 2nd has been conducted by Carol Silva (1985) as part of an earlier PHRI survey (Kahakai Development project area [Walker and Rosendahl 1985all. A summary of Silva's report is presented here, in addition to data found at the State Survey office and Bureau of Conveyances. Early accounts relevant to Puapuaa include those concerning the Kailua-Kona area. These accounts indicate that the high-ranking chiefs Umi-a-Liloa, Kalaniopuu, and Kamehameha I resided in Kona. During the early historic period, Kailua was a preferred and often visited port, as well as the center of island govemment. Residences of aU strewhed.from. Kahelo,.at,the. maijai end of Puapuaa 1st; to Lanihau, north of Kailua Bay. Native historian Samuel Kamakau writes: There were chiefs and families of chiefs of Oahu, Molokai, Kauai, Mani. The sands of Kaiakeakua (Kailua Bay) 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 horses of the chiefs from Kahelo to Lanihau. The number of chiefs and lesser chiefs reached into the thousands (Kamakau 1961:221-222). Silva maintains thateven later, the "members of chiefly lines, Ruth Keelikolani, Alexander Liholiho and his queen Emma, and Kalakaua, just to name a few, maintained this fondness and spent much time upon her shores" (Silva 1985:A-3). The earliest account specific to the Puapuaa vicinity is by English missionary William Ellis. Ellis describes the Puapuaa area as green and agriculturally productive. He also describes Kauakaiakaola Heiau, which is situated in Puapuaa 1st. Ellis' observations are presented here: Leaving Kairua, 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 rains, which for some months past have fallen on this side of the island. Even the barren lava, over which we travelled, seemed to veil its sterility beneath frequent tufts of tall waving grass, or spreading shrubs and The sides 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, others had evidently been standing but a few years. ALRuapua (Puapuaa)-we examined an interesting heiau, called Kauaikahama, built of immense blocks of lava, and found its dimensions to be 150 feet by 70. At the north end was a smaller enclosure, sixty feet long and ten wide, partitioned off by a high wall, with but one narrow entrance. The places where the idols formerly stood were apparent, though the idols had been removed. The spot where the altar had been erected could be distinctly traced; it was a mound of earth, paved with smooth stones, and surrounded by a firm curb of lava. The adjacent ground was strewed with bones of the ancient offerings. The native informed us that four principal idols were formerly worshipped there, one of stone, two of wood, and one covered -with red feathers: One of them, they said, was brought from a foreign country. Their names were Kanenuiakea;-(great and wide spreading Kane), who was brought from Tauai, Kanertiruhonua, (earth -shaking Kane), Roramakaeha, and Kekuaaimanu. (Ellis 1963:72- 73) Ellis goes iDmWy lesgjbe "smaller temples" along the coast which were dedicated toKuuraand Hina by fishermen. These temples were most likely ku'ula, defined as "heiau near the sea for worship of fish gods" (Pukui and Elbert 1986:187). In his comprehensive listing of heiau throughout the islands, Thrum recorded the same heiau described above by APPENDIX A A-2 Ellis. In this list and an accompanying article on heiau of Hawaii Island, Thrum notes: Kauaikahaola Puapuaa I; an early heiau, rebuilt by Kamehameha; about 170x75 ft. in size, of two divisions. Its walls yet in fair condition; entry way on seaward side (Thrum 1908:43). Thrum's reference to Kauaikahaola corroborates Ellis' observations (Thrum 1908:70). Kamakau explains that it was common practice for Kamehameha I to restore heiau in the Kailua vicinity, including carving keiki-nu'iou'i (tall images) for them (Kamakau 1961:203). In more recent times, Kauaikahaola Heiau has been visited.by-historians-Henry Kekahuna andTheodoreKelsey. Silva presents Kekahuna's detailed notes of a visit to "KauakaiakaoW' on November 30, 1949 (Silva 1985:A- 5,6). At that time, the heiau appears to have been in fair condition. In addition, Silva includes an article published in the Paradise of the Pacific (Taylor 1948, Holiday Edition:46- 49, 125) which covers the heiau in great detail. In Taylor's article, the area behind the h.Qiw is described: Naluahine remembered the heiau as a center of village life when he was a child, for the coast was then inhabited by fishermen. Although the rituals of the heiau had ceased, there were still kahunas (priests) living in grass houses near the walls of the heiau. These kahunas were men who could fortell the time for goodfishing hauls. They continued the worship of the old fishing gods, Kuula and Hina. On the flat lands above the heiau site, Naluahine said, there was a racetrack in the 1880s. Races were run there between the blooded horses of Parker ranch and other Kona ranches. The races attracted people from all over -the islands, including King Kalakaua and his court. By 1900,.the people of the fishing village drifted away to other places and the village of Luapua was deserted. Nothing remained except the stone walls of the heiau and the stone foundations of the village grass houses (Taylor 1948:49). During the reign of Kamehameha III, the most important event in the reformation of the land system was incorporated. The Great Mahele separated and defined the undivided land interests of the King and the high-ranking chiefs and konQWlu (originally, this title referred to the person in charge of a tract of land on behalf of the king or a chief; it is in the later statutes that the chiefs or landlords were referred to as "konohikis") (Chinn 1958:vii and Chinen 1961:13). More than 240 of the highest ranking chiefs and konohiki in the kingdom joined Kamehameha III in this division. The first Mahele was signed on Jan. 27, 1848 by Kamehameha III and Princess Victoria Kamamalu by her guardians Mataio Kekuanaoa and lone Ii. The last Mahele was signed by the King and E. Enoka on March 7, 1848 (Chinn 1958:16). The Mahele did not convey any title to any land. The chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to The Land Commission and to receive awards for the lands quitclaimed to them by Kamehameha M. Until an award for these lands was issued, title remained with the government. Because there were few surveyors at the time of the Mahele, the lands were divided by name only, with the understanding that -the ancient -boundaries would -control until a survey of such lands could be made in the future. This was done to expedite the work of the Land Commission in awarding lands to the chiefs and konohiki However, these chiefs and konohild were still required to pay commutations to the government for them to receive Royal Patents on their awards. These lands awarded to the chiefs and konohiki became known as Konohiki Lands (Chines 1961:13). Lands were identified and separated in 1848 as Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Government Lands; and Konohiki Lands. These were all "subject to the rights of native tenants" (Laws of Hawaii 1848:22). These rights were brought into question when the King, the government and konoW began selling off parcels of land. To clarify the situation, the Privy Council, on December 21, 1849, adopted four resolutions as a means of protecting the rights of native tenants (Chinn 1958:29). These resolutions authorized the Land Commission to award fee simple title to all native tenants who occupied and improved any portion of Crown, Government, or Konohiki Lands. Except for the houselots located in the districts of Honolulu, L.ahaina, and Hilo, these awards were to be free of commutation (ibid). Before receiving awards for their lands from the Land Commission, the native tenants were required to prove that they actually cultivated those lands for a living. They were not permitted to acquire waste lands or lands which they cultivated "with the seeming intention of enlarging their lots." Once confirmed, they were required to be surveyed before the Land Commission was authorized to issue any award. These lands became known as "Kuleana Lands" Ll 0 J APPENDDXA (ibid.). Until its dissolution on March 31, 1855, the Land Commission issued thousands of awards to the native tenants for their Meana. Even so, less than 30,000 acres of land were awarded to the native tenants as kuleana lands. The Indices of Awards (Board of Commissioners 1929), which lists the original claimants and parcel acreages given during the Great Mahele, indicates that 19 separate claims were registered and awarded for the Puapua'a lands. The largest parcel in Puapuaaiki (Puapua 1) ahupua'a consisted of 170 acres of land deeded to an early foreign resident named Thomas Sams. Puapua 2 was granted to Wm. C. Lunalilo, as LCA 8559-B, and consisted of 379 acres. Of the remaining 17 claimants, individual awards ranged from 0.09 to 3.75 acres, with 13 claimants receiving lands larger than an acre. In Puapuaa 2nd, a review of testimonies for awards granted in this ahunua 'a indicated that there existed a fair number of kihanai (cultivated arcels usually. in taro. or gweet potato). and houselots. Often, claimants said that there were long-time residents, swearing; "People of the land are very old residents, at the time of Kamehameha I, (LCA 7947). Silva states that Puapuaa "was a populous and productive residential area, apparently self-sufficient, with abundant ocean and agricultural resources (1985:A-7). A comparison of ahuoua'a boundaries between the USGS map and Collies of, Surveys and.Mans of Lands Belonging to the Estate of Lunalilo indicates that Puapuaa 2nd was also known as Puapuaanui (Figure A-1). A Certificate of Boundaries (dated March 4, 1885) for Puapuaanui includes the inscription "e H.N. Greenwell, ka mea nona keia am is manawa," (for H.N. Greenwell, whom the land is for at this time). Another reference is found at the Bureau for the year 1891, in Book 120, page 387, Grantor J.S. Antonio, regarding interest in leasehold and fixtures in Puapuaanui: In consideration of the cancellation and surrender to me of my note of $1,000 to Greenwell ... and for $1 .A hereby transfer... all of my right ... in and to the leasehold premises called Puapuaanui, together with the fixtures and appurtenances but to no portion of the furniture, dairy fixtures or appurtenances, cattle or other livestock, which I will reserve the right to remove. From this entry we can conclude that there was dairy activity in the area during the late 1800s. Little in the way of graphic or cartographic material was uncovered during the preparation of this preliminary -A- Gin at 01P C?A}P. C11NP.V DiViCinn A-3 proved to be little more than shell -line drawings with discrepancies in shoreline contours as well as in boundaries. Neither delineated any of the original 19 native awards mentioned in the land records, with the exception that T. Sams and Wm. C. Lunalilo are shown as having owned Puapuaaiki and Puapuaanui, respectively. Kelly (1983), Barrere (1975), and Kuykendall (1938, 1953, 1967) have presented historical overviews of the Kona district and general Hawaiian historical research; while their accounts of events and Hawaiian lifestyle in precontact and historic times are relevant to the project area, they include no specific references to the project area. Schilt, in her discussion of leeward Hawaii expansion and settlement patterns, provides a general chronological sequence for the Kona area (Schilt 1984`.270-304). According to her analysis, initial occupation of the area began circa AD 1000. From AD 1000 to c. AD 1400, occupation and settlement were centered in the pristine upland zones and in the coastal fringe. Agriculture in the upland zone eroded the soil; the eroded soil was deposited on lower, agriculturally marginal slopes. From AD 1400- 1600, the erosional deposition continued, and the once agriculturally marginal land gradually became more fertile. Consequently, agriculture expanded into the newly fertile zones, and the population increased. By AD 1600, what is now known as the Kona Field System was fully established, and settlement within the system had begun. The population increase and its accompanying pressure led to periodic warfare, particularly after AD 1600. When Captain James Cook arrived in AD 1778, warfare was still rife. Contact with the West revolutionized traditional Hawaiian warfare, and one All Kamehameha, emerged as the dominant chief. By AD 1795, Kamehameha had conquered .all the major Hawaiian Islands and had consolidated his power base in Kailua, Kona. By the mid- to late- 1800s, as Western contact drastically altered traditional Hawaiian land use practices, and as epidemics from introduced diseases greatly reduced the native population, the Kona Field System fell into disuse. Except for small, individually owned farms and large coffee plantations near Captain Cook and Kealakekua, traditional farming was replaced by ranching. Dependence on ranching, coffee cultivation, and small- scale farming continued until the late 1950s when economic emphasis shifted toward developing the tourist industry. APPENDIX A A-4 FigureA-1. COPIES OF SURVEYS AND MAPS OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE ESTATE OF LUNALILO 0 \J APPENDIX A A-5 REFERENCES CITED Barrere, D.B. 1975 Kamehameha in Kona: Tb+o Documentary Studies, Pacific Anthropological Records No. 23. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Board of Commissioners 1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Star -Bulletin Press. Chinen, JJ. 1958 The Great Mahele• Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 1961 1Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd. Kamakau, S.M. 1961 Ruline Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona, A History of land Use in Kona, Hawai'i. Del)artmental R_gport Series 83-2. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 177R 1854 Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1953 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1854-1874. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1967 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1874-1893. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Schilt, A.R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Silva, C.L. 1985 Preliminary Historical Documentary Research, Kahakai Development Project Area, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii T AK: 3-7-5-20:1. IN Walker and Rosendahl (1985:A1 -A9). Taylor, C.B. 1948 The Restoration of a Heiau. Paradise of the Pacific Holiday Edition:46-49, 125. APPENDIX A A-6 Thrum, T.G. 1908 List of Heiaus. The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. Honolulu: T.G. Thrum. 1908 Tales from the Temples. The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. Honolulu: T.G. Thrum. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1985a FullArchaeologicalReconnaissance Survey, KahakaiDevelopmentProjectArea, Puapuaalstand2nd,North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 141-111984. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.28,29. PHRI Report 367-041988. Prepared for Pualani Development Co. 1] E APPENDIX B: SITE QECRIPTIONS SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-5136 (Figure C -I) PHRI: 764-2 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, kiawe, opiuma, grasses, lantana, air plant. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary IM DENSIONS: 500.00 m by 0.65 or by 1.20 m (approximate length within project area) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall of five to seven courses, with stacked cobbles and boulders, double-faced and core -filled, that separates the ahupua'a of Puapua'a 1st and Kahului 2nd. It forms the north boundary of the project area. This boundary wall was probably built during the historic period, when ahupua'a boundaries were being formally delineated. The wall extends both mauka and makai of the project area. It is collapsed in places, and interrupted by various roads intersecting it from north to south. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28/37-5139 PHRI: 764-28 SITE TYPE: Wall (Figure C-2a,b) 3'oPOGRAfPHY Undulatingslopte VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DMIENSIONS: 570.00 m by 1.40 m by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a double-faced, core -filled wall of boulders and cobbles stacked six courses high. It runs mauka-makai and probably forms the boundary between Puapua'a 1st and 2nd. It has been knocked down in spots to allow cattle trough. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-5143 PHRI: 764-65 SITE TYPE: AlignmenvTrail section TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DIMENSIONS: 14.00 m by 0.95 m by 0.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an alignment of boulders and cobbles running mauka-makai. It appears to be one edge of a trail that continues upslope out of the project area. It is in poor condition, but warrants fiuther work in terms of detailed recording. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-5144 (Figure C-3) PHRI: 764-61 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, opiuma, grasses. CONDITION: Good % INTEGRITY: Unaltered r PROBABLE AGE: Historic B-1 FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 420.00 m by 1.10 in by 0.95 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a double-faced, core -filled wall. The mauka half forms the south boundary of the project area. The makai half is the mauka border of a recent side road, and at the makai end it connects with both sites 14087 and 14089. This wall probably separates the ahupua'a of Puapua'a 2nd and Holualoa Ist. It was probably built during the historic period when ahupua `a boundaries were being formally delineated. The wall extends both mauka and makai of the project area. It is collapsed in places. NO:: State: 50-10-28-14073 PM: 764-1 SITE TYPE: Complex (FigureB-1)(15 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered (cattle disturbance) PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION. This site consists of agricultural mounds constructed of piled boulders and cobbles on and around bedrock outcrops. A water wom piece of coral was noted within the complex, but was not a part of any particular feature. A number of additional mounds/modified outcrops were noted in the near vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. Given the relative density of features in the area, it is thought that a portion of the site may have been used for habitation. FEATURE A: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.70 in by 2.25 in by 0.35 in (approx.) FEATURE B: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.30 to by 1.50 in by 0.50 in (approx.) FEATURE C: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DD4ENSIONS: 2.75 in by 1.70 in by 0.60 in (approx.) FEATURE D: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.40 in by 2.50 in by 0.50 in (approx.) FEATURE E: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.00 in by 2.50 in by 0.35 in (approx.) FEATURE F: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 3.50 in by 0.60 in (approx.) FEATURE G: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.00 in by 1.00 in by 0.30 in (approx.) FEATURE H: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) 8_2 FEATURE I: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTIONT: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 in by 1.50 in by 0.00 in (approx.) FEATURE J: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.80 in by 6.50 in by 040 in (approx.) FEATURE K: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.00 m by 2.70 m by 0.70 in (approx.) FEATURE L: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.50 in by 2.50 m by 0.58 in (approx.) FEATURE M: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 5.20 in by 2.70 m by 0.80 m (approx.) FEATURE N: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4_00 in by_.l QQm by 0.70 mL apprg%,) FEATURE O: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.50 in (approx.) SITE NO.: State: 50.10-28-14074 PHRI: 764-3 SITE TYPE: C -shape (Figures B-2 and B-3) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope. VEGETATION: Kiawe, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -Agriculture? DIMENSIONS.: 7.50 in by 5.70 mby .1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a C-shaped structure constructed on the top of a raised bedrock outcrop. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles stacked two to three courses high and faced in a few areas. Cobble/rubble fill forms most of the bulk of the structure. An adze blank was collected from the surface of this feature, and a SC by SC cm test unit was excavated within Ahe C -shape. A C- 14 date of A.D. 1030-1840 was obtained from this site. No cultural material was recovered.from the test unit. As a result, it is thought that this feature may possibly have served an agricultural function. There are numerous modified outcrops/mounds in the immediate vicinity of this central feature. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14075 (Figure C-4) PHRI: 764-4 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiurna, koa-haole. CONDITION: Farr INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric 0 W Figure B-2. Site 14074, View to N (Neg. 1430-3) i &5 b•l Site �140M, Pian Map M E 0 FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 13.5 m by 1.5 m by 0.8 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a low wall segment running mauka-makai. It is constructed of piled and stacked boulders one to three courses high. The observed extant section of this wall slopes downhill into relatively flat pasture. It is thought that this wall probably continued uphill and downhill beyond its current length, and may be a kuaiwi wall of the Kona Field System. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14076 (Figure B-4) PHRI: 764-5 SITE TYPE: Complex (8 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Kiawe, bunch grasses, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site consists of eight features. The overall complex measures c. 20.0 in (E -R) by 18.5 m (N -S). The layout of the site can be categorized as a central habitation feature (Feature A) surrounded by agricultural features. FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 13.50 m by 12.00 in by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled and stack boulders and cobbles forming an enclosure. Bedrock is incorporated into the walls of the feature in a number of spots. A cupboard measuring c. 50 cm r by 50 cm by 50 cm deep, with a capstone and with a piece of coral inside, is present in the north wall of the enclosure. A number of cleared, leveled, and soil -filled areas that are built into the outside of the wall presumably functioned as small planting areas. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated in this site. TU -2, placed inside Feature A, produced moderate quantities.of midden, while TU -1, placed in one of the small, exterior planting areas, produced no cultural material. FEATURE B: Linear mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 2.25 in by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a linear mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.75 in by 2.75 in by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE D: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 5.50 in by 3.0 in by 1.1 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE E: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 in by 1.95 in by 0.70 in (approx.) _ DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a j� natural outcrop. SO 137 SOIL A. Figure B-0. Site 14076, Plan Map i � .9 FEATURE F: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 in by 1.50 in by 1.0 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE G: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 in by 1.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE H: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.50 in by 2.50 in by 0.95 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. SITE N0.: State: 50-10-28-14077 (Figure G5) PHRI: 764-6 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair 04TEGRITY: Unaltered . PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 15.00 in by 14.00 in by 0.500 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an enclosure. It is constructed of boulders piled on and around a raised outcrop. The outcrop itself forms the wall of the enclosure in sections. The central area is soil -filled. SITE NO.: State: 50- 10-28-14078 (Figure C-6) PARI! 764-7 (2 Features) SITE TYPE: Complex.. TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Bunch grasses, koa-haole, air plant, kiawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric. FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two terraces (Features A and B). The overall dimensions d' are c. 21.5'm (N -S) by 15.5 in (E -_W). Dense vegetation and gtoundcover obscure the surrounding groun surface. Additional clearing may yield 'other features in the site vicinity. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.50 in by 8.50 in by 1.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION-. This is a crude boulder terrace built around a pahoehoe outcrop. Its west side has been crudely faced, and has collapsed somewhat. Two small terraces have been constructed along the east side of the feature. A small piece of water worn coral was noted on this feature. FEATURE B: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 12.75 m by 9.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a crude boulder terrace built around a pahoehoe outcrop and faced on its east and south sides. A small piece of water worn coral was noted on this feature. M [�J �J Figure B-5. Site .14076, feature F (Right), Feature G (Left), and Feature H (Background), View to NE (Neg.1430-7) 0 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14079 (Figure C-7) PIM: 764-8 SITE TYPE: Platform/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, pasture grasses, air plants, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 10.75 in by 9.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is crudely constructed of boulders stacked around a bedrock outcrop. Its outer wall is faced in a number of areas. Fill of cobble and boulder rubble forms most of the interior of the feature. However, there is a small soil -filled area in the approximate center of the feature. Along the NE side of this soil area is a boulder with a shallow, concave bowl in its upper surface; it may have served as a salt pan. Site 14080 is situated c. 3 meters to the south of this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14080 PHRI: 764-9 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, air plants, grasses, Iantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Transportation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a walled terrace (Feature A) and a linear mound (Feature B). The overall complex measures c. 18.0 to (S-E(N-W) by 13.0 m (N -S) by 1.00 m. These features may in fact be a section of a trail with low walls running down either side. Feature A runs down slope for c. 5 meters and ends, but also runs upslope. for an unknown distance (in very dilapidated condition), and possibly connects with site 14075. Feature B starts in the vicinity of the terraced portion of Feature A and runs down slope for an unknown distance. Alternatively, these may be kuaiwi walls. FEATURE A: Walled terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 18.00 m by 4.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a short terrace built around a bedrock outcrop. Down slope from zhe outcrop, the terrace becomes a low wall, which runs for approximately five meters and ends. Upslope, the terrace becomes a low wall as well, which continues upslope for an unknown distance. FEATURE B: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture? DMENSIONS: 13.00 in by 1.00 cm by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a linear mound that begins in the vicinity of the terraced portion of Feature A. It runs parallel to Feature A, approximately 2.0-2.5 meters to the north, and continues down slope for an unknown distance. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14081 PERI: 764-10 SITE TYPE: Cave (Figure B-6) TOPOGRAPHY: Sloping, overgrown pahoehoe VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma trees, lantana, bushes, various grasses, lauae ferns CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation E O IL Ll J J W 72 7i << W Y LLS Q <m N Om � N NO a w p q W S U W= 6¢ ol- W ,y Wn n Y I W J Y� 0 I I O O_ S ' • J J' W S M E O IL Ll F W, O D a ma w.. wY O� W. q 2 V O W cc 7 cc �< JO zw� MEW O N OW y 0= J 0 6 5 U<O a' ONG OS modspO05 O Om m.oOc>o mO°DUNm o It .11 I:a n 'n u u o..n u u nn E O IL Ll DIMENSIONS: 5.00 m by 3.00 in by 0.85 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a cave with a cultural deposit, A medium-sized koa-haole tree c. I0cm in diameter is growing at the cave entrance. From this koa-haole tree, Site 5136 (rock wall) is located c. 6 m distant at 340 degrees. The cave opening is narrow, measuring c. 1.00 in wide and 0.60 m in height, and is filled with rubble. From the opening, a tunnel -like entrance leads into the main chamber. The tunnel entrance measures c. 3 m in length at 110 degrees, and is c. 85 cm in height and c. 5 m wide at the center, lowering to 0.70 in high before it opens up into the main chamber. The main chamber area contains the majority of midden, surface artifacts and a shallow circular depression which is interpreted as a hearth feature. A surface deposit of ash is found surrounding this depression. Numerous artifacts were collected from the surface of the main chamber (see the Indigenous Artifacts section). The main chamber measures c. 8 m (E -W) by 5 in (N -S), with an average height of c. 1.4 m. Two 50 by 50 cm test units were excavated in the main chamber. Three dates were obtained, providing corrected age ranges of A.D. 1280-1640, 1160- 1480, and 1640 -present. The cultural deposit appears essentially to continue to bedrock at c. 20cm b.s. Two side tube chambers run off the main chamber, and contain noticeably less culture material. One of the tubes is oriented at 80 degrees for c. 17 m, where it bends to 25 degrees for 6.5 m and ends. The average width is c. 3.3 m, and height is c. 1.5 in to 1.7 m. The other tube is much narrower, with an entrance measuring c. 1.5 in wide and 0.75 in high. It is oriented at 240 degrees for c. 8.5 m, then opens up into an area measuring c. 8 in (N -S) by 5 m (E -W), with an average height of 1.5 to 2 m. From this open area the tube chamber continues due west. There is a collapsed section of roof at this point, separating the westward continuation of the tube into two sections. The northern section measures c. 2.4 cm wide. The southern section vanes from c. 4.7 to 7.0 meters in width. The northern section's height is c. 1.3 in, and the southern is c. 1.1 m. As they progress to the west, these two sections reconnect after c. 12.5 meters. At c. 5m west in the north section is an octopus lure. At the point where they reconnect, the width is c. 4.20 m and the height is c. 1.08 in. From this point the chamber contains little to no cultural material, extends for another c. 25 meters at 240 degrees, and ends. JSITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14082 (Figure C-8) PIM: 764-22 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Sloping pasture. VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, apiuma, koa-haole CONDITION; Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 m by 9.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop forming an enclosure. It is constructed of boulders piled against bedrock outcrops. Some facing is present on the outer southwest side of the enclosure. It is constructed of one to four courses of stacked boulders and cobbles. There are some additional modified outcrops in the vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14083 (Figure C-9) PMU: 764-24 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope withpahoehoe bedrock outcrops. VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 15.00 in by 15.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop constructed of boulders and cobbles on and around the bedrock. &13 SITE NO.: State: 50.10-28-14084 (Figure C-10) PMU:764-25 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope. VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Possible Burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A), a modified outcrop (Feature B) and a mound (Feature C). The overall complex measures c. 22.0 in (E -V) by 21.0 in (N -S). Shell midden was noted when the site was first identified during the survey, but not relocated during recording. There are numerous additional features in the vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. Only those flagged during the survey were recorded, as a result of time constraints. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 9.00 in by 6.00 in by 0.76 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. It is faced in one section. FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4:5 in by 1.75 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture -possible burial DIMENSIONS: 6.75 in by 6.00 in by 0.26 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a roughly -circular mound of boulders and cobbles built atop a bedrock outcrop. It resembles a burial mound more than an agricultural mound. It contains a large amount of small, fist -size cobbles, and it appears that substantial time and effort were expended in its construction. There is a possible upright located to the southwest. It is similar to other burial mounds found ,in the Kona Field System area. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14085 (Figure C-11) PHRI: 764-26 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, lantana, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a cairn (Feature A), and a terrace (Feature B). The overall complex measures c. 10.5 in (N -S) by 6.0 in (E -W). It is likely that additional features are present in the vicinity, but obscured by dense ground cover. Additional clearing is recommended. FEATURE A: Cairn FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cairn is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. &14 FEATURE B: Terrace/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.25 in by 5.00 in by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. It is faced in one section. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14086 (Figure C-12) PHRI: 764-27 SITE TYPE: Complex TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole, air plants. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Possibly altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric/possibly historic (3 Features) FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate -agriculture? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of a large mound (Feature A), and two linear mounds (Features B and C). The overall complex measurements are c. 20 in by 15 m. These three features may be the result of bulldozer disturbance, or at least have been altered by such disturbance. FEATURE A: Mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DD14ENSIONS: 5.80 in by 5.50 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Piled boulders form this mound. FEATURE B: Linear mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.85 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Linear -piled boulders and cobbles constitute this mound. v FEATURE C: Linear mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Boulders and cobbles are piled in a line to form this mound. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14087 (Figure C-13) PHRI: 764-11 SITE TYPE: Road TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope on either side VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, koa-haole, lantana, air plants CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered, yet not maintained in any way PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a section of the "Old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road." This road would have served as the N -S transportation route prior to construction of the Kuakini Highway. It measures c. 610 in (N -S) by 10 to 12 in (E -W) by 1.20 in. The roadbed is asphalt and is bordered by two double-faced, core -filled walls. The wall thickness averages c. 0.75 in, and the height c. 1.0 in. Near the south end, the road crosses a drainage culvert identified as Site 14125, the walls of which connect to the walls of this site. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14088 (Figure G14) PHRI: 764=12 SITE TYPE: Road ` TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope on either side VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, koa-hawle, lantana. &IS CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Altered by two later roads built over it PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a section of an old N -S running road. There is a stone wall to the east. The roadbed is a filled terrace retained by a boulder -faced wail on the west side. The roadbed is paved with flat boulders and packed, gravelly soil. The wall to the east is a double-faced, core -filled boulder wall four to six courses high. PHRI Temporary, Site Numbers 764-12 and 764-13 (wall and road) were combined. This site lies between site 14081 ("Old Kailua-Keauhou Road') and the "New Kuakini Highway." This is the oldest of the three roads in the vicinity, all of which run roughly north to south. This site predates Site 14087 "Old Kailua-Keauhou Road," and both predate the "New" Kuakini Highway to the west. The road enters the project area at the north, running through site 5136, and terminates at the recent wall (site 14089) bordering the `New" Kuakini Highway. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28137-14089 (Figure C-15) PHRI: 764-14 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, opiuma, lantana, air plants. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Recent FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 73.00 in by 1.25 in by 0.85 in (approx,) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall running north to south, adjacent to and east of "Kuakini Highway". It forms the makai boundary of the project area. The section of this wall in the project area measures c. 73 cm (N -S). and c. 1.25 in in width by 0.85 in. in height. It is constructed of stacked pahoehoe cobbles and boulders, faced and core -filled. It. is a recent construction which parallels the new "Kuakim • Highway" along its east side. It continues north and south out of the project area. SITE NO.: State: 5040-37-14090 (Figure C-16) PHRI: 764-15 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope andpahoehoe outcrops VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION; Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 3.00 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles on and around a bedrock outcrop. There are numerous other modified outcrops in the near vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14091 (Figure C-17) PHRI: 764-16 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope and pahoehoe outcrops VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site consists of two modified outcrops, and one mound/modified outcrop interpreted as a possible burial. M. V FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture -possible burial DD14ENSIONS: 3.00 m by 2.50 m by 0.59 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders stacked up and around a bedrock outcrop, and subsequently filled with cobble rubble. The feature is well-defined, and has a flat, cobble -filled interior surface. Given this feature's regularity and careful construction, it has been interpreted as a possible burial. FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.90 m by 3.20 m by 0.58 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a low, circular feature of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 7.20 m by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a bedrock outcrop exhibiting limited modifications. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14092 (Figure C-18) PARI: 764-17 SITE TYPE: Walled terrace TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 26.00 m by 10.00 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a feature that alternates between length. It is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles, one to three anchored against bedrock outcrops in a number of spots. a terrace and a wall along its boulders high. The feature is SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14093 (Figure C-19) PHRI: 764-18 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DDVIENSIONS: 7.00 m by 6.50 in by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around an outcrop. It is slightly depressed in the center. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14094 (Figure C-20) PBRI: 764-19 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE ASE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture 8-17 DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of a linear mound (Feature A) and a piled mound (Feature B). The overall complex measures 20.00 in (N -S) by 4.25 in (E -V). Numerous additional mounds/modified outcrops are present in the vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. FEATURE A: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 7.00 m by 2.50 in by 0.22 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled cobbles and boulders. FEATURE B: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.25 m by 1.80 m by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled cobbles and boulders. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14095 (Figure C-21) PHRI: 764-20 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole,.opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 5.00 in by 0.06 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists mostly of a natural bedrock outcrop, exhibiting slight modification where a few slab -boulders were removed. Further clearing may yield additional cultural features and/or portable remains. SITE NO,: State: 50-10-37-14096 (Figure C-22) PHRI: 764-21 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DRdENSIONS: 19.00 in by 14.00 in by 2.20 no (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a large, mostly natural bedrock outcrop, exhibiting slight cultural modification through piling of boulders. Overall, this site appears more natural than cultural. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14097 PHRI: 764-23 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 16.00 in by 14.50 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site appears to be a mostly natural, decomposing outcrop, modified by tree growth and cattle. It has been culturally modified only slightly through piling of boulders. 8-18 SITE NO.: State: 50-1C-37-14098 (Figure C-13) PHRI: 764-29 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-hoole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features, a modified outcrop and a short wall. The overall site measures c. 21.5 in by 7.0 in. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture/habitation? DIMENSIONS: 11.50 m by 6.00 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled and stacked on and around a bedrock outcrop. It has a curvilinear shape. The top is relatively flat, and a smaller modified bedrock outcrop nearby creates an overall C -shape. It is crudely faced in one section. FEATURE B: Wall FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 1.10 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This short wall consists of stacked boulders placed atop and running along a bedrock outcrop to the east of Feature A. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14099 (Figure C-24) PHRI: 764-30 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop .� TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, lantana, opiuma, haloa, pepperomia. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -water catchment? DIMENSIONS: 16.00 in by 9.00 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a large, natural outcrop that stands c. 2 to 3 in above the surrounding ground surface. It appears more natural than cultural. However, there is a collapsed blister on the top which appears to have been excavated, fomvng a depression. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14100 (Figure C-25) PHRI: 764-31 SITE TYPE: Complex (8 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of eight modified bedrock outcrops and one modified bedrock outcrop in the form of a C -shape. The overall complex measures c. 28 in by 16 in. FEATURE A: C-shape/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 8.00 in by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a modified outcrop built in the form of a C -shape. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. The modifications create both ends of the C, with bedrock forming the back wall. 8-19 FEATURE B: Modified outcrop is FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 2.30 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled primarily down-slope from a bedrock outcrop, forming an overall circular feature. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 2.00 m by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE D: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 m by 1.50 m by 0.45 to (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE E: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.40 m by 2.10 m by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE F: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.70 m by 1.50 in by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE G: Modified outcrop . FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.00 m by 1.50 m by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE H: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DEWENSIONS: 1.80 m by 1.50 m by 0.7 cm (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. SITE NO,: State: 50-10-37-14101 (Figure C-26) PERI: 764-32 SITE TYPE: Cairn TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Marker DIMENSIONS: 1.35 on by 1.35 to by 0.95 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of piled boulders and cobbles. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14102 PHRI: 764-33 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGWHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haale, grasses. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric 8-20 ~ FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation., DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of seven features: an enclosure (Feature A), a modified outcrop/platform (Feature B), and four pit depressions in an outcrop (feature Q. FEATURE A: Enclosure .(Figure C-27) FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 6.80 m by 0.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a crudely stacked boulder wall, forming an enclosure that is partly laid on a natural outcrop to the east. The wall is broken to the west by cattle where it abuts a second large naturalpahoehoe outcrop, at Feature C. FEATURE B: Platform/Modified outcrop (Figure C-28) FUNCTION: Agriculture/Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 m by 2.00 m by 0.92 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform appears primarily natural. Only slight modification exists, through piling and arranging boulders. FEATURE C: Pit depressions (4) FUNCTION: Water catchment? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 m by 7.00 m by 1.56 rn (approx.) DESCRIPTION: These four pit depressions appear to have been excavated. They are located on a large, natural outcrop which stands c. 2.5 in higher than the surrounding ground. These depressions could have been lined with leaves to collect water, with a gourd used as a vessel. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14103 (Figure C-29) PHRI: 764-34 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, grasses, lantana CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.75 m by 5.75 m by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a large, roughly rectangular pahoehoe outcrop, with its center either collapsed or excavated. Rocks from the center have been piled and stacked around the outside. The wall has been faced on the outside to the north and west. A single, small piece of water worn coral was noted on this feature. Two to three unrecorded mounds or terrace -like modified outcrop features lie c. three to six meters northwest of the main site, and an additional terrace lies approximately three meters to the east. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14104 (Figure C-30) PHRL 764-35 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Feature) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Lantana, opiuma, grasses, haloa, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: two platforms (Features A and B), and two mounds (Features C and D). 8-21 FEATURE A: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 5.0 m by 1.00 to (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is well constructed. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble - and boulder -filled floor. It sits on a prominent knoll. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 7.00 m by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is similar to Feature A, but is less substantial and well -constructed. It is built on and around a bedrock outcrop and is boulder -faced on three sides. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 m by 2.00 m by 0.60 m (approx.) FEATURE D: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.00 rn by 2.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of boulders and cobbles. It is nearly terraced on the uphill, east side. It slopes makai. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14105 (Figure C-31) PHRI: 764-36 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, kiawe, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture-babitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: two terraces (Features A and C), and a platform (Feature B). The overall site measures c. 25.0 m (E -W) by 24.0 on (N -S). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 m by 9.00 m by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of boulders stacked two courses high, creating a retaining wall which is filled behind with cobbles and earth. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Indeterminate/Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 12.00 to by 6.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is constructed of stacked boulders around a bedrock outcrop, leveled with cobble and boulder fill. FEATURE C: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 11.00 m by 5.00 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of stacked boulders two courses high, with cobble fill behind. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14106 (Figure G32) PHRI: 764-37 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole. &22 L-- CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 101.5 m by 0.85 in by 1.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall of stacked boulders, double- faced and core -filled, three to four courses high. At its west end, this wall abuts site 5139. From there, it runs approximately N -S for 27 meters. There is a constructed opening in this section. The wall then turns east and runs c. 74.5 meters, where it ends against a large kiawe tree. A wire fence runs north to south from this end point and connects with site 5139. An L-shaped wall approximately 3 cm long is situated between this site and site 5139. This site probably delimited some kind of cattle -holding area. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14107 PHRI: 764-38 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-7) (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of six features: a wall (Feature A), three caves (Features B, C, and F) and two platforms (Features 0 and E). The overall complex measures c. 44 in to 27 in. It is situated directly south of site14106. FEATURE A: Wall FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 14.00 in by 1.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is S-shaped and constructed of roughly -faced boulders. The wall appears to follow a natural bedrock contour. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 5.50 m by 4.50 in by 1.45 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE C: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.10 in by 4.10 in by 1.00 m (approx,) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE D: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 13.50 in by 8.50 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a square boulder alignment, with a boulder and cobble pavement inside. Cattle and vegetation have impacted the area. A rock alignment runs in an L -shape to the west. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 5.80 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is a square structure built out from a natural bedrock outcrop, with a low terrace on the east side. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles extending from the outcrop to form a raised, flat surface. B-23 it 5 10 15 ^0 1 2 3 4 ......... INTERIOR LIMITS OF CAVE CAVE ENTRANCE T 7 T TUPRESSION Figure B-7. Site 14107, Plan Map ..... . ..... 0 FEATURE F: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.85 in by 4.90 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a roughly circular, natural lava blister. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated within this cave. They produced a coral abrader, two adze fragments, and a moderate amount of midden. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14108 (Figure C-33) PHRI: 764-39 SITE TYPE: Platform/enclosure TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 16.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a platform/enclosure constructed by piling boulders and cobbles on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. The outcrop itself forms portions of the walls and platform. The enclosure is breached or tumbled down to the west, makai of the platform. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14109 (Figure C-34) PHRI: 764-40 SITE TYPE: -Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION; Good -fair ` J INTEGRITY: Unaltered V PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site consists of two features: a mound/modified outcrop (Feature A), and an enclosure (Feature B). The overall complex measures c. 10.50 in (N -S) by 6.50 in (E -W). V FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 4.50 m by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of boulders crudely stacked on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE B: Enclosure/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 7.50 no by 5.00 in by 0.55 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure -like, modified outcrop looks like a lava blister, with the center collapsed and rock -fall removed. Its crude construction, while cultural, shows that a minimum of effort was expended in its creation. While the interior has little space for habitation, the now -collapsed sides may previously have been walled with more room. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14110 (Figure C-35) PHRI: 764-41 SITE TYPE: Cairn TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric B-25 FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Marker DEgENSIONS: 0.50 m by 0.50 m by 0.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a small cairn constructed of piled boulders. There are numerous additional mounds and modified outcrop features in the vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14111 PHRI: 764-42 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-8) (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, grasses, haloa, periwinkle, opiuma CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION; This site complex consists of four features: a C -shape (Feature A), an L -shape (Feature B), and two mounds (Features C and D). The overall complex measures 12.0 m (E -W) by 11.0 m (N -S). FEATURE.,: C -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DDVIENSIONS: 7.75 to by 6.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This C-shaped alignment is set on a level pahoehoe outcrop. It is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The east end of the C -shape has collapsed. A basalt adze fragment was recovered from the surface in the interior of this feature. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated off. the south side of this feature. A single cowry shell fragment was recovered. FEATURE B: L -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DEVIENSIONS: 5.00 m by 3.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This L-shaped alignment is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. It is well -faced on the inside. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated inside this feature, but no cultural material was recovered. FEATURE C: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 m by 1.75 to by 0.97 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE D: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.25 m by 1.75 m by 0.87 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked on and around a natural outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14112 (Figure C-36) PHRI: 764-43 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY; Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, grasses. lantana, opiuma. CONDITION: Wall of Site 14087 ("Old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road'. It appears to have served as a cattle wall, a drainage diversion, or both. B-26 Figure 8-8. Site 14111, Plan Map N ft 0 5 10 15 m 0 1 2 3 4 Figure 8-8. Site 14111, Plan Map SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14113 PHRI: 764-44 SITE TYPE: Wail TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 80.00 to by 0.75 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a boulder wall, double faced and core -filled, and four to six courses high. The wall connects on the north end with site 5139, and on the south end with site 14089, forming a triangular enclosure. It appears to have served as some kind of cattle wall. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14114 (Figure C-37) PHRI: 764-45 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole, vines. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A). a terrace/wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.20 m by 3.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles abutting a bedrock outcrop. Cattle and vegetation have impacted this feature. There is a small, faced depression on top of the feature at the north end. FEATURE B: Terrace/wall FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 19.00 m by 1.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a sinuous terrace that forms a wall in some sections. It is faced in places, and constructed of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. FEATURE C: Platform . FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.40 m by 6.00 m by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly square, raised platform with two levels. It is roughly faced in areas and abuts an outcrop at the west side. The surfaces of the two levels are rough, but essentially level. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14115 (Figure C-38) . PHRI: 764-46 SITE TYPE: C -shape TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.00 m by 5.50 m by 0.75 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a roughly -faced stacked and piled two to three courses high. B-28 C -shape, constructed of boulders and cobbles SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14116 (Figure C-39) PERI: 764-47 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good/fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric?/Historic? FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 51.00 in by 25.00 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is roughly faced on both sides, constructed of stacked boulders, and core - filled. Over most of its extent it is relatively low and wide. It possibly connected to site 5140 (Schilt 1984) at onetime. It runs makai from the edge of the Kuakini Realignment corridor for approximately 51 meters, then makes a tum to the south and runs another 25 meters. It may at one time have continued to the vicinity of site 14123. This could possibly be a kuaiwi wall. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-31-14117 (Figure C-40) PERI: 764-48 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 15.00 in by 13.50 m by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop constructed of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. A single cowry shell fragment was noted on this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14118 (Figure C-41) PHRI: 764-49 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, kiawe, koo-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture bHYIENSIONS: (6.50 m by 5.50 in by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of three roughly circular mounds of piled boulders and cobbles. A single cowry shell fragment was noted on one of the mounds: There are numerous additional mound features in the immediate vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-14119 (Figure C-42) PHRI: 764-50 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, pasture grasses, opiuma, haloa CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four mounds/modified outcrops (Features A -D). The overall complex measures c. 16.5 (E -W) by 8.0 in (N -S). 1-29 FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.75 in by 3.75 m by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE B: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 in by 1.75 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.50 in by 1.50 in by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE D: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 3.50 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14120 (Figure C-43) PHRI: 764-51 SITE TYPE: Activity area TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, grasses, lantana, koa-haole. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Recent FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 60.00 in by 30.00 in by 020 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a historic ranch or farming storage and/or work activity area. There are concrete stone and asphalt foundations/level areas, and a stacked boulder wall that joins the makai wall of site 14087. There is an opening through the wall at this point. A wooden gate opens from this site, through site 14089 to the Kuakini Highway to the west. An old, overturned water wagon with metal wheels is located at this site. This artifact perhaps has some intrinsic historic value. The overall complex measures 60.0 in (N -S) by 30.0 in (E -W). It is probable that historic/recent habitation structures existed in the area some time ago, but have since been destroyed. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14121 (Figure C-44) PHRI: 764-52 SITE TYPE: Mound TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMMNSIONS: 4,80 m by 4.40 in by 0.45 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a piled boulder and cobble mound. 8-30 CSITE NO.: State: 50-10-37- 14122 (Figure C-45) PHRI: 764-53 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana, vines CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a terrace (Feature A) and a mound (Feature B) The overall complex measures c. 27 in by 14.5 in. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 in by 4.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is well -faced on the east side, leveled, and filled with boulders and cobbles. FEATURE B: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 4.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14123 PHRI: 764-54 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-9) (5 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, papaya, autograph tree, vines, lantana. C CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag.-ceremonial?-poss. burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of five features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), two caves (Features B and a wall (Feature C), and a paved surface (Feature E). The overall complex measures c. 80 In by 37 m. This is a large outcrop that has been modified and built onto in a number of areas. This site warrants extensive examination and fuither work, and possibly preservation. It is the largest single site in the project area. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop (Figure B-10) FUNCTION. Habitation DIMENSIONS: 50.00 in by 35.00 in by 1.06 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This modified outcrop is basically a large rectangle. The northeast to northwest sides of the feature seems to be the most modified. The northwest section has an area paved with large. c. 1.0 in by 1.5 in slabs of pahoehoe. This may have served as a ceremonial area. Three faced depressions noted atop the outcrop may have served as water catchment depressions. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS- 6.00 in by 2.50 in by 0.92 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a natural lava blister arch with two entries. Midden was observed on the interior surface of this cave. FEATURE C: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture DRYMNSIONS: 34.00 in by 1.00 in by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is an irregularly shaped walled enclosure. A portion of the wall's extent is rsituated on the top west side of Feature A, in the vicinity of the paved area. The interior of this feature is heavily overgrown_ ii31 0 10 20 30 ft , -0 1 4 CAVE ENTRANCE ............ INTERIOR LIMITS OF CAW SHELLO TU4 Location of East Wall Profile, ) FACED Figure B-9. Site 14123, Pian Map 1 8-32 0 , I A &33 FEATURE D: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 11.50 m by 6.70 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a natural blister with a boulder -stacked, double-faced wall encircling the entry. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated inside this cave. Numerous volcanic glass and basalt flakes, an adze fragment, two abraders, and a moderate amount of midden were recovered. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation-poss. burial DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A faced depression is present on the top of the feature. This may be agriculturally related. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14124 PHRI: 764-55 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-11) (3 Features). TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large bedrock outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag. DESCRIPTION: This site is similar in general form to Site 14123, except that it exhibits a lesser degree of modification. It consists of three features:, a modifiedoutcrop -(Feature A), a wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature Q. The overall complex measures c.44.in by 38 m. This is a large.outcrop,that has been modified in a number of areas on and around it. This site warrants extensive examination and further work, and possibly preservation. FEATURE.A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS:' 44.00 m by 38.00 m by 4.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly circular outcrop with a wall built on it, running northeast and northwest. There are several excavated depressions over its extent. FEATURE B: Wall(s) FUNCTION. Boundary DIMENSIONS; 1)13.50 m by 0.10 m by1.35 m (approx.) '2)19.00 m by 1.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) 3) 5.00 m by.1.00 m by 0.65 m (approx.); DESCRIPTION: Three double faced -walls of stacked.boulders run around the north and east margins of Feature A. These three sections may have been connected at one time. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Burial DUgENSIONS: 5.70 m by 4.00 in by 0.85 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of faced -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 in. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14125 PHRI: 764-56 SITE TYPE: Culvert with walls TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, opiuma. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered &34 I� U J Figure $-I 1. Site 14124, Plan Mop LB -35 ,a ce �•. • .<'\,I °boa•, y adv 4 O - 5) irelr arl=„4r=11 ••�; �^p 0� , `{; ,440• ° .:o. by '�.l'(?:•. p. 14' .o \ \\ •� ori � //y �`+• .. , D Location of D •° m , .South Wall Profile _ Y:•' i _ __ z :i •�4 (WALLS) 7 j YMOUIFIED aUfaROP) - p j#1 0 10 20 30 . 0 2 4 a B •� xa 'DEPRESSION /✓, Figure $-I 1. Site 14124, Plan Mop LB -35 PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Drainage DIMENSIONS: 5.30 in by 3.20 in by 0.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a concrete culvert under a stone and asphalt mad (Site 14087). Stacked, double-faced walls run parallel to and along each side of the drainage channel. The north wall is c. 23 in and the south wail c. 16 in long, and both join the site 14089 wall along the "Kuakjni Highway." These walls join the walls of site 14087 as well. The height of the road above the floor of the culvert is C. 2.0 meters. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14126 (Figure C-46) PIM: 764-57 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: an enclosure (Feature A), and a platform (Feature B). The overall complex measures 19.0 m (N -S) by 6.5 m (E -W). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation -Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.50 in by 3.50 m by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure consists of a roughly circular, well -faced, stacked boulder and cobble wall. FEATURE B: Platform (Figure B-12) FUNCTION: Agriculture/burial? DIMENSIONS: 3.00 in by 3.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is circular in shape, crudely -faced on all sides, and essentially level, although it is collapsing to the east. SITE NO.: State: 50-1.0-37-14127 PHRI: 764-58 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-13) (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: a mound (Feature A), an enclosure (Feature B), a modified outcrop (Fe C), and a C -shape (Fe D). The overall complex measures c. 60.0 (NW -SE) by 10.5 (NE -SW). The site is located on a prominent knoll offering a good view makai. FEATURE A: Mound FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 4.00 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound consists of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. It is situated on a natural outcrop, and may have. originally been C-shaped or connected with Feature B (enclosure/terrace). It is faced on one side. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated in this feature. Two volcanic glass flakes, a coral abrader, and a small amount of midden were recovered. Surface midden was scattered around this feature. J 1-36 k "DOW MfA MIDD4N l ' T0.1 r MIDDEX Deo D U4 MIABMARD'' �e D t E FEATURE B: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 10.50 in by 5.00 in by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a roughly rectangular wall of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. An offset opening has been constructed into the west side. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated in the opening of a small cupboard in the northeast comer of the enclosure. No cultural material was recovered. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.2 m N -S by 3.0 to E -W by 0.65 in DESCRIPTION: This feature is a modified outcrop with 'a'a small boulders, ranging in size from 0.10 to 0.40 in and built atop an outcrop. There are two large pahoehoe slabs at the southwest end, approximately 0.40 and 0.50 m in diameter. A small midden area exists in soil at the southwest end of the feature in the form of approximately one dozen Cypraeidae marine shell fragments. FEATURE D: C -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 3.25 m (N=S) by 3.5 in (E -W) by 0.40 in. DESCRIPTION: This is a C -shape open to the southwest. Bedrock is built upon to take advantage of a natural depression. It is composed of large and small a'a boulders ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.40 in, with a few larger, from 0.50 in to 0.60 in. It is built upon a natural bedrock outcrop of the north and northeast sides, and is stacked two to three courses. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14128 (Figure C-47) PFIRI: 764-59 SITE TYPE: Terrace/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, lantana, opiuma, ilima, lantana, kiawe CONDITION; Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: "Prehistoric . FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DIb1ENSIONS: 11,00'm by 4.00 m by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a terrace built out from a bedrock outcrop and forming a level flat ' area. Itis constructed of piled boulders, crudely faced in front to level the area before the outcrop. In a bedrock outcrop c. 2.5 m down slope from the terrace, there is a small, mostly natural formation that is like a C -shape; SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14129 PHRI: 764-60 SITE TYPE: Platform (Figures B-14 and C-48) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, lantana, kiawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Possible burial DIMENSIONS: 2.5Cm by 2.50 in by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a circular platform constructed of large boulder slabs crudely stacked and faced, and filled with a cobbles and limited slab pavement. There is a small cairn of piled rocks on top of the platform on the SW edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. 8-39 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14130 PHRI: 764-62 SITE TYPE: C-shaped terrace (Figure B-15) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, lantana, grasses. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a C-shaped terrace of boulders and cobbles built out from a bedrock outcrop. A few cowry shell fragments were noted on this feature. The feature measures 8.00 m by 6.5 m by 0.70 in (approx.). SITE NO.:. State: 50-10-37-14131 PHRI: 764-63 SITE TYPE: Enclosure (C-49) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an enclosure delimited by a double-faced, core -filled wall of boulders stacked four to six courses high. This feature measures c. 17.0 in (N -S) by 14.0 in (E -W). The wall in the southeast is collapsed where cattle have entered. The wall is anchored against bedrock in a few spots. There is a filled, platform -like pile of boulders outside the SW comer. Coral and echinoid fragments were noted inside the enclosure in the SW comer. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14132 PHRI: 764-64 SITE TYPE: Cave (Figure B-16) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, lauae fems CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Burial DIMENSIONS: 1.50 m by 1.20 in by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a cave that contains two main tubes. The tube to the north is void of cultural modifications and remains, while the tube to the south contains human skeletal remains. The north tube measures c. 4.0 in (E -W) by.2.0 in (N -S). The south tube is c. 19.0 in (N -S) by 6.0 in by 1.10 m. A minimum of four individuals are represented by three complete mandibles and one fragmented mandible. Two long bones are located in the narrow entrance of an unexplored tube approximately halfway down the south tube. Within the south tube, near its far end, are numerous skeletal fragments (ribs, vertebrae, scapulae). No long bones were noted in the main tube. One cranium is located at the end of the south tube, crushed under a slab. 8-41 .,KCe s.. <•� d 14130 ;;ai06 SPARSE YY ' MIDDEN \ 0 5143 s- 6 +—TRAIL /i 0 5 10 16 wt b 1 2 3 4 Figure 8-15. Sites 5143 and 14130 I &42 0 (0 % ROOF FALL AVE ,ICE AE LONG BONES ..... . MANDIBLE X -PULAE �i.,SCANNOMINATE SCATTERED HUMAN REMAINS (4 INDIVIDUALS MINIMUM) ILII 0 5 10 15 m 0 1 2 3 4 ...... INTERIOR LIMrT3 OF CAVE Figure 8-16. Site 14132, Plan Map B-43 CF UP 0 M 764-061190 ADDITIONAL FIGURES C-1 This appendix comprises figures for project area sites for which there are no figures in the original inventory survey report (the main text of the current document). The appendix includes figures that have been drafted, copies of original field maps, and photographs. No figures exist for only two sites in the project area: Sites .14113 and 14125. Site 14113 is a historic wall that appears to have served as a cattle wall. The wall is adequately documented in PHRI field records, and the extent of the wall is certain, as it connects two other sites. Site 14125 is a concrete culvert under a modem, asphalt road. The culvert functions as a drainage. This site is also adequately documented in PHRI field records. Guide to Appendix C Figures Site Feature Figure Type Original Field Drafted Ma ,Photograph 5136 + 5139 + + 5144 + 14075 + 14077 A -D + 14078 A -D + 14075 + 14079 + 14080 + 14082 A-E + 14083 A -F + 14084 A -C + 14085 A -B + 14086 A -C - + - 14087 + 14088 + 14089 + 14090 + 14091 A -C + - 14092 + 14093 + 14094 + 14095 + 14096 + 14028 A -D + - 14099 + 14100 A -H + " 14101 - _ + 764-061190 C-2 Guide to Appendix C Figures Cont. Site Feature Drafted Figure Type Original Field photograph Ma 14102 A -C - + 14103 + MIN A -D - + - 14105 A -C + 14106 + 14108 + 14109 A -B - + - 14110 + 14112 + 14114 + 14115 + 14116 + 14117 + 14118 + 14119 A -D + 14120 + 14121 + 14122 + 14126 A -B + 14127 + 14128 + 14129 + 14131 + G2_ 0 0 � � � < � � §� � � � � � �_ � � � \6 � - .� \�����%����\�\ . ���\»§ . .y.. .� ` »� � � ���� yaw: . . : � : .:. « . �v.«:yam:.� \<\»\� � ?«»»m««&d<»«� /\.\^°� `\°� `y.� ,> >:: «.»: .ate v.� .. «©_:< �� 2r� y\«w«/.. . \?2» %` ©� /% 2<y�,y. � ./�� < y a :: :: . . ^� y<\.y� // . §.» . � \w2« � � \� . ° \� �2 } ^ .� �� /:� »\ :� < .. \§\ /� - °x ^ % \ 2^®� � «< ©v.� .� ; 2\ »§? . . . . �� % «� } � «\.> _ _ � �- >->>: - � < «.za . s� \::t »�© � a. � .a a � w a . . . ». . � w >� w.� � « a ... ». < \ :� «� � :.f°. � � . « ? ©. � w\ 2 .\. w m . . .. . �©°�� � � y � « : ©�:• � < > � j � . :�. . , » ,. «-v., . �� »:�\\»�� <; ` . : : y � /\� � ^ !. �.. . « \ » \ .� . . `~�`/\� ^� `^� z �:: m . . . ,� _ .. . 2 « < - \ : « :�\\� :� » . . . y, : . r .. . , ` �. » y \ »: !� £ « ±` �. 2 � /. , � r � v , : < « :�. r � �^� �� � w 2 «» , � <. . � � . . . : © L a � � � a> y �-` »� / . . . . «—� ?� >---- � 2«/\�y�. - � :\� v� . - - - \ � � �\ : »< 2. y y^�� \ _ / /� » ��� \y ::� \« �3 ?. - .. � 2 � = - . . x�yy� �v>\���\ .»� �\ . . . . . — �§ ..\\: - .\� � : ,�s, �».� ��:�� _ � �\a � `�\\/ ©� �� � \\\\\\ � \ .. � � �� < .. . . . . . . .� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ` � � � � � � � « \\\v: - � � < d «:«� � 2< � � � � � � � � � ?«� ««:2»� { � � « ? 4 1� ♦ �. q .r �: n 1 1S! tl�� �� Y' f r l,,r l 1 � }i ilr �'1 ._\ 7/ t..� r�++, _`�� �* �� ! } t J� � .�' ;� Yy� •. �, t a"' `f y�`S �f�� �..��, �/4- �t.-�.. �k�^. �'� 1. T<�i�! .tea r E �a�Y �v+�'3�•'.-�..��,Y.,���`i�.i .�.i�'-f � � . r -=i. .5a .. 4 J 4 G ------- -------- - ------- . .. ..................... ... . . ..... .. ..... .... ....... -... ...... ... . I -- -, .. .... ..... .. . .. .... 1 1 m0 1 1 ❑ TEST MM M-1 A EI EECROCK err OOWNSWPE t[ F=W WALL 6�u iTACKEO WALL GEORKMON ® ..K.WT A• /.NOKPNOY. OTgX 0.KEHin Ar Fee. A 171 E 4 4 Figure C-13. Site 14087, Old Kailua-Keauhou Road, View to the South (PHRI Neg. 1430-15A) 3 .� X/ u }t � i3+s �:'. - .. ... yam:. r+ j � � \ �� tc 4�._.. ''�j \ I , A � , � i l '�;�-� �'; '" � _ mat � ( r - � �� l�'. � .. � ( _ i - _ 1. i /� _ \.1 _ � � _ - �\ 1 _ - AN U pt % --- o . ...a.. a - o, i J 1 ', I . , . _, �, J .!r ` � � � .._ / �. ,. � � _ S� � � c.. xr. _ �. I - i � .. 1 i' � � V ��.:-� ,4r� �, �'r �` '1.� � �� 1 ,� ,,, , � , , ,- ��� r � , -� P .� — t ,. 5 a ���� i. � < <.. � r `��. �.� :., .. .. . ,. -. _ ''dti ,, �. i � � � ti � r .. ( � , a. =� r i .� � � � �i l � / 1 i �� .. � c � t _ ��. V J �. ~r. _,_ r, i _= ��� ,. .:s � ic. s; _ F .. )� { .. _ i err � +, � ,. � , �� .- ��>� i��� _ '.. —.. � - � _ _ J D-1 Summary of Subsequent Archaeological Work in the Pualani Makai Project Area and Vicinity, and Updated Significance Assessments and Recommended Mitigation Treatments for Project Area Sites The original archaeological inventory survey for the Pualani Makai Project took place in mid 1990. Since then, a number of archaeological projects have been conducted in the project area. Findings during these subsequent projects have led to revisions of significance assessments or recommended treatments for several sites, and significance assessments and recommended treatments have been added for sites newly identified during subsequent projects. Included in this appendix are summaries of these subsequent projects in terms of findings and conclusions, an updated table of significance assessments and recommended treatments that includes all project area sites (Table D-1, at end), and a table summarizing the findings at all identified sites (Table D-2, at end). Subsequent to the original inventory survey, the following listed projects were conducted in the project area (the projects are described in detail below; numbers correspond to numbers on Figure D-1): 1. Additional Inventory Survey: Testing of Possible Burial Feature (Site 14084, Feature Q. PHRI Memorandum 972-121290 (dated 12 December 1990, to S. Fuke & Associates, from P: Rosendabl); 2. Pualani Wastewater Treatment Facility Data Recovery; PHRI Interim Report 1055- 060491 (Graves 1991); , 3. Pualani Water Transmission System Inventory Survey; PIM Report 1590-013096 (Head and Rosendahl 1996); 4. Pualani Makai Utility Corridor Monitoring; in progress; PMU Report 2232-091302 (PHRI 2002); 5. Archaeological Data Recovery, Site 14130 (Pualani Water Transmission System Data Recovery). Haun & Associates - work and report done in 2001; 6. Testing of Possible Burial Features. Rechtman (2002); 7. Additional Inventory Survey. Testing of Remaining Possible Burial Sites; PHRI Memorandum 2274-122402 (dated 24 December 2002, to B. Brooks, Westpro Development, Inc., from P. Rosendahl, PHRI); 8. Archeological Field Inspection — Proposed Rock Crusher Site; PHRl Memorandum 2274-010903 (dated 9 January 2003, to M. Maigret, SHPD, from P. Rosendahl, PHRI; 9. Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features. 10. Additional Survey of Road Access Corridor. 11. Additional Excavation to Determine Presence/Absence of a Possible Burial, Site 14104 (Feature A). 12. Additional Fieldcheck, Sites 14123 and 14124 I =No mom PUALANI PROPOSED PUALANI DEVELOPMENT - PHASE II PROJECT AREA M n a 300 am o so ioo ieo ..�.� PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO LIST ON PAGE D-1 PUALANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PROJECT AREA Figure D- 1. Locations of Subsequent Archaeological Work D-3 1. In late 1990 PHRI conducted burial testing in the Pualani Makai project area (PHRI Memo 972- 121290, dated 12 December 1990, to S. Fuke & Associates, from P. Rosendahl). Specifically, Feature C of Site 14084, a mound in the Wastewater Treatment Facility portion of the project area, was tested for presence of a burial (Figure D-1). Prior to excavation the mound and immediate area was cleared of vegetation. A 1.0 square meter unit was then excavated into the center of the mound; no human remains were identified. Site 14084 had been assessed during the inventory survey as significant for information content and as potentially culturally significant due to the possible presence of a burial. Based on the negative findings of the burial testing project, the site is now assessed as significant for information content only, with no further work recommended (Table D-1). 2. In April -May 1991 PHRI conducted archaeological data recovery at 14 sites within the 15 -acre Wastewater Treatment Facility, within the northwest portion of the overall Pualani Makai Project Area (Figure D-1). The data recovery work was guided by an SHPD-approved archaeological data recovery plan (Jensen 1991). The data recovery fieldwork included vegetation clearing, updating previous field records, detailed mapping and description, and test excavations. The fieldwork recovered sufficient information to address the research topics outlined in the data recovery plan. For 13of the 14 sites no further archaeological work was recommended (14073-14080, 14082-14085, and 14098). The remaining site, Site 14081 (cave), was considered significant as an excellent example of a site type (Criterion C), for information content (Criterion D) and possibly for cultural value (Criterion E) due to the possible presence of human remains within a cave chamber, under a rock mound. Further data collection was recommended for the site. Subsequent fieldwork indicated the possible burial remains were not within the bounds of the current project area. Based on Graves' interim report on her findings (Graves 1991), the SHPD granted conditional approval for the project area.pending confirmation that the significance for Site 14081 (cave) would be changed from Criterion D (information content) to significant for Criteria D and C (excellent example of a site type)(Table D-1), that the treatment for the site would be changed to preserve "as is," and that a final data recovery report for the project would be submitted (letter dated 8 October 1991, to P. Rosendahl, PHRI, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; and letter dated 17 July 1992 to P. Rosendahl, PHRI, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; Log No., 5851, Doc. No. 0252x). Due to project delays, the final data recovery report has yet to be completed. During the current project to'update the inventory report the significance of Site 14081 was reassessed, as it appeared Graves (199 1) recommendation that the site be assessed as significant as an excellent example of a site type (Criterion C) was not warranted. Based on this reassessment.PHRI has dropped the Criterion C significance for the site because: (a) Graves does not justify her recommendation, (b) PM could not justify the recommendation, and (cy the belief that Graves misapplied the criterion, linking, it mistakenly to the quality of the significant cultural deposits at the site (Graves 1991:4, parcel). Site 14081 is now assessed as significant for information content (Criterion D) only and is recommended for further data collection of the significant information at the site (Table D-1). 3. PHRI conducted an additional inventory survey of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area in 1995 (Pualam Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System; Head and Rosendahl 1996)(Figure D-1). During the survey, six sites were identified. Four sites had been previously identified during the original inventory survey (main text): 5143 (trail remnant), 5144 (boundary. wall), 14129 (agricultural platform and possible burial), and 14130 (C -shape). Two sites were newly identified: 19836 (possible burial) and 19837 (additional agricultural features of the Kona Field System).. During the original inventory survey Sites 5143 and 5144 were assessed as significant for information content;' further data collection was recommended for 5143, and no. further work was recommended for 5144. During the . additional inventory survey, the information content at the sites was fully recovered, and both sites are now assessed as requiring no further archaeological work (Table D-1). During the original inventory survey, -Site 14129 was assessed as significant for information content and possibly for cultural value due to the possible presence of a burial, and further data collection and possible preservation was recommended. Based on the additional inventory survey findings, the site retained its original significance assessment and was recommended for preservation "as is." The site subsequently underwent burial testing by Rechtman (see below) and no burial was identified. The site is now assessed as significant for information content and as requiring no further archaeological work (Table D-1). During the original inventory survey Site 14130 was assessed as significant for information content and further data collection was recommended. Based on the additional inventory survey findings, thesignificance and mitigation recommendations are unchanged. Newly identified Site 19836, a possible burial platform was tested during the additional inventory survey and no D-4 human skeletal remains were identified. The site is assessed as significant for information content only and no further archaeological work is recommended (Table D-1). Newly identified Site 19837, additional Kona Field System features, was assessed as significant for information content and as requiring further data collection, not specifically but as part of a sample of Kona Field System features in the overall Pualani Makai project area. The above significance assessments and recommended treatments for the sites identified/reidentified during the additional inventory survey were approved by the SHPD in a letter dated 27 March 1996 to P. Rosendahl, PHRI, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; Log No. 16567, Doc. No. 9603PM15. 4. Monitoring work at the Pualani Makai Utility Corridor by PHRI is currently in progress. Findings during monitoring work will be detailed in a final report after all monitoring work is completed. The monitoring is being guided by a monitoring plan (PHRI 2002) approved by the SHPD (letter dated 20 September 2002, to P. Rosendahl, from D. Hibbard SHPD). To date, the findings of the monitoring work has required no changes to significance assessments or treatments for project area sites. 5. In mid 2001 Haun & Associates conducted data recovery excavations at Site 14130, a C-shaped terrace in the project area (Figure D-1). Three to four square meters were placed at the site in order to establish the age of the site and to obtain additional information on the variety of activities that took place there. The excavation findings indicated that the site appeared to have both a prehistoric and historic component. Prior to the Haun & Associates project, Site 14130 had been recommended for further data collection. Due to the negative data recovery findings, the site is now recommended for no further work The findings of the project were approved .by the SHPD in July of 2001 (letter dated 11 July 2001, to Haun & Associates, from D. Hibbard, SHPD). 6. In. 2000/2001 Rechtman Consulting conducted burial testing in the project area as part of a due diligence study (Rechtman 2002)(Figure D-1). Rechtman examined three sites: 14132, 14091, and 14129. Site 14132 was a lava tube. During the Rechtnian project the entire extent of the subsurface tube was completely recorded and it was found to contain the skeletal remains of at least ten individuals (Figure D-2). Site 14091, Feature A, was a mound/modified outcrop (identified as a platform by Rechtman) that when tested was found to contain human remains in a lava blister below the mound. Therefore, its significance evaluation has been modified to include category E (cultural value) and the general recommendation has been changed to preserve "as is" (Table D-1 and Figure D-3). Site 14129 was a platform that when tested yielded no burial remains (Figure D-4). Due to the negative findings, Site 14129 is now assessed as having significant information that has been sufficiently collected for proper analysis and interpretation of the site (see below). No further archaeological work is necessary at the site. In the future it is necessary that the two sites with burial remains (14132 and 14091) undergo preservation work (Table D-1). Originally, Site 14132 was recommended for further data collection in the form of a complete map from Rochtman Consulting. This has been provided, and the recommendation_ for the site has been changed to no further work with preservation "as is" (Table D-1). The Site 14129 platform, 2.50 to by 2.50 in by 1.10 in (approx.), consists of large boulder slabs crudely stacked and faced, and filled with cobbles; the platform has some slab paving. There is a small cairn of piled rocks on top of the platform on the southwest edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. In September 2002, this platform was tested by Rechtman Consulting for the presence/absence of human remains. A 1.0 in by. 1.0 in unit was placed in the approximate center of the platform. The platform rocks were 0.10 in to 0.30 in in diameter. The unit was excavated to approximately 0.20 in below surface to bedrock Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I): Soil in Layer H was brown (IOYR 4/3) silt loam; weak; medium; granular, non -sticky; non -plastic. No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned upon reaching bedrock (see Rechtman 2002:Fig.10). IC D-5 RG- O I15O _ 6' i2. r z� 1 ; \ Sdr iA4 ov, [Taken from Rechtman (2002)] Figure D-2. Site 14132, Showing Locations of Burial Remains D-6 Figure D-3.Site 14091, Feature A MoundlModified Outcrop c —0150 PIC., T (Map Taken From Rechtman (2002) r\ Nj y. 4- f TT ;L NA N Adak figure D-4. Site :4129, Platform SS}I�'S�c ��j2a (Y12C 0 5 2 e in RIZ. =fS NT D-7 rSed cock 0 L\- ` 1 Cv� •/ (Map Taken From Rechtman (2002) D-8 7. In December 2002, PHRI conducted burial testing in the project area (PHRI Memorandum 2274- 122402, dated 24 December 2002, to B. Brooks, Westpro Development, Inc., from P. Rosendahl, PHRI). Three previously identified platforms were tested for human skeletal remains (Site 14123, Feature E; Site 14124, Feature C; and Site 14126, Feature B. During the fieldwork, each feature was measured, sketched, photographed, and then dismantled. Of the three features, only Site 14124, Feature C yielded human skeletal remains (see Table D-1 for revised assessments/treatments for the sites). Site 14123, Feature E, is 4.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) platform. This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A faced depression is present on the top of the feature. Although it was initially thought that the platform was agricultural -related, it was also thought that it might contain a human burial. In December 2002, this platform was tested for the presence/absence of human remains. All materials were screened through '/.-inch mesh. The east one-half of the platform was excavated. Rock sizes in Layer I ranged from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 in in diameter. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Soil in Layer II was brown (IOYR 4/3) silt loam, weak; medium; granular; non -sticky; non -plastic. The unit was excavated to 1.5 in, when bedrock was encountered (Figure D-S)(see Figure B-9 for profile location). No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned Site 14124, Feature C, is a platform that was originally thought to be a burial. It measures 5.70 in by 4.00 in by 0.85-0.90 in (approx.) This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of faced -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 in. In December 2002, this site was tested for the presence of a human burial. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Soil in Layer II was dark grey (10 YR 4/1) silt loam; weak; fine; .granular, non -sticky; non -plastic (Figure D-5) (see Figure.B-9 for profile location). All materials were screened through '/.-inch mesh. At approximately 0.60 in below the soil surface, two pahoehoe slabs were revealed in the eastern one-half of the platform. Belowihese, and in a horizontal area approximately 1.20 in by 0.80 in, disarticulated human remains were discovered.. The remains were encountered from approximately 0.65-0.75 mbs, were very fractured, and comprised a partial mandible, the orbital area of the cranium, a partial pelvis, a partial radius, ulna, or tibia, 24 small rib fragments (all under 4.0 cm in dia.), 218 unidentified fragments between 2.0 and 5.0 cm in diameter, and 48 unidentified fragments under 1.0 cm in diameter. The total number of bone fragments was 329 (PHRI Memo 2274-122402). At this point excavation discontinued and the remains were covered with a plastic bag, which was then covered with an approximate 5.0 cm of dirt fill. A small concentration of charcoal was noted in the area of the remains. No other cultural remains were recovered. Site 14126, Feature B, a platform; was also tested for the presence/absence of human remains in December 2002. This platform (Figure B-12) is circular in plan view, is crudely faced on all sides, and has an essentially level surface, although it is collapsing to the east. It is 3.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.80-0.90 in high. The eastern half of the platform was excavated. All materials were screened through '/.-inch mesh. Little sail was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Layer II was brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; weak, medium; granular, non -sticky; non -plastic (Figure D-5). The unit was excavated to 0.1 in, where bedrock was encountered No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned. During the fieldwork at Site 14126, Feature B, a railroad tie and a probable piece of railroad engine equipment were noted relatively close to the platform. A review of a portion of the 1928 USGS Kailua Quadrangle depicts a sugarcane railroad line in approximately the same area as Site 14126. The platform also resembles platforms historically noted as sugar cane loading platforms (cf. Hunt and McDermott 1993). It it possible, therefore, that Site 14126, Feature B, relates to historic sugar cane and associated railroad activities; it is not possible, however, to confirm this. F a D D-9 o: o N ry O N O M 8. On 9 January 2003 PHRI conducted an archeological field inspection at a proposed 22,500 square foot rock crusher site in the project area (PHRI Memorandum 2274-010903, dated 9 January 2003, to M. Maigret, SHPD, from P. Rosendahl, PHRI). The site is in the southeastern comer of the project area, about 110 feet seaward of Ka`ahumanu Highway (Figure D-1). Visibility during the inspection was good; during the inspection no archaeological sites of any kind were found within the rock crusher site. Based on the findings, PHRI recommended approval of the site for a rock crusher operation. 9. Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features - On February 4, 5, and 6, 2004, PHRI conducted additional fieldwork in the project area in order to gather information necessary to address several concerns the SHPD expressed after their review of an earlier draft of the current report (SHPD letter dated 16 December 2004, Log No:0312MM04; Doc No:2003.2453). The SHPD's primary concern was that there may be features on the Pualani property that were not noted, nor recorded, during the original inventory survey (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990): Rechtman study differs significantly from yours in that a total feature count is estimated at over 1000 features. Six hundred of these features are estimated within areas outlined on his project area map, with the remainder collected as point data. Clearly this differs significantly from your total feature count of 138. The largest concentration of mounds and outcrops noted on the Rechtman map is labeled "155". The Site Record Form for T131 -T155, dated 9/11/02 describes T155 as "area of 500 — agricultural features mostly mounds and modified outcrops." This description does not resemble the description for four sites you recorded in the same area: 14108, 14115, 14116 or 14117. This suggests there are more features in this area than you observed in your survey. Initially, PHRI found the above statements puzzling, since we were certain that the differing counts of sites/features in the project area was because Rechtman had attempted to account for every single feature in the project area, including all minor agricultural features of the Kona Field System, while PHRI had clearly accounted for the minor features in the report, but had made it clear that only major archaeological features were recorded to inventory level (and thus included in the 138 count). However, when we checked the report we could find no section that specifically addressed this point This was an oversight on our part We did find, however, numerous references in the Site Description section to the ubiquity of such features, and this at least makes it clear PHRI was aware of the features, and did not intend to ignore the fact that they are present in the project area: These features were not assigned numbers; tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-1). There are numerous modified outcrops/mounds in the immediate vicinity of this central feature (Site 14074). These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-3). There are numerous additional features in the vicinity. These features (Site 14084) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation" (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-12). D-11 Numerous additional mounds/modified outcrops are present in the vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features (Site 14094) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-11). Numerous additional mound features in the immediate vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features (Site 14118) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-22). Because of the omission and what appeared to be discrepancies in feature counts, the SHPD and PHRI subsequently agreed that PHRI would conduct additional fieldwork in the project area to assess and characterize the minor agricultural features in the area The fieldwork included pedestrian re -survey of the entire project area and reevaluation of the total number of minor agricultural features in the project area, and qualitative assessments of the features. The qualitative assessments would include: general locations and distribution of features, general size and constituency, and whether or not they were clustered around other major sites/features (e.g., enclosures or platforms) in the project area. The general methodology for the additional fieldwork was as follows: 1. The project area was divided into areas. Areas A, B, C, and D were designated by PM. Areas based on Rechtman's areas (Rechtman 2002) included Areas 133, 139, 155, and Rechtman's Mound Area (Figure D-6); 2. Each area was subjected to pedestrian survey with transects spaced 5.0 to 15.0 IJ meters, depending on vegetation and visibility. The pedestrian survey was conducted by PM Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, M.A., assisted -by PM Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo on February 4, 5, and 6, 2004, In many areas there was thick grass; however, the minor features like mounds and modified outcrops were recognized visually as areas that "stood out" due to lack of grass, and the larger modified outcrops were high enough to be easily visible. The findings in the individual sections are presented below. Area 139. Rechtman noted approximately 100+ mounds/modified outcrops in this area. During the current survey this approximate count was confirmed. The features were primarily low mounds, with fewer modified outcrops than in other areas of the project area. The mounds were primarily oval in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders. In size, the features ranged from one to six meters in maximum length and were generally 0.50 to 0.75 meter high. They were not concentrated in any particular area, but were scattered- Area cattered Area 133. The minor archaeological features in this area were primarily modified outcrops; specifically, basalt outcrops upon which field 'a'd cobbles and boulders had been tossed in the process of clearing land The outcrops were generally 2.0-6.0 m,long, had generally one course of stones,; and were generally no more than 0.50 m in height, with the majority being somewhat lower. The outcrops were not clustered, but rather, reflected natural, random occurrence. The mounds in this area were primarily oval in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders. The features were generally one to six meters long, but most of them were one to three meters long. The mounds were generally 0.30 to 0.50 meter high. Rechtman estimated over 200 minor features in this area. The current findings generally concur with Rechtman's estimate. Ili 11 b 0 1 � 1 •- 1�1+z�y li Irk 0 J D-13 Area 155. Rechtman characterized this area as containing probably over 500 minor agricultural features. The current findings are in general agreement Area 155 is about three times as large as Area 133, and the amount of agricultural features found proportionate to area is approximately equal in both areas. The outcrops in this area are generally 2.0-6.0 in long, are generally composed of one course of stones, and are generally no more than 0.50 in in height The outcrops are not clustered, but rather, reflect naturally occurring distribution. The mounds in this area were very similar to mounds throughout the project area: they were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders and they were mostly about one to three meters long and 0.30 to 0.50 meter high. The mounds were not clustered in any particular area. Rechtman's Mound Area. This area contained more mounds than modified outcrops. These were similar to those noted in Area 139. They were primarily oval or round in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'aa cobbles and boulders. They were one to six meters long, and were generally 0.30 to 1.0 meters high. Approximately 30 mounds/modified outcrops were identified. They were not concentrated in a particular area, but were scattered. Area A. In this area the modified outcrops consisted of bedrock outcrops onto which small to medium stones were thrown. The mounds in this area were relatively small, averaging 2.0 by 2.0 meters. At least 120 modified outcrops/mounds are present in the area, with more modified outcrops than mounds. This does not significantly disagree with the approximate number identified by Rechtman and shown on his map (Figure D-6). Rechtman on his map encircled smaller areas of two or more mounds. This tends to give the impression of clustering; however, the field examination indicated there is no clustering of features. Area B. In this area Rechtman found approximately 35 mounds and modified outcrops. This number of features was confirmed in the field. This area is the most makai area of the project area and has been greatly disturbed by activities related to cattle ranching. The current number of features, therefore, may not represent what was prehistorically present. The mounds and modified outcrops in the area are relatively few and are scattered broadly (Figure D-6). Area C. This area encompasses two large sites (14123 and 14124), and is characterized by large areas of naturally upthrusted bedrock. Since the area is dominated by the two large sites, there are relatively fewer mounds and modified outcrops in the area. Approximately 20 modified outcrops and mounds were identified in the area, with more modified outcrops than mounds. The features were similar in nature to those in Area 139 and Area 133. The features were generally 2.0 to 6.0 in long, and were generally one course and no more than 0.50 in high, with the majority being somewhat smaller. The features were.not clustered, but were scattered randomly. Area D. In this area PHRI found approximately 50 modified outcrops/mounds, an amount similar to what Rechtman identified. Generally equal numbers of modified outcrops and mounds were found. There appeared to be more features in the southerly portion of the area; however, these could not be characterized as clustered. Features were more dispersed in other areas. It appears that a large section of the northeastem portion of the area, has been at least partially affected by bulldozing and clearing (Figure D-6), and it may be that these areas originally contained more minor features. Summary. During the field survey, the field crew attempted to relocate the features Rechtman noted on his map of the project area. In a general way, this was successful in that the numbers of features identified by Rechtman in the general area matched the numbers of features identified by PHRI. However, it was impossible to determine exactly which features in the field matched the ones Rechtman noted on his map. This was because Rechtman did not mark in the field the features he identified. Without marking, positive feature identification was not possible. D-14 Rwh aa's defiled ares (F�s 139, 133, 155, and Rechtman's Mound Area) constitute about 40% of the project area During the current work, these areas were found to contain the majority of minor archaeological features (100+, 200+, and 500+ features, respectively). The amount of features corresponds generally to what Rechtman found. The remaining portions of the project area were found to contain roughly 225+ other minor features. This also approximates Rechtman's findings. In total, over 1,000 modified outcrops and mounds were noted during the current study. The features are generally dispersed over the entire project area; although there are generally more features in certain defined areas, the features still could not be characterized as "clustered." If there are more features in particular survey ares, it seems to be due to the natural occurrence of more bedrock outcrops in the area, or more stones in the area In general, there are more modified outcrops than mounds, and mounds are more plentiful in the southeastern portion of the project area (Rechtman's mound area and northern portion of Area 139). In regard to the association of the minor features with major features, it appears that the minor features do not cluster around larger habitation features, e.g., enclosures or platforms, but rather, are scattered 10. On February 26, 2004, PHRI Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, and Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo, surveyed along a proposed access road corridor extending through the Pualani Makai Development Project The centerline had been staked, numbered, and marked with chartreuse -colored flagging (Figure D-1): The aim of the survey was to identify and relocate any previously located archaeological sites within the project corridor. The project corridor extended c. 50 feet on either side of the centerline. During the survey, five sites were found to be within 50 feet of the centerline stake (Sites 14104, 14107, 14116, 14125, and 14089). None of the sites are slated for preservation. However, Site 14104, Feature A is slated for further.data recovery. This is a well -constructed platform, 8.00 in by 5.00 in by 1.00 m. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and boulder - filled floor; and it sits on a prominent knoll. The purpose of the future data recbvery work on this platform will be to determine the presence/absence of human skeletal remains within the platform. 11. On March 17, 2004, PHRI Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, and Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo conducted burial testing at Site 14104, Feature A platform. This site lies along the route of a proposed access road corridor extending through the Pualam Makai Development Project, and was near the centerline (see #10, immediately above)(Figure D-1). Feature A is a well -constructed platform, 8.00 in by 5.00 in by 1.00 in. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and boulder -filled floor. Rock sizes varied, but were primarily from 0.10 m to 0.40 m in diameter. The feature sits on a prominent knoll. Feature A was tested for human skeletal remains by placement of a 1.0 by 1.0 m test Excavation unit The excavation was terminated on bedrock. Only a small amount of soil was present in the center of the platform. No human skeletal remains were found. 12. On Apri1..30, 2004, Paul H. Rosendahl (PFiRI) re -inspected Sites 14123 and 14124 and made the following observations concerning Site 14123: (a) the inventory survey description and map do not fully describe the site configuration or component details, and a more accurate map will need to be generated during data recovery; (b) Feature A (modified outcrop) has many more modifications than indicated in the site plan map; (c) there is no evidence that Sites 14123, 14124, and 14126 form a larger site complex, as suggested by Dr. Robert Rechunan (Rechtman2002); and (d) the tentative functional identification of the site as ceremonial/habitation is still appropriate, and the preservation of the site is still the appropriate recommended general treatment During the fieldwork one of the large pahoehoe slabs on Feature A was moved. Rock paving was found beneath the slab, thus substantiating that at least some of the slabs had been placed; other slabs appeared to be natural and attached to the outcrop. D -IS Concerning Site 14124, the following was observed: (a) the inventory survey recording does not fully describe site configuration or component details, and a more accurate map will need to be generated during the data recovery phase; (b) Feature A (modified outcrop) has many more modifications than indicated in the site plan map; (c) there is no evidence that Sites 14123, 14124, and 14126 form a larger site complex, as suggested by Dr. Robert Rechtman (Rechtman 2002); the tentative functional identification of the site as ceremonial/habitation is still appropriate, with preservation of Feature C (burial) still the appropriate recommended general treatment Subsequent Work in General Vicinity Several subsequent archaeological projects have been conducted in the general vicinity of the current project area. area. These include (a) Archaeological Data Recovery Pualani Residential Community Phase II - Wastewater Treatment Facility (Graves and Goodfellow 1992; unpublished PHRI Report 1055- 100192); (b) Pualani Residential Community Phase H Archaeological Data Recovery (Graves and Goodfellow 1993); (c) Alii Highway Phased Mitigation Program (Haun et al. 1998); (d) Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in Holualoa 2nd and 3rd (Wolforth 2000); and (e) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Walua Apartment Project (Corbin 2001). During the Graves and Goodfellow 1992 data recovery project at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (unpublished PHRI Report 1055-100192), data recovery focused on 14 sites, with a total of 131 component features. Treatments included detailed mapping and recording, surface collections and test excavations. Several conclusions were reached during the data recovery program Evidence was provided for pre -AD 1000 use and occupation of a cave within the project area (Site 14081). Habitation sites associated with agricultural features appear to post date AD 1000, with permanent habitation inferred by AD 1300. The project area lies within the bounds of the Kona Field System, and its use as an agricultural complex continued into the historic period. Modifications to the cave after AD 1600 suggest its use as a refuge. During the Graves and Goodfellow (1993) data recovery project 55 sites with 723 component features were identified. Treatment measures included detailed mapping and recording, surface collections, test excavations, and auger holes. Cultural layers were identified in 144 excavation units. Thirty-one horizontal features, including 25 hearths, an oxidized soil stain, a series of post molds, and four ash deposits were excavated at various sites. The data recovery work has provided evidence for early (before AD 1000) use and occupation of the project area, which lies within the bounds of the Kona Field System. After AD 1000, permanent garden areas and dispersed habitation complexes developed and then proliferated, particularly between AD 1400 and 1650. Use of the project area as an agricultural complex continued into the historic period. During the Ali'i Highway Phased Mitigation Program (Haunt al. 1998) 177 sites with 1,548 features were identified in the project area. Most sites had been identified during previous work. Fifty-eight sites were assigned a permanent habitation function. Four of these sites were also assigned a burial function, and two of the four were assigned a ceremonial function as well. A temporary habitation function was assigned to 28 sites. Of these, four were also assigned a burial function, one was assigned a ceremonial function, and two wereassigned a bunaViceremonial function. The most common non -habitation site function was agriculture (40 sites), followed by ranching (livestock control; 16), ahupua'a boundary (14); burial (11), transportation (7), and water catchment (1). The 1,584 features had the following functions: agriculture (1,029 features), permanent habitation (306), burial (53), temporary habitation (43), livestock control (30), religious or ceremonial (15), marker (14), ahupua'a boundary (14), transportation (12), storage (3), water catchment (2), communication (2)i and recreation (1). Three features were assigned a temporary habitation and burial function. The function of 21.features was undetermined. MM. During the archaeological inventory survey of the Two Parcels in Hblualoa 2nd and 3' project area (Wolforth 2000), seven sites with 26 features were recorded: one heiau (Site 3829), three residential sites (5600, 6317, 6374), and three walls (6316, 6340, 21391). Site 5600 consisted of a wall, two midden deposits, three platforms, a terrace/pavement, five enclosures, two pahoehoe outcrops with bedrock mortars, a burial cave, and a papamu. Functional interpretations included habitation, recreation, boundary enclosures, house floor pavement, recreation, and boundary walls. Sites 6316 and 6340 were ahupua'a boundary walls. Site 6317 consisted of an enclosure, a wall, and a platform functioning for permanent habitation. Site 6374 consisted of an enclosure, three platforms, a mound, a modified outcrop, and a terrace -all functioning for permanent habitation. Site 21391 was an enclosure wall. During the archaeological inventory survey for the Walua Apartment Project (Corbin 2001), 27 sites were identified. Eight of the 27 had been previously identified during an earlier inventory survey that covered a portion of the current project area (Head et al. 1994). Nineteen sites consisting of 22 features were newly identified Seven of these sites were tested. The 22 features comprised the following formal types: modified outcrops (8), walls (5), enclosure (1), terrace (1), platform (2), lava blister cave (1.), rock alignment (1), shrine (1), paved area (1), and papamu (1). REVISED CONCLUSION The following summarizes research information gathered during and subsequent to the original 1991 inventory survey and presents some conclusions about the prehistory and history of the area. During the original 1991 inventory survey and subsequent surveys, 68 sites consisting of 48 features (not. counting the ubiquitous mounds/modified outcrops of the Kona Field System) have been identified. The 48 features consist of 27 formal types representing 19 functional types. Feature types identified include wall, platform, cave, terrace; enclosure, pit, C -shape, L -shape, caim,'road, and alignment. Functional interpretations include permanent and temporary habitation, transportation, water catchment, and agriculture. Minor Agricultural Features of the Kona Field System. Over 1,000 minor features of the Kona Field System were noted within the project area. These are generally dispersed over the entire project area. The features do not cluster around the larger habitation features, e.g. enclosures or platforms, but rather, are scattered. If there are more features in particular areas, it seems to be the result of more stones in the area and more bedrock outcrops. There are more modified outcrops than mounds; and mounds are more plentiful in the southeastern portion of the project area. The features apparently were created as a result of land clearing in order to increase the available arable area. It is believed that in general the features themselves were not used to grow plants. The Kona Field System was First described by Schilt (1984; see main text for references not listed at end of this appendix). Schilt described the section of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor that fell within Puapuaa 1i° and 2°" as containing "an almost continuous complex of gardening features...." (1984:317). She assigned this complex a single site designation, while other researchers have given different site numbers to this complex. The Kona Field System has also been noted as being extensive in the adjacent and mauka Pualam Residential Community project area (Graves and Goodfellow 1993:66). Many of the other formal feature types identified in the project area, such as platforms, linear mounds, terraces and the smaller babitation features, also functioned for agriculture or related purposes. Generally, there appears to be a more dense distribution of these other feature types towards the mauka side of the project area, and a greater diversity of formal and functional feature types towards the makai side. This D-17 general distribution pattern, however, may not reflect the original -tter-- due to h stone lana moamcanons (road construction and other historic activities) in the makai portion of the project area. Walls Most of the walls in the project area are historic. The prehistoric walls include Sites 14075, 14080, and possibly 14116. These walls may be kuaiwi of the Kona.Field System, which functioned as boundaries delineating rectangular fields. Such features were described by Schilt as "a maze of continuous walls of stacked stone, or in some cases of low earthen mounds (varying in height from 0.5 to 1.0 m and in width from 1.0 to 3.0 m)" (1984:3). The walls of Sites 14075 and 14080 are quite small, relatively insubstantial, and are in poor condition. The Site 14116 wall is low and squat, yet is quite massive and core -filled and is in moderate condition. This dissimilarity to the classic walls of the Kona Field system could be attributed to a few factors. The most likely is that the area lies outside the central area of the field system, and the maze of walls was never fully developed in this region. Alternatively, earlier walls may have been destroyed by historic cattle grazing, or rocks may have been taken from prehistoric walls to create the historic walls (but this is unlikely given the surplus of rocks everywhere in the project area). Another alternative is that these features are not kuaiwi at all. The two insubstantial walls may in fact be the last remains of a mauka-makai running trail, and the third wall may once have formed a boundary. Sites 14123 and 14124 . Sites 14123 and 14124 are large sites centered on and around large pahoehoe and 'a'd bedrock outcrops (see Figures B-10 and B-11 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments or planting areas. They both have well built walls ,that extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5.0 by 5.0 meter area on the edge of the outcrop paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This paving is probably partly natural and partly created. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function due to the presence of what appears to be stone paving beneath some of the slabs, indicating considerable time and: effort in the construction of the feature. Portions of the partially surrounding walls also indicate substantial effort. Due to the effort involved, and the overall appearance of Site 14123, it is possible that it is a heiau, although no mention of such an apparently large heiau is in the literature (cf. Kelly [1983], Barrere [1975], Kuykendall [1938, 1953, 1967], and Helen Wong[19901). The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 .is somewhat smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop.itself has a large enclosure -like form. The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large,_ essentially rectangular platform: This feature was tested and found to contain a burial. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to other sites in the project area. Burials A number of features in the project area were evaluated as possible burials (see Figures B-13 and B-16 in Appendix B) by PHIU and other organizations. These include features at Sites 14084, 14091, 14123, 14124, 14126, 14129, and 14132. After testing, it was revealed that Sites 14091, 14124, and 14132 contained human remains,while the others proved negative. Generally, the burial features were well constructed platforms or mounds, that appeared to have been built with care and a greater amount of work than other features in the area. The burials were not clustered in any particular area, but were scattered. JPreservation "as is" is recommended for the burials. D-18 11 h TT ... v V wer Major Topics ofifi—AlLe est During the various fieldwork projects and research investigations within the current project area, several conclusions have been reached concerning the following major topics. Chronoloty Developing a chronological framework for the project area was a primary objective, and data collection projects have focused on finding materials suitable for radiocarbon dating. Twenty four samples, collected from six sites constitute the radiocarbon database for the project area Goodfellow divides the results of the analysis of this database into three temporal phases: Phase I (AD 800-1400), Phase II (AD 1400-1650), and Phase III (AD 1650-1900)(Graves and Goodfellow 1992: unpublished manuscript). Initial occupation of the project area occurred at the cave site (Site 14081), which provides evidence for use as early as AD 800. Habitation sites associated with agricultural features appear to post date AD 1000. This may be a result of the introduction of new crops (i.e., the sweet potato) suitable for cultivation in thin soils and and conditions. Hommon (19.76:267) has suggested that the sweet potato was introduced (possibly from Tahiti) around AD 1270, and made possible cultivation of the kola zone. The presence of structures interpreted to be indicative of permanent habitation (e.g., Site 14078) by AD 1300 substantiates this hypothesis, and is further supported by data retrieval at the Pualani Residential Community (PRC)(Graves and Goodfellow 1993:65). The cave (Site 14081) continued to be occupied during Phase II, although on a periodic rather than extended basis. This occupation may have been related to the periodic exploitation of marine resources by upland agriculturalists:This inference is drawn from the number of small hearths located within the various stratigraphic layers of the cave and the associated midden and artifact assemblage. Site 14082, a temporary habitation, is also occupied during this phase. Phase III sees recurrent occupation at Sites 14074, 14082, and 14083, as well as continued occupation of the cave. Structural modifications to the cave entrance, possibly during the transition from Phase IM may provide evidence that the cave was used as a refuge. These data are consistent with trends noted at the Pualani Residential Community, in which Phase I is characterized by,a low, relatively stable population (as signified by the number of dated features) which begins to increase by She 15th century. This increase is interpreted as signifying an intensification of agriculture, and may signal, or be a result of, population growth. It is interesting to note, however, that while the number of dated features appears to decline in the PRC area during the proto-historic period, it appears to rise in the current project area during Phase III. While this trend may be a result of the differences in sample sizes, as suggested by Goodfellow (Graves and Goodfellow 1992), it could also be interpreted as an effort to increase agricultural production in the more marginal zones. If the mauka lands reached maximum production .during the 1600s we would expect to see an intensification in other areas. Another alternative is that the more productive uplands were "worn out," forcing the populace to seek new garden areas. Increased use of the makai area could also be related to social stratification. The elite classes (ali i) were congregating in increasing numbers in the coastal areas of Kailua and Kealakekua and may simply have needed to increase the numbers of retainers in the immediate area to provide them with services and the largesse to maintain their status. After the Great Mahele of 1848, and the introduction of cattle, native populations may also have been forced into a subsistence economy on the most marginal agricultural lands. In any event, data from the current project, as well as historic documents, indicate aboriginal use of the area well into the 1800s. J �D19 Subsistence While the terrain and soils in the project area are considered unsuitable for present day agriculture, ethnographic evidence suggests that it was quite productive under traditional Hawaiian methods, and produced a variety of food crops such as sweet potatoes, gourds, dryland taro, and breadfruit These methods included clearing lands by burning, and by careful mulching of the plants to retain moisture (Kamakau 19767. This is supported by an examination of the soils. Schilt (1984) has suggested that soil deposition in the area could be a result of slopewash from further upslope. This also helps to explain the increase in the number of dated features within the current project during Phase M. Perhaps the topsoil had finally accumulated to the point that intensive gardening was feasible. The soil also appears to have been supplemented with crushed marine shell and ash in some areas. These materials may have acted as fertilizer to enrich the soil for gardening. These soils were systematically retained in garden areas defined by terraces and other structures. Architectural remains provide the most convincing evidence for an agricultural subsistence base within the project area. Agricultural features clearly dominate the architectural assemblage. The abundance and diversity of these features suggests that all available land in the project area was intensively and systematically cultivated. This is supported by the observation that habitation complexes appear to be confined to the rocky basalt outcrops, presumably to leave the more arable land for crops. The presence of marine resource remains in the project area reveals an additional dimension to the subsistence base, and suggests inferences about coastal -upland interaction and changes in population. Goodfellow notes that a comparison of the number of marine taxa represented within the midden assemblage indicates an increase in the abundance and diversity of food items through time. This maybe a result of a broadening of the resource base due to population pressures, or may indicate increased access to different marine species. The scarcity of marine resources recovered in the project area suggests an agricultural subsistence base. People living in an agricultural area probably were not dependent upon marine resources for subsistence, and probably relied a great deal on their own produce. Unfortunately, organic materials do not preserve well in the archaeological record, so it is difficult to gauge subsistence (based on organic remains) in an agricultural setting. In addition, the relationship of agriculture to animal husbandry makes it unlikely that scraps of discarded food items would have a chance to accumulate given that these products could be fed to pigs, dogs and fowl. The presence of these species in the faunal assemblage supports the notion that a surplus of food enabled animal husbandry to flourish. The artifact assemblage does not particularly support a hypothesis of an agricultural subsistence base, although it must be noted that most farming implements were probably made of wood and would not preserve well. A wooden digging stick, the o'o pahu, is virtually the sole implement described by ethnographic sources as having been used in the preparation and planting of agricultural fields (Handy and Handy 1972:117). Ecofact deposits within the cave (Site 14081), however, are dominated by fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Perhaps the cave was used periodically by upland agriculturalists making forays to the coastal area to exploit marine resources. This is.supported by an examination of the artifact assemblage, which is dominated by fishing gear such as octopus lures, fishhooks, and implement manufacturing tools such as abraders. Duration and Intensity of Occupation Another of the primary research objectives for all the projects within the project area was to determine the duration and intensity of occupation at individual sites and features. Duration, in this case, refers to D-20 whether structures were occupied permanently (continuously vdthin a given tin a span) or temporarily (on a periodic basis). Duration was defined using ecofact abundance and artifact diversity as a measure of permanence. From the argument presented above regarding the subsistence base (agricultural) and the differential preservation of remains (organic materials compared to shell midden), it seems unlikely that we can use relative abundance as a measure of duration. Except within the cave, excavations did not reveal stratigraphic breaks within cultural layers that would indicateperiodic use. Thus, the assignment of individual features into categories such as permanent, temporary, and possible habitations was extremely subjective, and was, for the most part, based on direct comparisons between features in the project area. An examination of traditional agricultural practices may help to define occupation duration within the project area, and in the larger Kona Field System. Two resources (Handy and Handy 1972 and Kamakau 1964) mention the necessity of being on hand to pull mulch away from plants during rainstorms, to allow the moisture to penetrate the earth. It also had to be replaced quickly to retain that moisture. Therefore dryland farming practices must be considered labor intensive, with a labor force on hand for mulching and weeding. An industry of animal husbandry, e.g. pigs, would also require daily care and control of animals. Thus a complex of permanent habitations, if only seasonal, must be inferred by at least Phase II, if not earlier. Habitation Between 15, and 20 percent of the features identified within the project area have been interpreted (solely or partly) as habitation features. Most of these probably reflect temporary or seasonal occupation while gardening. Schilt (1984) described the nature of habitation during the height of agricultural exploitation of the area in a number of ways: temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent She described habitation sites as "situated atop small to large prominent outcrops" (1984:281); and in other cases as "caves... used intensively for temporary shelter and working areas" (1984:284). 'Cave sites in the project area are represented by Sites 14081, 14107, and 14123 (see Figures B-6, B-8, B-10, and B-11 in Appendix B): A number of these featuresexhibit structural modifications, primarily low, stacked walls around the entrances. Three of the cave features were tested. The fust of these, Site 14081 clearly functioned as more than a temporary shelter or work area (see above). Relatively substantial cultural deposits and a wide variety of artifacts were recovered. Non -cave habitation sites are represented by Sites 14074, 14076, 14104, 14111, 14115(?), 14123, 14124, 14127, 14128, 14130, and 14131 (see Figures B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B). These sites all contain habitation features such as C -shapes, platforms, and enclosures, situated prominently on outcrops and/or centrally within the site. The habitation features often have associated agricultural features, and in most cases midden was recovered or observed at these features.- It eatures:It should be noted that Sites 14123 and 14124 are significantly larger and more complex than the other sites. Site 14124 contained a burial, while Site 14123 contains two caves. It seems likely that these two sites functioned for more than just temporary or seasonal habitation. Site 14123 may represent a heiau, judging by its walls and a "staging area", the construction. of which indicates significant importance for the site. Habitation areasare usually composed of more than one structure, with multiple structures forming a site complex. The larger complexes comprise a variety of structural types; e.g., terraces, enclosures, platforms and modified outcrops. While most of the features within these site complexes are designated as possible or temporary habitations, some of the larges complexes have at least one structure that appears to have been more permanent than the others, based on subjective evaluations. This may be due to three general reasons: (1) that structures within a complex are contemporaneous, and each structure functioned in a different way, thus accounting for the disparity of ecofacts and artifact assemblages; (2) that the structures are not contemporaneous and represent a progression of moreAess intensive occupation periods; or (3) that JD -21 the items being G-uantified, such as ma::ne shell abundance and artifact diversity, are not a true measure of occupation intensity but reflect activity areas and/or discard patterns. None of these hypotheses can be entirely eliminated based on previous data collection in the project area, though ethnographic evidence suggests that the first hypothesis is the most likely. Hopefully, data recovery work within the current project area may help solve these interpretative problems. Ezchanee The initial settlement of the Kona Coast may have included such elements as seasonal exploitation of resources, with temporary residences constructed in maximum resource zones (i.e., coastal areas and the well -watered uplands). Population growth during later times may have mandated less mobility and better - defined territorial boundaries, which would have resulted in permanent habitation complexes (settlements) in each of these zones. These settlements were undoubtedly dependent on each other in order to attain the full spectrum of natural resources. Supporting evidence for this hypothesis is the presence of well-defined trails that appear to link coastal and upland sites. A natural. outgrowth of this interdependency might be craft specialization, in which items are produced/procured by specialists and exchanged. Exchange does not appear to be limited within the ahupua'a boundaries. The presence of Mauna Kea basalts and Puu Anahulu trachyte in the project area suggests that resources from a much larger area were being used. It is likely that the chiefs controlled this distribution system, particularly in later time periods. Findings within the current project area provide no evidence for interaction with the upland slopes (apa'a) or the upland jungle (ama'u). The mauka (easternmost) terminus points of trail systems (Sites 5143 and 15108) noted in Puapua'a are unknown to date, although it could be inferred that they do lead to the upland zones from which specialized resources, such as feathers or timbers, were extracted Historic Use of the Area The above discussion has focused on the prehistoric occupation and use of the project area. While the archaeological landscape of the project area is dominated by prehistoric features, historic use of the area is represented as well. Historic use of the area, however, appears to have been limited in intensity and extent. The primary historic features are the walls that essentially run along and define the ahupua'a boundaries. These include Sites 5136, 5139, and 5144 (see Figure B-7 in Appendix B). These walls were probably constructed after AD 1850 and weremaintained for an indeterminate period of time. It was during this time that ranching became the primary use of the area (Schilt 1984). Other walls in the area probably reflect such land use as well, including Sites 14106, 14112, and 14113. There does not appear to have been any historic habitation in the project area except perhaps at Site 14120. This site consists of a number of historic features, including a concrete foundation with raised sides and an overturned water wagon. This historic activity- area, which served an unknown function, lies between what is the current Kuakini Highway on the west side of the project area, and the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (Site 14087). The only other historic site of note in the area is what appears to be a section of the oldest N -S road that ran through the area. This road section consists of a cobble- and boulder -filled road bed retained by a stacked boulder terrace on the downslope side. It is a short section of road situated at the north end of the project area, between the two more recent roads. J References Cited D-21 Corbin, A.B. 2001 Archaeological Inventory Survey Walua Apartment Project, Land of Waiaha 1, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5:18:7). Report 2086-030101. PHRI. Submitted to Maryl Group, Inc. Graves, D.K., and S. Goodfellow 1992 Final Report Archaeological Data Recovery Pualani Residential Community Phase II -Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHU unpublished Report 1055- 100192, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. 1993 The Gardens of Kona Revisited: Pualani Residential Community Phase II — Archaeological Data Recovery, Lands of Puapuaa 1 st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:28,29). PHRI Report 962-031592. Prepared for Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Hann, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Alii Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I - Archaeological Intensive Survey, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, vol. 1, Summary. Report 1320- 052798. PHRI. Submitted to County of Hawaii c/o R.M. Towill Corporation. Hunt, T.L., and M.J. McDermott 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pu'ainako Street Extension Project, Lands of Waiakea, Kuknau 1 and 2 and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai'i. Submitted to Okahara & Associates, Engineering Consultants. Head, J.A., and P.H. Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System, Land of Puapua'a 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5- 17:Por.1). PHU Report 1590-013096. Prepared for International Assets Limited c/o Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and 2n', North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualam Development. Company. PHRI 2002 Archaeological Monitoring Plan, Utility Corridor Construction Work, Pualani Makai Project, Lands of Puapua'a 1" and 2'", North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5-17:1119,23,25,26). Rechtman, R 2002 Due Diligence Archaeological Study for TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). Puapua'a Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. Prepared for Bill Brooks, West Pro Development, Inc. Rosendahl, P.H. 1990 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey: Testing of Potential Burial Feature Pualani Development - Phase II, Land of Puapuaa I st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). PHRI Report 972-121290. Prepared for Pualani Development Company, c/o Mr. Sidney Fuke & Associates. Wolforth, T.R., J.D. Heny, and R.B. Rechtman 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in Holualoa 2°" and 3'": Settlement Distribution near the Shoreline at Holualoa Bay, Lands of Holualoa 2' and 3'", North Kona, Island of Hawai'i (TMK: 3-7-711:22 and 47). Report 1941-092500. PHRI. Submitted to Ralph Berezan, Langley, B.C., Canada. D-23 Table D -l. Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments (lune 2004) Site/Fea. Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 5136 + + _ _ + 5139 + _ + 5143 + + _ _ + 5144 + + _ _ + 14073 + + + 14074 + + + 14075 + + 14076 + + + 14077 + + + 14078 _ + + 14080 + _ + + 14082 + _ + + 14083 + _ + + 14084 + _ + 14085 + + _ + 14086 + + + 14087 + _ + + 14088 _ + + 14089 + + + 14093 + + + 14096 + + + 14097 - + + 14098 + + 14099 + + + 14106 + + 14110 + + _ _ + 14112 + + _ _ + 14113 + + _ + 14120 + _ _ + 1412S + + _ _ + 14126 (B) + + - + 14129 + + _ + 14130 + + _ + 198364* + + - + Subtotal: 0 0 1 34 .1 0 34 0 0 14079'«* + + + _ 14081 + + _ + 14090 + + _ + 14092 + _ + 14094 + + _ + 14095 + - + - + 14100 + _ + + 14101 + - + + D-24 Site/Fea. integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 14102 (B)'*"" -+ + + - - - 14103 + _ _ - + + _ _ _ 14104 (B)" + _ _ _ + + - _ _ 14105 (E)*'"` + - - - +. + _ 14107 (D,E)' *+ _ _ _ + + _ _ _ 14108 + _ _ _ + _ + _ _ _ 14109 + _ _ _ + _ + _ _ - 14111 - - + + - 14114(C)'a* - - - + + _ 14115 - - - - + + _ 14116 - - - - + + _ 14117 - - - - + + - 14118 - - - + + - 14119 + _ _ + + _ 14121 + _ + _ 14122 + - + - 14124 (A,B) + + - + - 14126 (A) + + + _ 14127 + + - + 14128 + - + 14131 + _ + 19837"* + - + Subtotal: 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 14091 (B C) + _ _ _ + _ _ + _ _ Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14132 + _ _' + + _ + _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 I 14091 (A) + + + _ _ _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 14123 + + + _ + _ _ + Subtotal: 0 0 I 1 0 1 0 0 -1 14124 (C) + _ + + + + _ _ Subtotal: 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Total: 0 0. 2 69 3 31 37 0 3 .'Provisional assessment; final assessment pending further data collection "Possible burial feature (mound) in section of subsurface cave site located under adjacent property "'Possible burial feature; to be tested "Identified during Head and Rosendahl (1996) project General Significance Categories: A = Important for historical contribution to significant events and/or broad patterns of history B = Important for association with the lives of important individuals in history C = Excellent example of site type at local, region, island, State, or National level D = Important for information content _ E = Culturally significant Recommended General Treatments: FDC =. Further data collection necessary (detailed recording, surface collections, and limited excavations, and possibly subsequent data recovery/mitigation excavations) NFW = Nor further work of any kind necessary, sufficient data_ collected, no preservation potential PID = Preservation with some level of interpretive development recommended , PAI = Preservation "as is, with no further work (and possible inclusion into landscaping) ITable D-1. final Summary of Identified Sites D - 25 I E Additional SIHP Site/Feature Tentative Fieldwork Since Feature Site Type Functional 1991No. Type Tested/Results Interpretation(Company/Date) 50-10- Wall Boundary 4FeIdWorSkuTa 28- 5136 14073 Complex (15)+ Agriculture-PHRI/1991 DR,F�C START habitation? A_ -_o Mounds/modified outcrops 14074 C -Shape Habitation- + + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX START agriculture? Wall Boundary + PHRI/1991 DR,EX SIART .14075 14076 Complex(8) Habitation- + - + PHRl19911 DR,EX START agriculture A Enclosure B Linear mound/modified outcro C -H Mounds/modified outcrops PHRI/1991 DR,EX START 14077 Enclosure/ Agriculture- + - + mod. outcrop habitation? .14078 Complex (2 A riculture + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX SIART A Terrace B Terrace PHRI/1991 DR,EX START. 14079 Platform/ mod. Agriculture- + _ + outcrop habitation? 14080 Complex (2) Agriculture- + - - PHRI/1991 DR,EX START possible transportation A Walled terrace B Linear mound - 14081 possible trail Cave Habitation + + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX FDCR 14082 Enclosure/ Agriculture + _ + mod. outcrop 14083 outcrop. ModPE Agriculture + - Complex (3) Agriculture- + - + - ^ ossible burial Tenace Mod, outcroMound PHRI/1991Com lex 2 A riculture +CalmTenace/mod outcropComplex (3) Indeterminate- - .a riculture?MoundLinear moundinear moundall Boundary --oad Transportation -- -- oad Transportation - - - - all Boundary - - Table D-1 (Continued) D-26 SIHP Site No. Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional interpretation Field Work Tasks Original Survey Additional Fieldwork Since 1991 (Company/Date) Type Feature Tested/Results 5143 Alignment- trail section Transportation + _ _ PHRI/1995 DR - 5144 Wall Boundary - - - PHRI/1995 I DR - 14090 Modified outcrop Agriculture + - 14091 Complex 3 Agriculture- + + . RC/2001 TPBF/DR Positive A Mound/ mod. outcrop possible burial B Mod. outcrop C Mod, outcrop 14092 Walled terrace Agriculture + + 14093 Mod, outcrop Agriculture 14094 Complex (2) Agriculture + A Linear mound B Mound 14095 Mod. outcrop Agriculture + 14096 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14097 Mod. outcrop Agriculture - - - 14098 Complex (2) Agriculture- habitation? + - + - A Mod. outcrop B Wall 14099 Mod, outcrop Agriculture - riculture-14100 14100 Com lex (8) Agriculture- + + A Mod. Outcrop/. C- shape habitation? B-H Mod, outcrops 14101 Caim Marker + + 14102 Complex (7) Agriculture- + + A Enclosure habitation? B, Mod. Outcrop/ platform C 4 pit depressions 14103 Enclosure/ mod. Agriculture- outcrop habitation? + - + _ 14104 Complex (4) Habitation- agriculture + - + A Platform PHRI/2004 TPBF Negative B. Platform C Mound/mod.outcro D Linear mound 14,105 Complex (3) - Agriculture- habilalion? +-E-w A Terrace a Platform C Terrace 14106 Wall Boundary14107 Complex (6) Habitation- + + Tested Fea.F A Wall Agriculture B Cave C Cave Table D-2 (Continued) D-27 SIHP Site No. Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional Interpretation Field Work Tasks Original Survey Additional Fieldwork Since Type 1991 (Company/Date) Feature Tested/Results D Platform E Platform F Cave 14108 PlatfomV enclosure Agriculture- habitation? + - + 14109 Complex(2) Agriculture -- habitation? A Mound/ mod. outcrop B Enclosure/ mod. outcrop 14110 1 Can Marker 14111 Complex (4) Habitation- agriculture + + + Tested Fea. A & B - Cahape 6 rDA L -shape C Mound Mound 14112 Wall Boundary - - - - 14113 Wall Boundary - - - - 14114 Complex (3) Agriculture- habitation? + - + - A I Terrace B Terrace/wall C -Platform 14115 C-shape Habitation + - + - 14116 Wall Boundary - + - - 14117 Mod. outcrop Agriculture + - - - 14118 3 mounds Agriculture + _ + 14119 Complex 4 Agriculture + + - A -D Mounds/mod. outcrops 14120 Activity area Indeterminate - - 14121 Mound Agriculture + + 14122 Complex 2 Agriculture + + A Terrace B Mound 14123 Complex (5) . agriculture- Habitation- + + + Tested - Fee. D A Mod. outcrop B Cave ceremonial? - C Enclosure pass. burial - Table D-2 (Continued) D-28 • Key: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of component features within complex. START=Sufficient Information to Address Research Topics FOCR=Further Data Collection Recommended TPBF=Testing Program for Burial Features Discovered after original inventory survey RC=Rechtman Consultants Haun=Haun & Associates r- -I L J - Additional SIHPTentative Site/Feature Fieldwork Since Feature Site Functional Field Work Tasks Original Survey Type Type 1991 Tested/Results No. Interpretation (Company/Date) D Cave E PlatformPHRI/2002 TPBF Negative 14124 Complex (3) Habitation- + + + a riculture- A - Mod, outcrop B Wall Possible burial C Platform PHRI/2002 TPBF Positive 14125 Culvert with Drainage - - - - walls 14126 Complex (2) Habitation- + - + agriculture A Enclosure B PlatformI Possible burial I PHRI/2002 TPBF Negative 14127 Complex (2) Habitation + + + Tested Fee. A & B A Mound B Enclosure 14128 Terrace/ mod. Habitation + - + - outcrop RC/2001 TPBF,DC Negative 14129 Platform Agriculture- + - + possible burial 14130 C-shaped Habitation + - + Haun/2001 EX,DR FDC terrace 14131 Enclosure Habitation- + - + agriculture 14132 1 Cave Burials + RC/2001 TPBF/DR Positive 19836' Platform Burial? PHRI/1995 TPBF Negative 19837' Additional Ag. Features - - - PHRI/1995 FDC FDC Kona Field System Features 764-13 Subsumed under Site 764-12 Key: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of component features within complex. START=Sufficient Information to Address Research Topics FOCR=Further Data Collection Recommended TPBF=Testing Program for Burial Features Discovered after original inventory survey RC=Rechtman Consultants Haun=Haun & Associates r- -I L J 08/17/2004 14:34 vleA IJVaLP '*Vu�m 7 August 13, 2004 808-961-6996 Paul Roscnciahl, Ph.D. Paul H Rosendahl, Inc. 224 Weinnuenuc Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Dr. Rosendahl, PHRI STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707, PAGE 02 p9m T. loin, mrwFt,ow .o.wai we Me/4ilM•L ifsyam N1W WM pIN•Tf� I�ElOIR4 W�WJ6�BR DM DAV09 M 011 n OPWIM-We rimm Y. Qu DFKRr EPncl0 -MTEP o rft ax WCaJIYAWM CC1YdP oMWa*APA80UK1MMMDeMea CCMPiPYAT PHl AW e W RM. Mlp comft vA . ��maca r roltnllTAM)w{ttME wMTa,ac wM•ow•rcw ,fA"00.•M ILL.I,OIIPIfRVf COMYMP,dI nxw`rMw Log No. 2004.2491 Doc No. 0408MM09 SUBJECT: 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review of a Revised Report "Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Makai Project" (Carlson and Rcsendahl, June 2004) Lands of Punpua'a 1" and 2", North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3) 7-5-017:1,19, 23, 25, 26 ` Thank you for your cover letter dated May 28, 2004 and a copy of the revised version of subject report J) (PHU Report 2290-030104) for our review. The revisions were undertaken in response to our most recent review of the report dated April 20, 2004 (Log No. 2004.1248, Doc. No. 0404Mb104), We received the subject report ort June 1, 2004 and provide the following comments. Your firm has adequately addressed our review comments. Considerable effort has been expended through additional fieldwork to address uncertainties on site function, and we now agree that sufficient information has been obtained to justify your interpretations of site function and form It reasonable basis for significance evaluations and recommended treatments. .1 A total of 69 sites are now ideatified_in the survey area of about 65 acres. The complex of mounds and modified outcrops on the property has been assigned Site number 6601, representing &.portion of the Kona Field System. These site features are situated amidst platforms, terraces, eaves,.C-shapes, and walls believed to date to the pre -contact period, along with a historic period roadway and ranching features. Thirty-six sites of the total 69 ate now considered signifiwtt under Criterion D and arc recommended for "no further work." Of these 36 sites, 14 have already been subjected to data recovery during the investigation of the Wastewater Treatment Facility within the project area Thirty-one sites of the total 69 sites are recommended for further work, seven of which are possible burials (14079, 14102 Feature B, 14104 Feature B, 14105 Feature E, 14107 Features D and E, and 14114 Feature Q. Three burial sites have been identified thus far: Site 14091, a mound/platform covering a lava blister; Site 14124, Feature C, a platform; and Site 14132, a cave containing the remains of at least 10 individuals. Site 14123, a possible ceremonial feature, will be preserved and portions of the site will be investigated further to enhance our understanding of the site's significance. We acknowledge your agreement to conduct further burials testing despite your opinion that funber testing should not be necessary. With respect to your request for a rationrile to serve as a guide to burial testing in the ruture, and your inquiry as to whether we expect you to test "all platforms, regardless of appearance or likelihood to contain burials," we offer some comments in the attached pages, APPENDIX D-3 0 08/17/2004 14:34 808-961-6998 PHRI HAUL na Paul Ros=dzhl, Ph_D. Page 2 We can now accept your significance evaluations for all sites and the recommended treatments for all with the exception of Site 6601. We believe the site has some research potential and do not agree with your recommendation for "no further work" See our attached comments for further information. Theft also is a problem with Tables D-1 and D-2, which do not include Site 6601. On the condition you include 44 Site 6601 as a site for further dam collection and update the report tables D-1 and D-2, we can accept the report as final. Once we receive the requested minor corrections, we anticipate deeming the report adequate and accepting it as final; separate pages may be submitted for inclusion with the report copies on file at our �' ! O' ahu and Kona offices. When the report is final, you may proceed with the development of a burial C II treatment plan, darn recovery plan, and monitoring plan. If you should have any questions about this review, please contact Assistant Hawaii Island archaeologist, MaryAnne Maigret at 327-3690 or Dr. Sara Collins at 692-8026. Aloha, P. Holly McEldowney, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division J MM_ sky c: Cb21r, Hawaii Island Burial Council Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program Christopher J. Yuen, Director, Hawaii County Planning RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2104 P' 08/17,2004 14:34 see -961-6998 PHRI PAGE 64 Attachment Detailed Review Comments Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Mahal Project (PXRI Report 2?90-030104) (Carlson and Rosendahl, Jane 2004) TMX: (3) 7-5-17,1, 19, 23, 23, 26 Additional Burials Testing: We raised our concerns because the site descriptions and discussions did not provide sufficient information to rule out burial function in these particular feature types. Clear, concise descriptions of the rationale for classifying the function of a feature are necessary in order for us to evaluate your interpretations. We thank you for the additional information you provided regarding the untested features, which was helpful. We do not propose to dictate, however, how your field supervisors make these choices but we do ask that the rationale that your supervisor employs be discussed explicitly. In some cases, where an interpretive rationale is not supported by contextual information about the feature, testing may well be the only means of determining the probable function of a site, and demonstrating that a good faith effort has been made to locate burials during the inventory phase of investigations. Site 6601 We believe the site has some research potcatial, which should be addressed during the data recovery phase. You have stated that the mounds and modified outcrops represent clearing features and were not planting features themselves. This is an interpretation that can be authenticated or refuted and possibly lead w some good information about the variability of planting methods, and possibly intensification of agricultural practices among the residential site complexes. Melinda Allen's and Maurice Majors' excavations of mounds at the Bishop Museum's Amy B.H. Greenwell Ethnoboteu ical Garden (Allen, 2001), while focusing on the 'apa' a elevation zone, might bethought provoking on this. 1n your revised conclusions (p. D-16, D-19) you remark on the intensive and systematic use of the area for agriculture and that the agricultural features clearly dominate the architectural assemblage. In fact, you point out that the habitation sites appear to be confined to rocky basalt outcrops, presumably to leave the more arable land for crops. We believe, therefore; that this concentration of features deserves further attention. ❑ ^ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Mr. Brian Cook From: Joseph C. Swanson, P.E., Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Date: July 20, 2004 Subject: Traffic Analysis for Apartment Complex at Pualani Makai, Kailua Kona, Hawaii Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has been retained to perform the traffic impact analysis for a proposed residential parcel at Pualani Makai. The proposed development consists of apartments and is located between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway north of their junction in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. The development consists of 250 total dwelling units. To ensure that the estimate of the traffic impacts is the maximum that can be expected, it is assumed that the site will be 100 percent occupied upon buildout in 2008. The Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation, 7h Edition, was used to obtain daily and peak -hour trip generation rates and inbound - outbound percentages, which were then used to estimate the number of daily and peak hour trips that can be attributed to the residential development. The trip generation characteristics of the proposed apartment complex portion of the development are summarized Table 1. Table 1 — Apartment Trip Generation O�v --r. Apartments (7th Edition) Daily (ITE 220) T = 6.01 x (number of DU's) + 150.35 50% In 60% Out 7 Z AM Peak Hour (ITE 220) T = 0.49 x (number of DU's) i 3.73 20% In 60% Out P M Peak Hour (ITE 220) T - 0.55 x (number of DUs) - 17.65 65% In 35% Out R No.1100 -C The proposed apartment complex is expected to generate 1,653 daily trips with 126 yqA11 U S' p-• trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 155 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. K' It is reasonable to expect that trip interaction will result considering the proposed shopping center, office, and residential land uses. The worksheets calculating internal capture using the ITE method are attached. Taking into consideration internal capture, the proposed residential development is expected to add 1,405 total TEL 602 944 5508 FAX 602 914 7423 Suite 300 7878 N. 16th Street Ptloenu, Aron 85020 I Mr. Brian Cook, July 20, 2004, Page 2 Kimley-Horn ❑�L� and Associates, Inc. daily trips, 118 AM peak hour trips, and 145 PM peak hour trips to the roadway network. The results of the trip generation and internal interaction calculations are attached. For purposes of this analysis, the 2008 total traffic volumes from the Pualani Makai Village Center Traffic Impact Analysis performed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in March 2004 were used as the 2008 background traffic volumes. The 2008 background traffic distribution was used as a basis for determining the ultimate trip distribution of the residential site. Trips were assigned to the roadway network on the basis of the trip distribution and the likely travel patterns to and from the site. The results of the apartment complex traffic assignment were added to the year 2008 background traffic volumes to produce total traffic volumes for the study area, and are shown in Figure 1. The Level of Service (LOS) for the study area intersections in 2008 was evaluated using the 1000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized and signalized intersections. For the "2008 With Apartment Complex" scenario, the intersections in the study area were evaluated on the basis of the total traffic shown in Figure 1 and the recommended geometry from the Pualani Makai Village Center Tragic Impact Analysis. The results of the LOS analysis at the study area unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 - 2008 Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Ri ht-In/Ri ht -Out riveway and Oueen Kaahumanu Highway 2008 Without AM Peak - - - Pualani Makai Village Center PM Peak - - - 2008 With Pualani AM Peak - - - C _ _ Makai Village Center PM Peak - - - B _ _ 2008 With AM Peak - C _ _ Apartment Co lex PM Peak B - Site Access and Kuakini Hi hwa 2008 Without AM Peak I A B Pualani Makai Village Center PM Peak A - B _ _ _ 2008 With Pualani AM Peak I A - - - B B B Makai Village Center PM Peak A - tA - - B C B 2008 With AM Peak A C B B Apartment Co lex PM Peak A A C C B Mr. Brian Cook, July 20, 2004, Page 3 ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The eastbound movements at the intersection of the Site Access and Kuakini Highway experienced a reduction in the level of service, from a B to a C, with the addition of the traffic created by this residential parcel. The LOS for all other movements at the unsignalized intersections remained the same. The unsignalized intersections within the study area are expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS in 2008 with the additional apartment complex traffic, with the exception of the eastbound right -tum movement at the intersection of the right- in/right-out driveway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The delay accompanying this poor level of service is common at stop -controlled intersections along major streets during peak hours, due to the reduction in acceptable gaps for turning egress movements. Drivers are likely to find alternate routes under these circumstances. It should be noted that the Pualani Estates report recommended the signalization of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Pualani Subdivision Road intersection; therefore, this intersection is assumed to be signalized at project buildout and has been analyzed separately. The LOS for the signalized intersection is shown in Table 3. Table 3 - 2008 LOS at Signalized Intersection Although the LOS is not expected to be a concern since all intersections are D or better, some of the individual movements are anticipated to experience a reduction in LOS with the traffic added by this residential development. The following movements, during only the PM Peak hour, at the intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway experienced a reduction in the level of service with the addition of the traffic created by the apartment complex: the northbound left -turn goes from a LOS B to a C; and the eastbound left -tum goes from a LOS of an E to a F. The LOS for all other movements at the signalized intersection remained the same. The signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS in 2008 with the additional traffic created by the apartment complex, with the exception of the southbound left -tum movement, the eastbound left -turn movement, the westbound through movement, and the westbound right -tum movement. The poor level of service for the southbound left -turn movement is due to the .large, conflicting northbound through vol ume. The delays accompanying the eastbound and westbound poor i I I I I I -I I I I 1 I i Mr. Brian Cook, July 20, 2004, Page 4 ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. levels of service at Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway are common on minor streets at the intersection of major streets during peak hours, due to the reduction in acceptable gaps for turning egress movements. JCS/dlc Attachments: Internal Capture Total New Trip Calculations Figure 1 Capacity Analysis K\-Tpro\091888001- Pwlmi M"Vuly 1001 UpdmA072001 Find Meno.dx O J O o00 W O V�nW F � J � �m eZe a I m K LL a a a %W iY Fc N~ � ! a \ } | 0 « . § .,|... . ( j \ } | 0 j � I � !� . }h§ |a!!! § !§a § . � . }h§ 53 .. 5 000 I O o O O u) cn ao M C c c o 0 0 O O )n LO N c0 x x x rn to O v LO co 6 0 H F F- C) 0 O N N w •o W W W H F- L r O 7 7 N O O N = _ o E ~ ()) f o )) V- > a a f0 <OMM Q 0 Q d ❑�❑ and -Hom and � Associates. Inc. 2008 Total Traffic tl a O � N � U O u .( NN P N N VI m ON u W tl o tl o e w .+ u .+0 u .+ o u 0Y .�P im mm mm o tl a r F � Mry : tl ry m m m rl m 4 Y N F m V m >. O aN 4 �]M m a m I.1 M r1 M N N OI � Y H N N ri ai C Ip0 q FF � W W W N rvrvfmG��000 N i G _ p Ow O Y 7' O Y i w- tlN U N M u u u ti Y tl a n n �d � w o0 ••mm tl0 N m � a a.mc °, w r m 0 E9p U>O.+FF E O � m N n P m m v1 N 0. m n m ry ry w F N '+ F � 00 0 O Y Y 0 0 0 ry u� 0.1 .� N O O 0 a £ 00 o 0 o 0 O 0 B a i a N Y C N n ul ry �oiu u M tl ££ N i m 1 O O ii H upy tl a O � N � U O u .( 0.r ON ON u 9914 o tl o e w .+ u .+0 u .+ o u Po ls�c o o tl a Mry : tl m m m E Y 4 Y G O O NMN H F >. O aN Y O EN u �]M y N m m m m tl C Ip0 q O O i W W W N rvrvfmG��000 N i G tl a O � N � O i Po ls�c o o tl : tl 'J01 w 4 y m m m m tl C Ip0 q O O O NKK W W W W N rvrvfmG��000 G _ p Ow O Y 7' O Y i w- tlN U N M u u u ti Y tl �d � w �O �.N+uoa ••mm tl0 m � a a.mc °, w r m 0 E9p U>O.+FF aYL 0 c I O I M y f r b N N b m N fry f N � q O Z O N N N N F 0 f O M e00o :Tom �� � „oor .v 4 I u tl 0. ON a Y � y O p M mr0n o000 ofof i N 10. a � Y I w o mF Y O H I ry a � oNoo+ O�oN �oon m of o� oa ni.Oi�Y eF w ryJ 1 ry 1 �YQJ G m~' m m N r m N �'1 � '''JJJY'J'J'J [+ 1 � OlM �gOOq 0000 OHO^ K w a q C a C K OG w f V N O Y ' o� N YEqp uY mgYu •qmu n i � p� s0A04gF s04 bF ieOK W F c I O I ry u N N � q O Z f O M m � u Y p M .v 4 I u tl m Y � y O p M i N 10. a Y I w o A O n O H I ry Y � N � o' 0 N I � 000 Y � : : •-•: 00 � m N o 0 0 0 0 0 o q o 0 0 �' � � % % ; � • a N % % ♦ • P i • • U• F i U o 0 o q ft ft %%% ff % A� • ♦ • u 4 N R M : S � m o 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 = ?$ !f � 1{= � a�• a o p O o iQi iQi i'lj u. u: ❑: : w: K N o 0 o w o n o a .q- o ti ry n n a n o n n • M Z i O ion � rvry o„Ua Y♦ ♦ Y• i P90 Y • m • � pN �: ± m i p1 000000 1 o! CC O 1( 1( 1( 1(• y, 1( 1(• nU 41 M Y� : O. u F 4 M o 0 fiFi( 1i%f( IRX( INX( I+ IIXi( 1%( m m E l 0: •: a l O' 000 0 0 0 .... O O >�( = M R RX• a iy( Jx{ • N O N N m M• m♦ K K X % Y X% N a' Y Y• • OG V O .......... OOO q N N aUA • F .ur u N N O n 1 Y ♦ ♦ O • • 1 a 1 (� • �! : N• m 1 M N .•1 O n O n N O N N O n i i( i( i( i{ ; �( �( • 6' I{ �( x • i Y O• O: E i Y U O i N o N N V O g N N iiKf{ JIM{{ lii{({ 1ix{( IX%{ iMX( I+ 11%{( �'K(( 1Xx{ A U L• C♦ 3 L i C F q q q o O N 1 0 N s. : • O ........... h i oim O i� N .mai � o� o o q = ���� i % X♦ a� X♦ N O 00 O O O O O N O O O J N IE • yYy • • a' � O O � O q > P• O• •� A N Y N Y � a C • 0 ♦ L • � 1 N N O O O rrJ f 1.1 O q JN^ O � �( f�f( IIf( II1� int( �( 1 rYl I( �( a' I( I� I� IJ . O.\• Y• F Y U N n o n m o _% X i K X% M i N y• a I( IJ y• JIJIJ`(jJ( i w • i • L Y C � n n N N e ti KX MM IK( IMi IMi MM MM IMi MM IMi JXf •\• i O N N N o N Y U• N � � O O �I�f jl�f o : � • T: 2 a _ � — Y o � 0 0 0 0 � No 0 0 0 '2 — O N � % � _-.Ui • a _ ♦ a :. UM:. Ye:•UaOCE�N .. INO 4 Nm >A -NJ >- - 0 0j Y� ON u 0O mT•u>UOOu N16-QQ•• FQQU- A•omo•oU wqYYmYuiy ODpOa� 0 i • Y: N• w YY L O Y 3 Y Y Y Y M> i tl Y Y M E N Y O i Y 'J 0. Y N N 9 N w M O : N: i• y4y 0 0 9 O tl M C NV Y C 0!tl yW Y N N N O i 9 Wa O O O i 4 Y Y o mo O L L L G d 4 N • 4♦ 4£ U a a> N O N 4 m N 0 a iY a' a U U W i U U a£> ab m ♦] S m N N m 4 4 ♦ ................ ... •J 1 K N O N O N JNV O q n n O O n 1 O g N N • E � O N N N N� q ..OJ i Y: o f • m w o m o m r o n o N N o N o o N P I n • F Y N p � f O e N o gV 0 0 0 0 tl� • Y i� N N N N N N S ♦ a� N N� N� N N� q N NC! C� N � G♦ : X Y : q � O N• ♦ •� i O Y N N o N N 1 L Y• U • O'� Y 'f N 1 N nn • 4 O-. 0 ME N O O O O O N N O N O O N i O 4Q • : U� u♦ Y F� Y � N o i o o p q N N o o N i N � 1 a' E• •\ T M• A� i a N 0 N N O N N ry � 'J • • ti�. m � O N O N JNJ O N 00 00 N N I Sf O O• ♦> Y m• a N O O O N ONO q N N � Y ♦ ♦ N W O N N N O q ! q r 1 woo � O N O oron� q f � N O N N Y olrvry O O � O q N O ry O O N O O N O O O N N N N O N i O q f N! p N N O N O O O N N N N N tl YUJ Y. C• 1 0 0• — — — N• ♦ e i a uYy • Y: Y H U. Op 0� 'U o o q N N O o N g o o ry r O N: o q � W:�• H> Y ♦J y Y N N o N N N N o 0 D o m .� V N• Y N• O• • F� EE p N p� Jf` N N N m O g q m O O g i O O m r f r O W N n�£ i U O• m• U Y L Y H � m m .JON N 4 Y• Q♦ m Y 'J �� a O i N m .YO m .�.�m ti O N � O O O N N 0 1 Y• O• • O O r O r O O r O m NON p O N 1 O r O q f•^ O g O q 'J i O� Y S• .. f • m N q o q g o q o 0 o p o i O O O n � r• o O; N 1 W O.>: • = = N N O N N — N O N — O Y O N g N q O : M '.1 dG: 6• o r o r o o ri o. P N O N o O N O N O N m e•1 r m o m u a ♦ p• .TY. : qm � q '�'♦ ror ro m 00 00 � Pmo� o JJ N > N• m• C 1 Y Y N N O N N N O N • O O O ry N a Y• • N n Oi O• J1 • r • m N O � ry i•1 O f g O N f O e O O0 f 1 Y 00 O O O iJ q n f f O f : A• N• F +k� U N N � N m f p g N m O N � O O O� O 0 r q O N. M• L � M„ N N ry n n 1 'J g m � O N n YI • i• N• N � � a O i N N N N N O N N N N N; O N N N N �£ O O O N N N a .. a• Z N O O O n O n O g q O n O O q 1£ O J.•J 00 r m N r N~ O N O• N. O• fj N 3q f O. i♦ U- - N N O- N N N O N O N MN O O O n N n a :•• upum♦••. Ym HEU UqqYY♦• ,yutl Yeu•� O.. m-•Uw' . > o...Am>-mWv N Oa>o ....>iuOc u"Y.0 > UuY u\v4 \cu ppJ oL . tl a N 4 p O Y Up O O Y A£\ Y O N 4 • 4• u E. o f i N u m i E u .• b O> u U 4 4 N i w m • Y. N m M• N Y Y L U i p 0$ Y O O Y N p C q p\ p Y tl A\ L U p A N U NF O • N: >U>,�O 4♦ dO O.mi .Ci k O q H Y 09.• C OS•.O YU a.CJ 40V A� U>UtN9i p.�KS ry • U a O• 4£: U C S a > m 0 4w j u • • m O b! O O O P O n m m m N O n JJi�{5�{ ��1�(5{j � rn ♦ K� w� g m o e n m o m r b b ry r m F 1l1%({{ rY • ♦ d • N• C ri •.�: pr C Y gdoi � A M M M b n 'r '1 O N r r O r r'1 M M W R F R• Y r -- $ OI r i U• r mN F r V o r 0000! O!O N!O f NO r oP fti.4 r• r �{ �{ �( % P �{♦ � 1{ %X♦ 6 i • e O r b! .� n d N'Yo o r nOp IKf 1M{ K% KK -• ♦ • Y • S r r Y .a � m O O O n O n O N! O: e'r N r ^ m O O r r ^! f • • a O r n N! f rr � a! O� ?: N N O O 1 IM( IR{ ai i �i ono mlof nn orrn 1�j{ 1a{ 15( • M• ry' 1 O pono O n N O P n n r �ij{ i � i Epp ..m n o N m 0� o f ^^• pL ��♦ IM{ u♦ i Y: u r 01 g o w .• 1%{ 1111RRRR{{{{ 1Ri IililiiLiLiL N• O r N r( • • pjY • 1Y • 1 N r"r - r F r U e1 r O O O O O O O N .1 O N N O ry ti O P ry N b!! O r N f! O r X M• ! O N u N V 4 r E• ♦�• Y rCr 'r r'I O O r rvl XXX N N N ym r N• "'NJJJJ r N r • • Y• IY � C O ♦ • > • r N non noP n .•oPr � • F 1'X{{ fix{ i g r 0 7• • Y• a � o� r n b! ry a �• rorty •a• .• .mon of R N 4rmN• iYi — — — .1 Y r J'�1 ♦ • m• mOO moom • • V♦ a r 0. 'J!@ K r� O r P i� r O C! C! K ,K( •� iJJY O r m 1 O •" ♦ • J• r r~ •U O r � N O uQ r p�p r Y 0• C• O• F r J U. -r r comm �%{ M% f%( �Xt yy y% X%X%• F • t r uF. .�• S• A r Cry .• ..r .r ..y .r N % i %%ItK i X X a��l� 1 `!�: ?• • a r i p Up O r O O O N O N O N m O m M N r m m mr• r O m r �( I{ i(• 7 o r Y NK♦ o♦ m 'd • ♦ r p a r O � o .• .r O P .• w ! n r m m m o r n ry n r( F iXx{ 11XX{{ O r a :♦ d 1 r 4 N♦ C♦ 1]lli{{{ F r r U N♦ Y• _ O O O P O P O N O O O _ �( lll{{{ II{{ �( ii�� iii{{{ r ry • Y• a' r •Y O O M M O P n n% rj pYpr Y N• U• -• 00 r N O O ~ r• 0 IY�• r - jai r a � Ci 4i Gi � ?• N.�•- F r nPno.•N00Nbo� r P ��� Wykyk( • yyN yyk K V• >• A 0 0� n� ry ry n n� •.Yy {yyYyN( �kyNNy( a% S•�•\: J UU'ry' r O 1"r I U O I N N O Y r O%%• K K• I ♦ N• Y• O 0• N O M O O N O m� 0� •j r'r n r ! N 'r N r� O b Z 0o i n • a Io r g! n Y .• u o r a �_ . i• . n• •• r4 MO z r r• 'rNO�� ia! Spi i �i.-Yri 7 ' Y .•J .. .. A aE D.+ .. � Y w d Y.•-'rm J.d• apl a - y m -o _ yyyE �o rsoa-a N V Y>U_a NoQjoS �YQU�aSLG •U•0. uO•AYI� IEyyNmO%.� N'.FpSJ,r i�iU aUy 4r �N•A♦O ••pp-,iON U E� O Y ap A E Y O N Y O O c Y Y E�NLmrEiuM'YY.�.0>U.-r i C Or w .ViwY� U.UiG a 0 N E o w Y V C 6 �p > > y Y N ! M! d N pp pNy, o>p ptl W W +JI .Ji .~• O o N qa n� r i w♦ 4� 4 E � V K.] � i mUrC+�f W rCr76 YmrK W V V 4� V >0 UaEI u m. m m m p N n W a .� i u n H H O u woo m rvri o�x�c m F � a N i wq W i L W yMy um Y i tl d w n ry b ry ry n N 01 Jk q � ai O M FF � aaa O m m m q O O M( W$$ q q q W W w • a f O f O O p p a rvn mb 'nn E O � m P m n O O el M d' O r1 m b O O M E F � ao O Y J 0 0 0 0 iu q q0 rvn b n N O O � d � d N� M i• I a O O o O o o 0 O a H J C T m N p� QQ o i x O O w qq i tl �H Y U H tl e J h i o� d a M O M Yp F q U o O U Y O O N O O q O O q ON O q GU J J J 0 u u u '1 N ry H m m Y d d 0 E Y u Y 0 m�N aCa 0 EN Y� a O N FFN H Y q Z. zz a R O O os m. m O .� i u n H H o�x�c o a i wq W i L W yMy um N a0 w o i m Y E qO O Ja aaa O m m m q O O M( W$$ q q q W W w 9 a 9 N IOY 0 a om o c i Y m m P N O N P IV P M O O N �i ✓ i ry ry+ N n M1 M+ m ry ry m ry m F 0 O > 0000 � ryoo� a �lom O O O 6 C a l i O N ]� 0 0 0 p� 0000 0�0� upp 'ooN N � i aS: A o • fI ��Miu Y Z✓ NO t� O O O O o O^ O C O ry U ti ti I ImIN U m OeA y m O O O CI O ry A W n ✓ AF m✓ O O O O O O � 0 0� m m �+ Y 000 a G O� O f O P O• ry O o '1 ' O O no � 2❑❑ a.oiinn .+gin n u"i � A W✓ M O O O O J N N O O O O O P O P N N U r ry k C x w � 0�00� a0000 �o;m! o m .vry n O O O N O O U, t 6 r 0. ✓ a p m 0✓✓ A b�p✓ Y m q❑ Y✓ >F sS4WF aS4WF stmRWF F� m N u N yy n O a a ~ a O O O 6 C a l i O N m 0 0 0 upp � i aS: A o 0 0 0 ��Miu NI mom C m Y I ImIN U �F u A W n O O o O H � �+ 000 a m o ' O O m O � X � A a x w Y C .vry n O O O N F� I b l . : V• i I OIG G N N C : V •-•: 000 i Nr o„00000 .000 y �{ K♦ y •� q l ♦ W� F I U O O P INX( IKX{ j%kj Y a : : olm. a IMkt • m ii%i{ No i ♦ Y I I Y � O r 1! o 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 1� • y♦ x a = uca♦ u• o o b O v o P m o p n N n r r l n N I( I( M: • .ui: K� � W F ♦ • a �+ d bn PN •4N m M O N O ! Y• O • Y• r I OI'O O ' ' 0: x ♦ m m ti O O O O O O O P O O O % �( K •( y y♦ p• y y♦ M Rpp F 'j�N(1 ” K : • O V G iiM(( 'K(( f•Ke( jK(( F W 1��'IX�(((( l•�e(( Ijj`22 E � 1 C�♦ : L i 0 O M N O r f 0 u o0 q rl Y N r ♦ Y Y W I W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YI O O O I �( �( �( y i�j^( 1ii1{{{( �1!j�� iiia((({ i a •11j({ m I Y I Y 'J • m• O� O r O r 0 YIP O P % 1{ 1( I( i( 1(' i( 1( 1( ' I d I i Y• Y Y p' r V O O P f O g f f a 1i1K((( j11K{(( JII{(( r q% G I N Y N O iNXx( d`•• 1II){((( IIJN((( 111i{{({ O r m r Q ♦ Y♦ I 11%%{( iIII{((( 1 1IiX{{{ ry r Y l U • m• O' O p" I p I O: K• N• m wN „OmNlonoYlm om 1{ Y • O♦ F� fix(( 0 u u o� o N n ry ry o g q P U x N � � � i � • {• �( X %+ 4 N r�I j•S� NX 1%i fXf l Y• Y♦ Y Y O N n N N N O N N y• I o'=� 0— 0 o 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 o x 1�= Y' ijijij���iii O r: ma %' alo q o 0 oq w ����= ro IN E: a.m: Nm a� i i � i!¢i{I'�ji{ f•f�j{ fti�f( N• c• O 00 O O O O 00 O O O d: m I N Y• 6' I tJ O I g No i� ♦ s: m w ory o n r n e o m r o r •\• Y♦ F r Y U N O m O q N n q• •>• L C N m I� ♦ f •\• u � S: •c• uo N N N o N N u u♦ w l� o r £ IIN�$ 0000000„0000�y_o f{y 1{�{=��{�{Y m o:n:=: Zal� af�Y 'Rj-Rj o o ♦ s ♦ : � N Ra a — fi6¢t!Rj 11.2ji !IP$1 '9 _ .. _ _ ... .... '� � • �• �� 7 u mu --Y E i oN .. ; Y Nu YN- m ' r 0 0Ny r Eq d > r QmrN pm :: UY:: QN :I Etl) 9Y aq Y•EYS LpM >(I Il Yu 0yYOWY Y LO aWO wo I y- NPY O 0 Y Y U m N•1 Y- i4i� jVj YwO' OV YE M V NX M O O ti C 0 x p Y .ci M M 0' q0. Wpp O O OE Y V•a V W O g F .wc G 6 G O N R• 4 Z I U C a r> m i m F U' N R W N O p m a U V p U p E> I a O W E m W W m 4 R O O O O N N O N O O N r N ry O N N I • y' r N O O N N O P n n O O n P g m o r N N n O n •m •� r I ry N N N O. ! n N ♦ + m N 0♦ I Y• O N I N 'V N O N N N O O N I O N R N P : m I � f O M O� N V O e 0 0 b' O q” f F r E U •O+ O f O p M f � p m M N N N Y r I a N ry N O N N N N O O O• O N N� N n+ N R ♦ S O O— N O ry r O o O N P O m O O m= O mV O f= r N O O O N O O q O O O g I N YI O O• _� _ • • a N I N N N N N r P a N — Y• ♦ � O 00 O n O e1 O P n O n O 00 n Q O b m n 11.0. Y• p ♦ O m o n o P b o l o N: no .n X> ' p �• s : CC d Y .� Non N N .m+oow � o oorvNcbi N 1 Y Y• � : U • O' I Y i w N♦ 4 Y• m .J O O O r r 00 m m O m O O m r O O R' 1 6 • U "' U• Y F; E U N O r O N N P N N O O N q P In l O N N O N P i I Y Y: Y\ N>y• m I YN M N N O N N N O O O O O N N ry Y m " d O 1 O O O m O V O m N O N O O M I O N O n b P P O P : P I C NE •O • • O N u N O m m O P q P OOP I O n O m N m O O• m• a— "— Y n r O I .• >• X+> O N N O N N m— N O N O O O m N m"• Y • • N W ♦ 0 Y — N I Y Y w♦ U• U OIO ♦ O O O O p O O O m N O n O O O O n m I m g r r O r I a •OJ, >♦ M Y Y .1 m ♦ p' I N O O f O g O O O O! I g O O m I r r P O m• a O I J( E •J: �• .N Y > ♦ r Y Y N NO ; pm NN NN O O OONNN'� N' N r Y r UO �• U J+ U r( a• O' r V i l a r • + : m r .,I N o o ry b o v o o m o 0 0 o O o i o o r r� ro P r^ o I a C• o• i m ^ P F (EI u N o � N T e n� o q! 0 0 0 o I o o P n r n n q o m: K• m K I W I .I L• Y ♦ Y I y M N '•' � N N N N O N N N N N I N NON I O O Ory M ry D Y• C♦ m Y' O' N I m I Y• O• : O'' O O O O O O O O m n O n O O n I O� O P I O• g N! O! m � N q O YI YI O q b m O O b I O O m I • r n O YOS I O I P�♦ m• e O I N I I N I m♦ Id N N N ry ry N � N O N N O Y 1 1 W N N O N N Y O N N+ Y • — MC•> N" N O oo�o0 gnonom oP ' mOo� N: I Y Y♦ G• N • O I •U N N N N I P b r N O" N N N O N N I z O .0 '♦ N 'V r Y tl• W• I u Q O O I lag,. .•: PnO: i N ^ c. r •� .�i o n� m n n o 0 W� � P o p n o O n oN i i,YioOoo �+ IN.♦ F � uNN o �0rvoo b boob � V m ro`�o r: £ • ♦ L u „ o N N N N I •J g q O r r U♦ oY• 5♦ M l y d O • d• F♦ O � O O O r r O 'm " O N I E O r O q m P g b O •p O• N .. 4•$ O m O r O O V q r r P O O n m r V - n♦ � O• N O+ a r N x N m N N N- NO NN �NNON OONNNN• —'f0 X • G♦ .. 0r1♦ V b 0 •. i pr :u• VUU- Be > u r0•'00Nmp- NI••C uumL4u-: E �m �yi V tl_ q � >. •• > U Y N> P EI •UY mNrpyY UGr •-N O N>IONp N OTTI>IUCE � WI�YOU\>Y\>• pI :N♦uF E♦OErNYOmIY>LV pYI('O 0 b o'O Im$\Y\PN4 I R: W W E u N 0 w R> u u W R N I w a m m N� u m c E >. u m :.Y,: um"u: n"' Y crosaE �•�+oo�G.Y,.Y.utaaamac uu.�,cE o\+wu.'I."."u�`pf,"I' r"r N O: 4£ U K£ .'] > mY w q vi r a a a a a a 0. vi N R .Yl W U >° u V a a a m Yin m --• V p0 m n O m O N p O m n n m r r 1 P r P♦ m r � f V m O P P r1 ry n n, m F i � � p r , C Y~ ,.r n•yOn M V n n mOO ; O� 6' • m , W M O ! � CO O N O m m O m N O, r n r N, �( y �( k x n U • F , Uo .•o ., w ono , X � • F % % %• m • m � OC ,. .ro mf r n %X a %%%K R% ry a m om�ory„m 1 0 1 ., N i nNr .• i �{ � � n wrvl u i a m, 0 0 n o P n n r n � n n�� �MQj • a n a m u >• w u• Y: • • U• .4 O r1 O O M O N ryn O ry ry n P N N n I( • F 1 jt • N y' , O, n O ry n O P ry N n m Y• •�• � 1 OI 'O O, M n O w n r M(• • w W N- O O O n O ry O N n O n N O r P N V V, p(f N P P yR ♦ • M• F r U rl r O M M O P N N O� n O, 11�( 11(� • j+ N U U Y Y • O• Y , O M ,y ti O m! 1 r n O 1 X 1( a n O N r1 • Y� w� � Vl V o V o o m o N„ O r ,4 N � N m V • a� i1 • m O>• Y• a� O, n O N N O P "r r r n n� i11N1(( • M ♦ • Y ! K N % • a % • u 7♦ • Y• r o r o o r o N P o � yW UJ • ! U! w m� � o n o n n o P n ”' • i Y i � r � N (1 0 i � n 0 Y% 1( 111((( 111((( 1110( 1�1((( ���((( 11�((( 1� % 111��( 111(( wU ❑ • • M : w , M .4 - ^ P O O f m O N P O P % 1( ' 1( 1f 1( 1( r 1( 1( • F M M 11 • f1 • Y O' C • O F r Y U., � om NryoPv 1Y •%XXL 111( 11111111 111( u� Y� ai u O•C• rv.•ry rvon n a �• i C• P• W' !� O O 00 O P O P O g n n , i I V , P P m w M m 4 F I l i( I l• N O• • a i O N N O m O V - n n n O 111111 IliXl(( 1)111((( V � • C • 1 • — — .4 M O 1ff�Q1 11rv�Q( — 111rv��{ 11f„��( 111M��( O = 1O�Qx 11r�x a r11��1 O ! q ♦ % % X K X � % % • a % • Y q• • (j m, Y O O f O V O V 1 pM! U• •� Y N ,-, O a u.: o oho • 4� u� m F � u U ., � o m o� m o m a o m 111((( 11x{( ll1({{ 11y�� 111(f5 jyy� i n IX 11i((( 111((( £• Y•\• Y O w n N~ � N O n n Y X R r Ii 1( R 11 ' O it �♦ a%% U • +� • U • M , U , E , C• w• of 5 i roo rooroNmm 111111• n —• a r ry ry noP 'm` o.rn ' Yonne � uor(J 11�s f'Ij2{ if¢i{ O• A• — .. r1 e. O n S. n ry N O, .s°OA. 0mv,. H. H. axo qua u�a�s • Y• m• tl Y O q Y>F. q 6 0 4'0 O Y O O 3+1U U y q>, VSIN V q tl ••• Nq••4H>••• 4MYr So>otliUuaY r Ep Yy) tiu O•YO g .Y1 M 4>yy U.tl, .0M, �YH,.004 r, Uqtiri CY Y 00 E� g Y otl1 O G< 9G C4 OrNO M CU UEY0 m >mOn UUw > 4❑❑6 N0 w O S w m w w 4 4 r� u LAND COURT SYSTEM Return by: MAIL ( X ) PICKUP ( ) TO: S.V. (Bud) Quitigait Brooks Tom Porter & Quitiquit, LLP 75-1000 Henry Street, Suite 208 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: 4 R-1284 STATE OF HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES RECORDED JUN 18, 2004 08:02AM Doc No(s) 2004-123556 �IIIIII��I��I�I�I��III,I�III�'lll� REGISTRAR OF CONVEYANCES 20 1/13 Z6 REGULAR SYSTEM R ORIGINAL ,� T_ glop y,0,a3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: F1 R* ir1;n4 l M►>i� x.�lr PARTIES TO DOCUMENT:, DECLARANT: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation, whose mailing address is 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 202, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TAX MAP KEY (3) 7-5-017:001; 019; 023; 025 and 026 Westpro/Puulani Makai/6/3/04 (SUB 2000-0201) DECLARATION RE ROAD CONSTRUCTION 41. This Declaration is made this 4E day of June, 2004, by WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation, whose mailing address is 75-143 HuaWai Road, Suite 202, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 ("Declarant'). RECITALS: This Declaration is made with respect to the following facts: A. Declarant is the owner of those certain parcels of real property situate at Puapuaaiki I" and Puapuaanui 1', District of North Kona, Island of Hawaii, County and State of Hawaii identified on the tax maps of the Third Taxation Division of the State of Hawaii as Tax Map Key Nos. 7-5-017:001, 019, 023, 025 and 026 (collectively, the "Property"). B. Declarant has applied for and obtained a consolidation and resubdivision of the Property into five Lots (Subdivision Application No. SUB 2000-0201), i.e., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; a copy of the final approved subdivision plat map is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. C. Incident to the consolidation and resubdivision of the Property into Lots 1 through 5, a sixty (60) foot wide easement for roadway and utility purposes was created on, over and across portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the subdivision ("Easement "1 ""), which said Easement "1 " is shown on the final plat map attached hereto as Exhibit A. D. As a condition of final approval of Subdivision No. 2000-0201, the Planning Department of the County of Hawaii required that the Property, and the subdivided Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof, be subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1 " be completed as required by the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non-residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. DECLARATION: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of and in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 by the County of Hawaii, the undersigned Declarant hereby covenants and agrees that each and every one of the subdivided Lots within the Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, occupied, built upon or otherwise used, improved or transferred, in whole or in part, subject to the covenant and agreement of the Declarant, and/or its successors in interest from time to time as the owner(s) of one or more of the Lots, that before any certificates of occupancy (for non-residential structures) or final inspections (for 2 residential structures) shall besought from or issued by the County of Hawaii for any improvements on any one or more of the Lots, the Declarant, or its successors in interest from time to time as the owner(s) ofone or more of the Lots, shall complete the design, construction and improvement of the roadway over and upon Easement "1" according to the then extant conditions and requirements of the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii. It is further declared and agreed that nothing set forth in this Declaration shall be construed as constituting a taking of private property by the County of Hawaii. In consideration of the foregoing Declaration and the covenant of the Declarant herein set forth, the County of Hawaii covenants and agrees that upon completion of the design, construction and improvement of the roadway upon and over Easement "I" according to the then extant conditions and requirements of the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii will execute and record a suitable instrument releasing and discharging this Declaration, and the equitable servitude herein contained, as an encumbrance on the Property and the subdivided Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof. WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation ALAN DICKLER Its President "Declarant" COUNTY OF HAWAII v��FNl11 / DIXIE KAETSU Its MaM Managing Director v .� LY-22WOU"I COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT By ?�& a� / P1 g Director County of Hawaii COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS By A,.,, Chief Engineer, Engineer, County of Hawaii APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: za- �Idz- 060�v—, Deputy Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii Dated: STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) On this /671v day of , 2004, before me personally appeared DIXIE KAETSU, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Managing Director of the County of Hawai'i, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawai'i; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said County of Hawai'i; that the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the County of Hawaii by authority given to said Mayor of the County of Hawaii by Section 5-1.3(g) of the County Charter, County of Hawai'i (2000), as amended, and assigned by the Mayor to the Managing Director pursuant to Section 6-1.3(h) of the County Charter; and said DIXIE KAETSU acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County of Hawai'i. VIf3O`INIA M. TOLENTINO tary Public, State of Hawai'i My commission expires: 4/22/2005 OF STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) ,N, t J On this � day of E.W e '2004, before me personally appeared ALAN DICKLER, to me personally known (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, who, being by me duly sworn or affirmed, did say that such person(s) executed the foregoing instrument as the free act and deed of such person(s), and, if applicable, in the capacity shown, having been duly authorized to execute such instrument in such capacity. R. BFB✓� — /� k NOTARY 'y = Z Print Name: ! /2 MI Ean * PUBLIC ; Notary Public, State of Hawaii 9TH OF N p3�� My commission expires: 0 l E rt4 � U. ---------- lip, '- o U DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII ,,r DATE:November 17, 2004 Memorandum I TO " Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief19- Engineering Division V SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-010) Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Location: Puapuaaiki and Puapuaanui 1' N. Kona, HI TMK: 3 / 7-5-017:019 We reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: DRAINAGE All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. 2. The applicant shall be informed that if they include drywells in the subject development, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit may be required from the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. A drainage study shall be submitted prior to issuance of any construction permit and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW. 4. The "AE" and "X" flood zones depicted on the final plat dated May 31, 2004 and approved on June 4, 2004 is not consistent with the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated June 2, 1995. Any development within the flood zone will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 27 - Flood Control, of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant has submitted a flood study prepared by a licensed professional civil engineer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to channelize Waiaha Drainageway, Splitflow No 2. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be obtained before any development (other than the work approved under the CLOMR) occurs in the AE Zone or the corrected effective base flood plain. During the base flood event (2670 cfs), Waiaha Splitflow No. 2 is indicated on the map to overtop Kuakini Highway fronting the adjacent property to the north because the culvert crossing at Kuakini Highway is not designed to carry the base Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer E X H 1 B 1 ,. Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-024) November 17, 2004 Page 2 of 4 flood discharge. 5. The proposed park is inside the flood plain boundaries, and according to the flood study, the area is determined to be subject to flow depths of 4 to 5 feet and flow velocity of approximately 7 fUsec. during the base flood event. Although such an event is unlikely to occur without warning, flash floods from intense mauka rainfall can and will occur within this area. Active park use should be carefully considered and hazards appropriately addressed. A revision to the CLOMR may be required if land alterations are proposed for the park. 6. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership. A maintenance program for the channel should be required. EARTHWORK 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. The 60 foot wide roadways, depicted in figures 3 and 4, are proposed to serve < mix of commercial and multifamily residential and should be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutters and sidewalk. Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the approval of DPW and be open to public traffic. 3. The Hawaii Belt Highway, fronting the subject property, is under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Comments and requirements concerning this road should be obtained from the HDOT. 4. Kuakini Highway is a two lane County arterial within an 80 foot right of way. It is our intention to request that the entire frontage of Kuakini Highway be improved to the right -of- way property line meeting with the approval of the DPW if zone change amendments are applied for the frontage properties. 5. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of DPW. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn decelaration lane shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include but not be limited to pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-024) November 17, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. 6. The TIAR assumes the access roads, including the approach to Kuakini Highway are completed by 2008 and should be required as a condition for granting a certificate of occupancy. 7. Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the DPW, Traffic Division. TRAFFIC 1. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) analyzes the proposed approaches to Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension using projected traffic volumes from other traffic studies. It does not address impacts to other area intersections. The TIAR may underestimate ambient traffic growth as some area projects under development or zoned for development have not been included. The TIAR does not consider the imminent mauka connection of Lako Street to Hualalai Road or the proposed Lako Street Extension to Alii Drive. For Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension, the TIAR indicates that an improved and signalized intersection at the at the Pualani access road remains at overall level of service C in the AM peak hour and will deteriorate to overall LOS D, in the PM peak hour, with some movements operating at LOS F. DPW defers to the Department of Transportation regarding required improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension approaches. The TIAR concludes that traffic generated by the project will not significantly impact Kuakini Highway makai of the subject project. See ROADWAYS, Item 5 for DPW recommended improvements to Kuakini Highway. 2. For comparison, the TIAR prepared for the Lako Street Extension (referred to in the subject project TIAR) analyzes the intersection of Lako Street and Kuakini Highway. The existing LOS is reported to be satisfactory. With no improvements and no Lako Street Extension, it is projected to operate at an overall LOS E in 2009 with the mauka Lako Street connection to Hualalai Road and additional traffic from nearby developments but not the subject development. The horizon year for the subject development is 2008. 3. The Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan identifies the Hawaii Belt Road (Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension) from Hualalai Road to Kuakini Highway, fronting the subject property, as a roadway operating at level of service (LOS) E, during both AM and PM peak hours. Traffic counts were used from the Department of Transportation Traffic Survey Data. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS E (for segments of urban streets) is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections and inappropriate signal timing. DOT presently has a study contract on this corridor to Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-024) November 17, 2004 Page 4 of 4 obtain recommendations to increase efficiency of the signals, giving priority to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 4. Any and all traffic control devices that are requested in the future, for said development, shall be designed and installed by the development at no cost to the County of Hawaii. These devices include but are not limited to crosswalks and other lane and pavement marking adjustments, warning and regulatory signs, ADA compliance items, flashing lights, streetlights and traffic signals. 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 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAI I`I 345 KEi(OANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 FAR "!8!08!!96 Q86 f. U November 5, 2004 ` (. I TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04-009) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) REQUEST: A -5A TO RM -2.5 APPLICANT — SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC TAX MAP KEY 7-5-017:019 We have reviewed the subject applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone and have the following comments and conditions. The subject parcel is part of an assignment of 368 units to Westpro Development, Inc. Therefore, water is available for the 250 -unit market rental housing project anticipated to use 250 units of water or an average of 100,000 gallons per day. However, should the applicant require additional water, such as for irrigation of common areas, the anticipated maximum daily water usage and peak -hour flow, as recommended by a registered engineer, shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval. The Department reserves the right to make the final determination and may request that the applicant secure additional units, if water is available. The Department requests that Westpro Development, Inc., the assignee of the 368 units, provide a breakdown of the 368 units between Tax Map Key 7-5-017:001, 019, 023, 025, and 026 for our record keeping. Should there be any questions, please call Ms. Shari Komata of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 252. Sincerely yours, NIlton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager SHK:sco copy - Mr. Sidney Fluke g Mr. Dru McCabe, Suffolk Investment, LLC r2� EXBIT 'f t1dep 11rill�3 The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination wrie USDA. Duecto, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W. Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue. SW. Washington DC 20250-9410. Or call (202) 720-5964 1voice and TDD) Harry Kim Mayor Barbara Bell Director Nelson Ito Deputy Director T Eaurl#u of �ttfuttit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupum Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM Date September 29, 2004 To : CHRISTOPHER YUEN, From . BARBARA BELL, SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary"Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM -2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC TMK: 7-5-17:19 We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER DIVISION: C� ( ) No comments ( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code./ ( -) Other: %('t t.� i )l/"(2l rl. z �ei/� )iC ', �a �, 7-L ! �. .t/lru j. SOLID WASTE DIVISION: `LT ( ) 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. �"� (X) Other: co3rklr Sot-�D WksI MhrvAC»Nt6tvt PLAN (i. RR.T0 A.T(1�Ut ,b rvlPtt.yL61 cc: SWD, WWD E MSIT 060254 Hnwm t County is an equal opportunity provider and employer Harry Kim Mayor t, -, Dara Bell Director Lono Tyson Solid Wa ie Division G... County= ®f Hawaii DEPARTMEIN.l O} ENVIIZONMENTAU MANAGEMfiNT 25 iiuwmai >� ctf, Room 210 a Hi! - 'i'i X6720-4 4 ,;48093-Fas(806)9., 0086 IJI.It)G V31 iJ, Lt/VJ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Guidelines INTENT AND PURPOSE 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) encourage recycling and recycling programs, (2) p -c. :t the waste generated by the proposed development to anticipate the loading on County transfer stations, landfills and recycling facilities, and (3) predict the additional traffic ging gen,-?',` I- -else of :,este and lecycling tran:,lais REPvi. i The consultant's report will contain the following: Description of the project find 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 -r� ;tion grubbing and future operational landscape niaintenan�f- De scription 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.: aidbodrd, aluminum, etc. 4. Identification of the proposed dispose, i,e and transportation mettc.ds 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. Solid Waste Management Plan Guidelines Page 2 of 2 5. The report will include any impacts to County waste and recycling facilities, and the appropriate mitigation measures. All recommendations and mitigation measures will be addressed. Description of the waste reduction component that analyzes techniques to be employed to achieve a reduction goal. 7. Analysis will be based on the highest potential use or zoning of the development. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS A solid waste management plan will be done for all commercial developrhents, as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division. 2. We will require the developer to provide or resolve all recommendations and mitigation measures as outlined in the report; besides any conditions placed on the applicant by the Department of Environmental Management. 3. A licensed environmental or civil engineer will draft and certify the solid waste management plan. CONCUR: Barbara Bell DIRECTOR Harry Kim lfuror October 18, 2004 TO CHRISTOPHER J. YU PLANNING DIRECTOR FROMJO E. DAWRS, M R, AREA OPERATIONS State Vand Use Boundary Application (SLU 04-010) request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM 2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment LLC TMK: 7-5-17:19 {.dW1e11Ce K. Mahuna Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri Depup, Police Chief Staff has reviewed the above -referenced application and has the following comments. Until such time as adequate roads are built to support the ever-growing population, construction, and additional vehicles on the roadways, development needs to follow the County's proposed policy on the principle of concurrency. Major concerns on this proposed development deal with traffic issues. The developer is proposing an entrance to the mauka side of the development coming off of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension. Note that the development is directly across the street from the Pualani Estates subdivision. The developer had planned one of the accesses to be via a signalized intersection, which will serve Pualani Estates on the mauka side. Note that there is no set date as to the completion of this signalized intersection. Due to the existing traffic problems on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, staff recommends that this project access the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension only via existing intersections and that a new intersection not be created. Note that due to existing traffic problems, our staff will consistently recommend that new projects along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, its extension, and Kuakini Highway not be granted direct access to the highway. 0 & 1fs "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" EXHIBIT County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hamaii 96720-3998 (808) 935-3311 • Fax (808) 961-2389 October 18, 2004 TO CHRISTOPHER J. YU PLANNING DIRECTOR FROMJO E. DAWRS, M R, AREA OPERATIONS State Vand Use Boundary Application (SLU 04-010) request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM 2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment LLC TMK: 7-5-17:19 {.dW1e11Ce K. Mahuna Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri Depup, Police Chief Staff has reviewed the above -referenced application and has the following comments. Until such time as adequate roads are built to support the ever-growing population, construction, and additional vehicles on the roadways, development needs to follow the County's proposed policy on the principle of concurrency. Major concerns on this proposed development deal with traffic issues. The developer is proposing an entrance to the mauka side of the development coming off of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension. Note that the development is directly across the street from the Pualani Estates subdivision. The developer had planned one of the accesses to be via a signalized intersection, which will serve Pualani Estates on the mauka side. Note that there is no set date as to the completion of this signalized intersection. Due to the existing traffic problems on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, staff recommends that this project access the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension only via existing intersections and that a new intersection not be created. Note that due to existing traffic problems, our staff will consistently recommend that new projects along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, its extension, and Kuakini Highway not be granted direct access to the highway. 0 & 1fs "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" EXHIBIT CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR OCTOBER 18, 2004 PAGE 2 Staff recommends that the developer work in conjunction with other landowners along this corridor and develop a secondary road to provide north and south ingress and egress from the development. As the Planning Department is already aware, this rezoning request was submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request by Puaa Development, LLC, under REZ 04-025. Both projects are using the same planning consultant, and staff recommends that neither project be allowed direct access onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. If this development is unable to coordinate a secondary road, access should be limited to Kuakini Highway. All entry/exits onto Kuakini Highway should be fully channelized with both turning and storage lanes. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Major John Dawrs at 326-4646, ext. 246. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. ��(V OI Mgkq/i Y�L Harry Kim Mayor oi'+r r `�COuutp of'abnail } FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296 October 6, 2004 TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04-010) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) REQUEST: A5a TO RM -2.5 APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-17:19 Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads Darryl J. Oliveira Fire Chief Desmond K. Wery Deputy Fire Chief "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 Equal Opporhmity Provider and Employer. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 2 October 6, 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." RR YL Fire Chief ZGWN LINDA LINGLE GOVEPLJ'. "y rp'T 19 7 1 36 OFFICE OF THE BUPERINTENOENT October 14, 2004 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. BOX 2360 HONOLULU, HAWAI'1 96804 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: PATRICIA HAMAMOTO Sl--IFF110p11T Subject: Application for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zoning for a 250 -Unit Rental Project, Puapuaaiki 16` and Puapuaanui I" North Kona, Hawaii (SLU 04-010), (REZ 04-024) TMK: 7-5-017: 19 The Department of Education (DOE) has reviewed the application for a boundary amendment and a zoning change for a 250 -unit multi -family rental project located between the Kuakini Highway and the Hawaii Belt Road in Kailua, North Kona. The DOE calculates that once the project matures, it would house approximately 54 public school students on an annual basis. That would include 27 elementary school students, 10 middle school students, and 17 high school students. Students residing in the project would most likely attend Kahakai Elementary, Kealakehe Intermediate, and Konawaena High schools. Konawaena High School can comfortably handle additional enrollment growth for at least the next six to seven years. Kealakehe Intermediate's enrollment is currently close to capacity levels. Growth in the school's service area is expected to continue to drive enrollments higher. Kahakai Elementary's campus currently also houses the Innovations Charter School. The combined enrollment of the two schools is currently under capacity but is also expected to grow. AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER EXHIBIT A.. Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 October 14, 2004 The proposed project will have an impact on the schools where its residents will attend. Collectively, the children who will reside in the project will fill more than two additional classrooms. Therefore, the DOE requests that Hawaii County include as a condition of the boundary amendment and 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 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 ruly yours, Patricia Hama o Superintendent PH:jmb c: Rae Loui, Assistant Superintendent, OBS Alvin Rho, CAS, Honokaa/Kealakehe/Kohala/Konawaena Complex Area LINDA LINGLE �RNOR OF IIAWAR -D-NAV SJFFOLK SLU 04-010.RCM PETER 7. YOUNG CMANtPER50N BOARD OF W1DANO IMT RESwM�S CpAMi5510N w1 WATER RESOUR(Z LIAIUGELENT DAN DAVIDSON DEPVn wREnoR -wn YVONNE Y. D:U DEPUTY wRE M- WATER Honorable Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 95720-4252 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agriculturai to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to RM2.5 I. D. No.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department TMK: (3) 7-5-017: 019 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. A copy of the document pertaining to the subject mat -ter 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 - Division of State Parks - Engineering Division - Commission on Water Resource Management - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands - Land -Hawaii District Land office 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: HDLG EXI B I ! OrC 1 "SLK. AO mRESd s STATE OF HAWAII BDATNOAND DCEIN REOIEAS BUREAU OF DONVEYANLES DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES °DM"'Co Em: Aar�AM WpSEEEM OONSERYATI AW RESOUR(ZS ENFDRE WW LAND DIVISION EMIWERING FORESTRY AM WllDlfiE POST OFFICE BOX 621 RISTO CPRESER Am nAN001AWE IS W RESERVE Cw SSq SvLAM n Honorable Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 95720-4252 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agriculturai to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to RM2.5 I. D. No.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department TMK: (3) 7-5-017: 019 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. A copy of the document pertaining to the subject mat -ter 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 - Division of State Parks - Engineering Division - Commission on Water Resource Management - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands - Land -Hawaii District Land office 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: HDLG EXI B I ! OrC 1 "SLK. LINDA LINGLE DOER D I WM E 01 W PETER T. YOUNG S TA: I'A F F ' y�" Baum or A40 A D N.TIAA RESO MCES dJI.wISSIOII ON WATER RESDU1tCE Cd DANDAVIDSON �\ � DEPV}V OeiECTOR-LAID Y. IZU '0a UGI 14 8 5 �`°•�„I.� MA,D, A Tc RESOIRMS STATE OF HAWAII pp. TY GA D OCFA"REC�EATgM euRuu Dr OONJEYANCES IC��RESOURCES C0 VASSgN ON WATER R[SOURQ WN•GEYEM +AT iRr',L giiTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOD CES LAND DIVISION !1/ 4 H_r Er OiEERwe foRES A WLDL" POST OFFICE BOX 621 sR' "aTDRK PRESERv1TION IuwouwE IsIAIA RESERVE CwessgR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 wo SIAn PW J October 13, 2004 LD/NAV SUFFOLKINVESTMENT Ref.: SLU 04-010.CMT Suspense Date: 10/22/04 MEMORANDUM: TO: C1 *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife - *XXX Engineering Division N _ *XXX Division of State Parks .v *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management -� ;F, "-c—) *XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office ` � FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admini� or Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to RM2.5 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. Nos.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC TMK: 3L°/ 7-5-017: 019 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. Division: State Parkg - Date: Oct. 21, 2004 ( ) Comments at ached. Signed: yLc Name: Daniel S. Guimn State Parks Administrator LINDA LINGLE - n GONE RNOR OF HAW" _ I 2Cj4 OCi ?? P 3. 5C! STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 13, 2004 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04-010.CMT PETER T. YOUNG pMMPERSON SMRD oft , M NATURAL RESOMOES CONNLSSION ON WATER RESOURCE NANAOEYEM DAN DAVIDSON pEP1fIY OWEROR. LAM YVONNE Y.¢u OFRUrY DPEMM- WATER AO MRESOU s WATWG AND OCEAN RECPEATION EVREAUOF DONAEYANIZS DONw$SDN DN WATER RESOURCE EI IWIENE CONSERVAl1DN AED OpA51AL IAFDS DOKYRVATDN AND RESOURCES EItOROENE NT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WEDtIE NiSTORR: PRESERVATDN rugolAwE sIAFD REYRVE coA..ssaN wO SATE PARRS SUFFOLKINVESTMENT Suspense Date: 10/22/04 MEMORANDUM: TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division *XXX Division of State Parks *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management *XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Administrator �i—�� Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A-Sa to RM2.5 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. Nos.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC TMK: 3`�/ "7-5-017: 019 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 - 14191-z' If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we will assume there are no comments. ) We have no comments. Division: Date: ( Comments attacheci. Signed: Name: -+'fit. % HMMC1,CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOL ROES ENGINEERING DIVISION LD/NAS" Ref.: SLU 04 - Ol O.CMT SUFFOLKINVESTMENT COMMENTS (X) We confirm that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is located in Zones X and AF. The National Flood Insurance Program does not have any regulations for development within Zone X, however, it does regulate development within Zone AE as indicated in bold letters below. O Please take note that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is also 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 — (X) 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, DIs. Carol Tyau-Beant, 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 Conununitv'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 Sul Li at (80S) 523-4247 of the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Pcnnrtnng. (X) Mr. Kelly Gomes at (808) 961-8327 (Hilo) or -Ah. Kiran Ender 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. O 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 andor water meter. O 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. (X) Additional Comments: Please take note that portion of the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, is also located in Zone X (Shaded). The National Flood Insurance Program does not have any regulations for development within Zone X (Shaded). O Other: Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Andrew Mundell of e Plaummg Branch at 587-0229. Signed: E HIRANO. CHIEF FNGINEER Date:v�0 __ _- LINDA LINGLVE _ JIJ 2004 OCT 22 0 3: 4( PETER T YOUNG MEREDITH J CHING CLAYTON W DELA CRL JAMES `PA L,i CHIYOME L FUKIFD V L LA'IV'RENCE H MIiKE M C , C STEPHANIE WHALFN STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES )"/DNNEY ¢U COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PO 80X821 HONOLULU, HAWAII 98809 October 22, 2004 TO Ms. Dede Marri Administrator Land Division FROM: Yvonne Y. Izu, Deputy Director Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) SUBJECT. State Land Use Boundary Amendment— Suffolk Investment, LLC FILE NO.: SLU 04-010.CMT Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. Our comments related to water resources are marked below. In general, the CWRM strongly promotes the efficient use of our water resources through conservation measures and use of alternative non -potable water resources whenever available, feasible, and there are no harmful effects to the ecosystem. Also, the CWRM encourages the protection of water recharge areas, which are important for the maintenance of streams and the replenishment of aquifers [ 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. [ ] 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. L ] The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management areaand a Water Use Permit from the Commission would be required prior to use of this source. 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 [ I OTHER. If there are any questions, please contact Ryan Imata at 587-0255 PETER T. YOUNG ISE DF ASA CNARPERSON �� I I I� lWlm OF IPND WR RESOURCE UNDP LINGLE � ' ' GDA ON WATER RESOURCE EHIII.fiF.AEM G,,A,,R OF NAW" f DAN DAVIDEON � \ DEPUTY DIRECTOR • LAM QA ! YVONNE Y. ¢V DER DMECTOR-WATER 1 ._ Y� STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 13, 2004 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04-010.CMT MEMORANDUM ApYM RESOURfZS EDAbUA DF CFAN ERECRE ROWAWA RXSM AIAUT dIOANG EENT WAA NWATKo1ANDPESOi5EKFEEM EK.EiEERRG FORESTRY AND EATM NbTORIC PRESERVATgR F,AHOOIAWE 6tAW RESERVE Op.RA55ON LAND STATE PARK$ SUFFOLKINVESTMENT Suspense Date: 10/22/04 TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division *XXX Division of State Parks *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management *XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Administrator Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of 'Lone A -5a to RM2.5 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department Z.D. Nos.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC TMK: 3`�/ 7-5-017: 019 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. (X cc is attached. Division: CWIZAvI Signed: 1 Date: 10 1-2,0 16� Name: (� W��'l `OAOO LINDA LINGLE GQVERNOR OF NAWAA STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 13, 2004 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04-010.CMT MEMORANDUM: REI ,1R T. YOUNG pA M HATLIP DMS Df LAND AND WSOUR RESOURCES DONNi$$MJN OM WATER RESOVRCE DAN DAVIDSON OERUfY ONEROR.INO YVONNE Y. 2U OEN11YD CTOR-WATE/1 AOWIICRESO s $MTMIG AND OCEAN REMAUM RUREAD OF CONVEYANCES COARe� OM WATER RESOURCE NM %IIM CONSERVAT AND AIAIIDS CONSERVAICN AND RESOURCES ENFDR ww ENGMEERIN FDRE$TIIY AND WENS MSI RRESERVATON FA ft R RESERVE GOMAISSgN LAND WAn PARK$ SUFFOLKINVESTMENT Suspense Date: 10/22/04 TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division � *XXX Division of State Parks *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management - *XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands -•"1 XXX Hawaii District Land Office rj --- FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Administrator -� I Land Division ._,`J w SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural _r�o Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to RM2.5 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. Nos.: SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-017: 019 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: Date: 4 ( ) Comments attached. r� Signed: Name, PAUL J. CONRY, ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE � •�9a%1i LINDA LINGLE y1 Gov-RtiDA - r J STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 2004 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Directors County of Hawaii FROM: Aaron A. Ueno R,'' District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM -2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:19 CHIVOME I. FUKINO. kI.D. DIRECTOR 0' HEAL'H 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. 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 to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters...." ��•S-��'a,t�-I EXHIBIT Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 October 20, 2004 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; It. 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/ewb/forms/indiv-index.html. 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 Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 October 20, 2004 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. Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run-offs from the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control." Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. C. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933-0917. The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution Rules, Chapter 60. 1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff at Ph. 933-0401. W ORD: SLU04-0I OREZ04-024. my LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII ,,i n TT n,1 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVEI-12 til& TOUR(W LAND USE COMMISSION P O. Box 2359 j Honolulu. Hawao 96804-2359 Telephone- 808-587-3822 Fax 808-587-3827 October 20, 2004 Mr Christopher i Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: rT 1 �S. Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) A -5a to CN -20 Puaa Development, LLC Puapuaaiki 1,1 and Puapuaanui 1s1, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17: 1 (Lot 2) State Land Use &nmdary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) A -5a to RM -2.5 Suffolk Investment, LLC Puapuaaiki 1,1 and Puapuaanui 1s1, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17: 19 (Lot 5) ANTHONY J.H. CHING E IECLT v_ OFFICER We have reviewed the subject applications forwarded by your memorandum dated September 24, 2004, and confirm that the subject sites, as generally represented on Figure 1 of the County Environmental Report (CER), are located within the boundary of the State Land Use Agricultural District. rl, E x raft, Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 2 We understand that the subject sites, identified as Lot 2 and Lot 5 and consisting of 14.973 acres and 14.872 acres, respectively, were created as a result of a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision application for the Pualani Makai Subdivision. We further understand that Lot 2 will be developed into the Pualani Village Center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas, while Lot 5 will be developed into a 250 -unit market rental housing project to address the rental housing needs of the community. While we have no specific objections to the proposed uses themselves, we do have strong objections to the manner in which they are being processed as HRS §205-3.1 boundary amendments. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and have been deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. We also believe that Pualani Makai will be further segmented under separate boundary amendment applications for Lots 3 and 4 based on the Master Plan for the development. As you know, the Third Circuit Court has affirmed that projects, such as Pualani Makai, should be viewed as an integrated whole to ensure full and timely disclosure of their potential cumulative impacts upon the environment. We understand that the previous owner of the property intended to submit a boundary amendment petition to the Commission for Pualani Makai's predecessor, Pualani Development -Phase II. We note that the archaeological inventory survey (Appendix D-2 in the CER) conducted in support of the development explicitly acknowledged that "[t]he overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawaii State Land Use Commission...." With the recent reactivation of the development as Pualani Makai, we believe that it continues to require Commission approval. Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the Commission normally defers to the judgment of the County of Hawaii regarding applications such as these. However, in this instance, we believe it appropriate for the County of Hawaii to seek clarification from the applicant why actions relating to the proposed Pualani Village Center and rental housing project should not be subject to a land use boundary amendment made to the Land Use Commission. Any findings or conclusions generated by the County in this matter should be forwarded to the Commission for its information and appropriate follow-up. Mr. Christopher 1. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject applications. Please feel free to contact Bert Saruwatari of my office at 587-3822, should you require clarification or any further assistance. Sincerely, r ANTHONY J.H8NG Executive Officer C: Office of Planning Mae 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone. (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, 11196720 Ticar h1r Y1tcn' ?r 1 Qr,T 13 Octobei �, 2004' F": , C. Subject: Applications for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and County Rezoning — Suffolk Investment, LLC Puaavuaanui 191, North Kona, Hl, TMK: 7-5-17: 19 • Flenvng • Vanance • ZO'rQ • Suna mson • Land Use Permits • Envuonnental Rep„^.s This is to follow up on my discussion with Mr. Jeff Darrow of your staff regarding the subject applications. While the General Plan LUPAG map was not designed to be specifically measurable - unlike a zoning map - he noted that based on your "GIS” maps, the LUPAG map designations of the subject property are Urban Expansion and Low Density. The application noted that the designation of the site was Medium Density. I would like to use this means to confirm that we will defer the designation to your office. In defining an Urban Expansion Area, the General Plan states that such a designation "(A)Ilows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. " It goes on to note that Medium Density designated areas would be suitable for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential — up to 35 units per acre. " Low Density areas refer to `Single family residential in character, ancillary community and public uses, and convenience type commercial uses. " Since the Urban Expansion Area allows Medium Density uses, we trust that the supportive land use rationale contained in the report should still apply. Relative to the Low Density aspects of the site, the project will still be residential in character, with open space and/or park areas. The overall density of 17 per acre represents only 50% of the maximum allowable number of units under the Medium Density designation. Most of the proposed structures will occur within the Medium Density area, while the open space/park fall within the Low Density area. In the context of the entire project, the request would thus be consistent with both the Low and Medium Density designations of the LUPAG map. I trust that this explanation is sufficient. If not, please let me know. Thank you. W LKE Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa Development, LLC via email 060472 EXHIBIT L SldneyFuke, RannngConsultant 100 Pauahl Street. Suite 212 • Hilo. Hawau 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996 October 25. 2004 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: 'LM QI'T 26 Pfd l 5 Subject: State Land Use (SLU 04-010) & Rezoning (REZ 04-024) Applications, Suffolk Investment, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 19 Thank you for providing agency comments to date on the subject matter. In response to said comments, please note the following: In response to the State Department of Education's comments, the applicant is hesitant to make a commitment for school impact fees at this time, 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 request that is not an accepted County policy at this time. The requirements of the Fire Department relative to access, water pressure, and fire hydrants will be complied with. These issues will be addressed in detail during the building and infrastructure permitting process. Relative to the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) comments, as required of projects of this nature, a Solid Waste Management Plan will be prepared for the review and approval of the DEM prior to or in conjunction with the building permit process. Furthermore, the project will be connected to the County's sewer system. The required engineering calculations will be prepared and reviewed by the appropriate agencies also in conjunction with the building permit process. If there are further questions and/or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, 11��JJ 4 AS SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Department of Education Department of Environmental Management Suffolk Investment LLC w/ enclosures SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahl Street. Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996 October 26, 2004 ,101 [!^T 26 nr7 i S Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: State Land Use (SLU 04-010) & Rezoning (REZ 04-024) AAvplications, Suffolk Investment, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 09 Thank you for providing additional agency comments to date on the subject matter. In response to said comments, please note the following: P ammng • Varanca • Z,,,, S.hOvs on • pan Usa F,mrs "envaonmPta P=pun; As recommended by the Department of Health, the applicant will have the project connect to the County's sewer line fronting Kuakini Highway. Furthermore, the consulting engineer is aware of the possible need of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and UIC permits. As such, if needed, said permit(s) will be secured prior to commencement of any construction activity on the subject site. During construction, the applicant will comply with appropriate noise, dust, and storm runoff regulations of the State Department of Health. The Police Department's comments are well taken. This project is predicted upon the completion of a fully signalized intersection, which will also service the Pualani Subdivision. The cost of this improvement will not be bome by government. It will be jointly shared between the developers of the proposed shopping complex (Puaa Development, LLC) and the developers of the Pualani Subdivision. That developer is also proposing a right -tum outbound movement from the project site to Kuakini Highway, as it believes that would help with the overall traffic circulation. This additional access, if approved, would also be available to the broader community, including the subject property. Additionally, the applicant is also proposing a new mauka-makai road between Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This roadway would go through the subject and adjoining properties mauka and makai of it. The applicant and the developer of the proposed shopping complex (Puaa Development, LLC) would complete it prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for their respective projects. Thus, this and the proposed shopping complex projects (Puaa Development, LLC) would help with the area's road infrastructure. These projects would also not be available for occupancy until the improvements noted above have been completed. fl G,j- ` 'J Mr. Christopher Yuen October 26, 2004 Page 2 We trust that the information provided herein help address the comments. If not or if there are further questions and/or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. 1 incerely, r� S?6Ni Y M. L Planning Consultant Copy — Department of Health Police Department Suffolk Investment, LLC w/ enclosures Mae SldneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone. (808) 969-1522 • Fax !808) 969-7996 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: November 9, 2004 "01 NOU g 7 12 4 • Fannin • V3n3nce • Zoe n_ • SuDewision•,ano Use ., ; • Fn, MMental 9CD0113 Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 04-009) and Rezoning (REZ 04-025) - Puaa Development, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 01 and State Land Use (SLU 04-010) and Rezoning (04-024) — Suffolk Investment, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 19 Thank you for providing additional agency comments to date on the subject matter. We note that the State Department of Land and Natural Resources — Land Division did not have any substantive comments that were not already addressed by other agencies, such as the comments relating to the water system (Department of Water Supply) and floodway/drainage (Department of Public Works). Relative to the State Land Use Commission's comments, we note the following: First of all, neither of these applicants - Suffolk Investment, LLC (hereinafter "SIL") and Puaa Development, LLC (hereinafter "PDL") — had anything to do with the creation of the subject parcels. They acquired their respective interest in the parcels after the properties were subdivided. As such, there was no covert intent by these entities to create smaller parcels in an effort to by-pass the State Land Use Commission boundary amendment process. 2. Additional, these entities are two distinct entities that do not have any financial interest with each other. SIL is based in Denver, Colorado, while PDL is based here in Hawai' i. None of the principals of these entities have any ownership interest in both entities. Their business relationship extends only to the point of a common desire to share the needed infrastructure cost for their respective projects, but to accelerate the completion of a mauka/makai connector road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This roadway, when completed, would also address some regional transportation needs. Furthermore, neither of these entities is aware of a Pualani Makai master planned community. Their projects were conceived with an eye towards addressing their perception of the community's commercial and rental housing needs and implementing the County General Plan and not 00 -5 - necessarily any specific private master plan. Mr. Christopher Yuen November 9, 2004 Page 2 While it is true that the archaeological report covered both and adjoining properties — suggesting an application to cover the entire area - neither of these entities was aware of the former property owner's plans to develop the entire property or to file a boundary amendment with the State LUC. Furthermore, you might also want to note that the master plan consultants for each of the projects were not the same. Finally, not having these applications reviewed by the State LUC does not at all suggest that the substantive and cumulative issues relating to these projects will not be publicly addressed and considered. As part of the County review process, the applications will be reviewed by relevant County but also State and Federal agencies; recommended upon by the Planning Director and Planning Commission, where a public hearing will be held; and finally, acted upon by the County Council. The Council will consider these applications at a minimum of three meetings, all of which input from the public and government agencies will be sought. As such, there will be ample opportunities for public and agency input before a final decision is made on these applications by the Council. In summary, neither of these entities was involved in any attempt to create smaller lots in an effort to by-pass the State LUC. They acquired their properties and independently conceptualized their plans. Their collaboration extends only to the point of sharing infrastructure costs (and consultants). Accordingly, they now wish to avail themselves to a permitting process that is a legally acceptable practice for properties consisting of less than fifteen (15) acres. It is also a process where there will be ample opportunity for public and agency input. Accordingly, the applicants respectfully believe that the County does indeed have the authority to process these applications and that substantive and cumulative impact concerns raised by the State LUC can be adequately addressed by the County. We trust that the above adequately responds to the comments. If not or if there are further questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. S' cerely, i SI NEY M: FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — State LUC Puaa Development, LLC w/ enclosure Suffolk Investment, LLC w/ enclosure