HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD Background Report Kula Nei Partners (PL-PUD-2024-003)
-1-
BKulaNeiPartnersPUD.11.19.2024.crk COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
KULA NEI PARTNERS, LLC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (PL-PUD-2024-000003)
KULA NEI PARTNERS, LLC has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Permit for an 8-lot, agricultural subdivision, and a cultural heritage area for 40.421 acres
of land. The PUD would allow various exceptions from Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the Hawaiʻi
County Code. The subject property is located on Kukuna Street, directly south of its intersection
of Punawele Street within the Kona Acres Subdivision, ʻOʻoma 1st – Kohanaiki, North Kona,
Hawaiʻi, TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039.
PROPOSED ACTION
1. Applicant’s Request: The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
permit to allow for the following exemptions from the Zoning Code to facilitate the
development of an 8-lot, agricultural subdivision, and a bulk cultural and archaeological
preservation lot on 40.421 acres of land:
Exceptions Requested from Zoning Code (HCC Chapter 25)
Minimum Street Frontage (HCC §25-4-30). Request to waive minimum street
frontage requirements to allow a minimum roadway frontage of 140 feet for each
proposed habitable lot in lieu of the minimum 200 feet of roadway frontage based on
existing Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning. This is consistent with minimum roadway
frontage for an FA-2a zoning district as each proposed habitable lot will be no less
than 2 acres in size. Additionally, the applicant requests the allowance of a minimum
roadway frontage of 15 feet (minimum width for access pole) for the proposed
cultural and archaeological preservation lot, which will not be habitable. This lot will
have direct access to the proposed private subdivision roadway (see PUD application
Figure 3 – PUD Concept Master Plan).
Minimum Building Site Area; Minimum Average Width (HCC §25-4-31).
Request to waive minimum building site area requirements to allow a minimum
building site area of 2 acres within the existing A-5a zoning district. Additionally,
-2-
request to allow the minimum building site area average width to be 140 feet instead
of the 200 feet required within the existing A-5a zoning district (see PUD application
Figure 3 – PUD Concept Master Plan).
Reduction of Building Site Below Minimum Area (HCC §25-4-32). Request to
reduce building sites to a minimum of 2 acres in lieu of the 5-acre minimum lot size
required by the existing A-5a zoning district (see PUD application Figure 3 – PUD
Concept Master Plan).
Minimum Building Site Area (HCC §25-5-74). Request to waive requirement that
the minimum building site area in the Agricultural zoning district be a minimum of 5
acres to allow for building site areas to be a minimum of 2 acres.
Minimum Building Site Average Width (HCC §25-5-75). Request to allow the
minimum building site area average width of 140 feet instead of the 200 feet required
by the existing A-5a zoning district.
2. Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to develop an 8-lot, agricultural
subdivision with lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 2 acres to a maximum of around 5
acres to allow the construction of small farms and associated farm dwellings.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to create a bulk lot for cultural and archaeological
preservation purposes, anticipated to be just under 14 acres in size, with no habitable
structures to be permitted. This preservation lot will include archaeological features
slated for preservation by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and associated
preservation buffers (see PUD application Figure 3 – PUD Concept Master Plan). Areas
not affected by any archaeological preservation buffer will be used as a nursery for the
propagation of native Hawaiian indigenous and endemic plants for landscaping
throughout the proposed subdivision as well as for commercial purposes. Minor
agricultural structures, such as storage sheds and greenhouses, may be established on this
bulk preservation lot to support operations solely related to the nursery and maintenance
of the archaeological preservation sites. The applicant also proposes to construct roadway
access, water systems, and other applicable infrastructure related to the proposed
subdivision as further discussed below.
-3-
According to the applicant, the purpose for the requested PUD permit is to promote the
development of an 8-lot agricultural subdivision, consisting of lot sizes ranging from 2 to
5 acres, that avoids the many significant cultural and archaeological sites that exist within
the subject property. Through the PUD permit application, the applicant is requesting
relief from the minimum 5-acre minimum lot size requirements and the minimum
building site average width and related requirements of the Zoning Code in order to
properly configure the proposed 8-lot agricultural subdivision along with a bulk lot that
will be encumbered with a preservation easement and held by a single 501(c)(3)
organization (Mālama O Kekaha, established in November 2023) that will ensure the
protection and proper management of the important cultural and archaeological features
identified within the subject property. Additionally, one of the primary benefits of the
proposed smaller lot sizes is to create more affordable agricultural homestead
opportunities for local families. The applicant values the tradition of multigenerational
living, which has been a longstanding practice in their family, spanning from great-
grandparents to great-grandchildren. This deeply rooted cultural tradition has shaped their
vision for Kula Nei. With this in mind, the applicant intends for each buildable lot within
the development to accommodate a second (additional) farm dwelling, provided there is
sufficient water availability and adequate space for a compliant wastewater disposal
system.
3. Project Timetable and Cost: The applicant will file a subdivision application
immediately after receiving PUD approval. The applicant anticipates commencing
construction in mid-2025 with anticipated project completion by 2029 and the project
will cost approximately $2 million to $3 million.
4. Landowners: Kula Nei Partners, LLC.
5. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the
request (Planning Department Exhibit 1 - Planned Unit Development Application
received on September 22, 2024)
STATE, COUNTY & COMMUNITY PLANS
6. State Land Use District: Agricultural.
-4-
7. General Plan LUPAG Map Designation: Low Density Urban. This designation allows
for single-family residential uses with ancillary community and public uses, with an
overall density of up to six units per acre.
8. County Zoning: Agricultural-5 acres (A-5a) & Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a).
9. Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP): The KCDP was adopted by Ordinance
No. 08-131 in 2008 and subsequently amended in 2019 via Ordinance No. 19-91. The
subject property is situated within the Kona Urban Area but is not located in any Transit
Oriented Development area. The subject property is situated within Concurrency Zone D
which identifies the proposed extension of Kealakaʻa Street (9A) from Hina Lani Street
south of the subject property northward to Holoholo Street.
10. Special Management Area (SMA): The subject properties are not situated within the
SMA and are located approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest shoreline.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
11. October 21, 2008: State Land Use Commission (LUC) approves State Land Use District
Boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban classification for 129.99 acres of land
that includes the subject property and 2 other adjoining properties then owned by The
Shopoff Group, L.P. (“Shopoff”) (see Exhibit B of the application-LUC Decision and
Order Docket A06-770). Shopoff proposed the development of approximately 270
residential units, including approximately 216 to 220 single-family homesites as well as
affordable housing units that were needed to conform to County of Hawaiʻi affordable
housing requirements. Also proposed were a 4.4-acre private community park, a
wastewater treatment plant, individual wastewater systems, an offsite drinking water
well, storage reservoirs, water transmission lines, an internal roadway circulation system,
and offsite roadway connections.
12. December 6, 2010: Shopoff notifies the LUC that Petition area was scheduled to be
conveyed to Central Pacific Bank. Conveyance was complete on December 15, 2010.
13. December 9, 2014: Kula Nei Partners, LLC, acquired the petition area from Central
Pacific Bank.
14. June 9, 2016: Approval date of CON-16-000329 allowed for the consolidation of Lot 56,
consisting of 39.420 acres, with the adjoining lot within Kona Acres subdivision
-5-
identified as Lot 63, consisting of 43,705 square feet, resulting in Lot 56-A consisting of
40.421 acres. This consolidation action provided the subject property with direct frontage
with Kukuna Street.
15. July 11, 2019: State Land Use Commission orders the reversion of the 129.99-acre
petition area, including the subject property, from its previous Urban District
classification to the Agricultural District due to lack of substantial commencement of the
proposed 270-lot development by former Petitioner, Shopoff. Current owner and
applicant, Kula Nei Partners LLC, stipulated that it has not, and does not intend to
comply with the representations and conditions of the LUC Decision and Order dated
October 21, 2008 and did not oppose the LUC order to revert the 129.99-acre petition
area to its former Agricultural land use classification (see Exhibit C of the application-
Decision and Order Reverting the Petition Area).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
16. Subject Property: The subject, 40.421-acre property is roughly shaped as an irregular
rectangle and is situated between the 920 and 1,150-foot elevations, with an average
slope of 10 to 12 percent from its highpoint along its mauka (east) boundary to its low
point at its makai (west) boundary. The property is currently vacant of any structures or
uses with an extensive cover of dense vegetation. Portions of the subject property along
the alignment of the proposed subdivision access road from Kukuna Street, has been
grubbed and graded. Previous grubbing activities have occurred along the entire
perimeter boundary of the subject property, although much of it has now become
overgrown.
17. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: The subject property is situated adjacent to the south
of the Kona Acres subdivision, which is zoned Agricultural and immediately makai of the
Kona Hills Estates subdivisions zoned A-1a and Fa-2a and made up of residences and
small farms. The applicant owns two adjacent parcels directly to the south and southeast
and there is a State-owned parcel directly west of the subject property. These parcels are
all zoned A-5a.
18. Flood Zone: The subject property site is situated within flood Zone “X,” which is
determined by FEMA to be an area of minimal flood hazard.
-6-
19. ALISH: Unclassified.
20. Land Study Bureau: Most of the property, including the area slated for the habitable
lots are designated as “E” or “Very Poor” soils. A portion of the preservation lot area is
designated as “D” or “Poor” soils.
21. USDA Soil Survey: Punaluʻu Lava Flows, 10-20% slope, well drained with high runoff.
22. Flora/Fauna Resources: No professional floral or faunal survey was conducted for this
application. However, the archaeological preservation plan included within the
application identified vegetation on the property consisting of mango, silver oak,
Christmas-berry, ēkoa, weeping fig, kukui, guava, autograph trees, ti, and fountain grass,
along with other non-native vines, grasses, shrubs, and weeds. An avifaunal and feral
mammal survey conducted on the subject property for the 2006 State Land Use Boundary
Amendment identified only non-native bird species and attempts to locate native species
such as the Hawaiian owl (pueo) and Hawaiian hawk (‘io) were unsuccessful, with no
evidence of nesting or presence. There was no data indicating the occurrence of the
Newell Shearwater in the region. The study also found no mammalian species of concern,
including the endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat, despite efforts to locate it. Urbanization
of the area was deemed unlikely to impact the bat due to its solitary nature and
adaptability to nearby trees. The lack of listed species on the subject property led to no
recommended mitigation measures for either birds or mammals. It was noted, however,
that any discovery of a Hawaiian Hawk nest should be reported to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, though the likelihood of its presence was considered negligible.
23. Archaeological/Cultural/Historical Resources: An archaeological inventory survey of
the subject property was conducted in 2005 by Rechtman Consulting (Clark and
Rechtman 2005) and accepted in 2008, which identified 19 archaeological sites
comprised of 66 features. Of the 19 sites, one site (Site 50-10-28-23834), a Historic era
Ahupuaʻa boundary wall was previously identified by (Haun and Henry 2003) and the
remaining 18 sites were newly identified by Clark and Rechtman (2005). These 19 sites
consist of 7 historic walls, a historic era enclosure, a historic era roadway, 2 trail
segments, a Precontact era habitation modified outcrop, a Precontact era habitation
terrace, 3 Precontact era habitation lava blisters, one lava blister with human remains, a
-7-
Precontact era habitation complex with 5 features, and an expansive agricultural complex
with 44 features that extend across the entire project area except at the access pole from
Kukuna Street. All 19 sites were assessed as significant for their information content
because they have yielded or are likely to yield information important to understanding
the prehistory or history of the project area. One site was additionally assessed as
significant due to its association with events that have made an important contribution to
the broad patterns of our history, and one site was additionally assessed as significant for
its cultural value because of the presence of human remains. The 2005 Rechtman report
recommended the preservation of 2 sites, a lava blister with human remains (Site 24768),
for which a Burial Treatment Plan was submitted and accepted by the Hawaiʻi Island
Burial Council and SHPD in 2019 and a historic boundary wall (Site 24774), for which
an Archaeological Preservation plan was completed and accepted by SHPD in 2016. Four
sites were recommended for data recovery (1. Site 24762- Precontact era habitation
modified outcrop; 2. Site 24764-Precontact era habitation terrace; 3. Site 24773 –
Precontact era Habitation Complex; and 4. Site 24776 Precontact era Agriculture
Complex). The applicant completed and submitted a Data Recovery Plan in 2015, which
was accepted by SHPD in 2016. However, upon learning that the data recovery for these
four sites would require backhoe trenching, the applicant elected to halt all data recovery
excavations and to pursue a preservation treatment for these sites instead. This decision
resulted in the creation of an Archaeological Preservation Plan for the 4 sites entitled “An
Archaeological Preservation Plan for Sites 50-10-28-24762, 24764, 24773 and 24776”
dated August 2021 prepared by ASM affiliates, which outlines the short-term and
permanent conservation requirements for the 4 sites and was accepted by SHPD on
September 14, 2021. Four of the 6 sites slated for preservation will occur within the bulk
archaeological and cultural preservation lots (except for Sites 24764 and 24773).
Additionally, the applicant commissioned a report entitled, “Kula Nei Partners, LLC,
Planned Unit Development, Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina Analysis”, prepared by ASM
Affiliates in 2019 (See Exhibit E of the Application). According to the report, there are
no ongoing traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being exercised or occurring
within the subject property.
-8-
24. Public Access: There is no public access to the mountains or the shoreline that traverses
the subject property. Old ʻOʻoma Homestead Road runs outside and along the entire
southern boundary of the subject property in a mauka-makai alignment and will not be
affected by the proposed subdivision.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
25. Roadway Access: Access to the property is from Kukuna Street, a County-owned and
maintained, 2-lane roadway with 10-foot-wide travel lanes, and 15-foot-wide paved
shoulders and swales within an intervening grass strip. All proposed lots will be provided
by a private roadway constructed to County-non-dedicable agricultural standards
(Department of Public Works Standard Detail R-25). This private roadway will be paved
to a point at least 50 feet beyond the common boundary of proposed Lots 56-A-3 and 56-
A-4 to ensure adequate access for all proposed lots. The road right-of-way, however, will
be extended through the entire length of the subject property to the southern property
boundary just north of the adjacent homestead road to provide for future interconnection
opportunities between properties. The applicant will ensure that proper rights of access
and utility over this non-dedicable agricultural road will be granted in favor of Parcel
038. Traffic will be consistent with an 8-lot subdivision, and thus should not have a
significant impact on public roadway facilities.
26. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS), County water can be
made available to the subject property from the end of an 8-inch waterline within Hamo
Street and from a 6-inch waterline within Kukuna Street, however, that line would need
to be extended 500 feet before entering the subject property. There is an existing service
of 1 unit of water, however, an additional 13 water units could be made available (for a
total of 14 units) to the property.
27. Wastewater: As there is no County sewer line in this area, each lot resulting from the
proposed subdivision will be serviced by individual wastewater systems meeting with the
requirements and approval of the State Department of Health in conjunction with the
building permit process.
28. Solid Waste: There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. According
to the applicant, solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers, who will dispose of
-9-
the refuse at authorized landfill sites.
29. Utilities and Services: The property has access to electricity, telephone, and internet
services. Police, fire, and medical services are available nearby in Kailua-Kona.
AGENCY COMMENTS
30. State Department of Health: (Planning Department Exhibit 2 - October 17, 2024
letter)
31. State Department of Transportation: (Planning Department Exhibit 3 - October 22,
2024 letter & Planning Department Exhibit 4 – July 7, 2022 letter)
32. State Office of Planning and Community Development: (Planning Department
Exhibit 5 - October 23, 2024 letter)
AGENCIES - NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
33. Department of Public Works-Engineering Division and Police Department.
AGENCIES – NO RESPONSE
34. Department of Environmental Management, Fire Department, State Department of Land
and Natural Resources.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS
35. Response letter from the applicant: (Planning Department Exhibit 6-November 12,
2024 letter)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
36. None at the time of this writing.
1 | P a g e
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
KULA NEI PARTNERS, LLC
Affecting Tax Map Key: (3) 7-3-007:039; ʻOʻoma 1st and 2nd, North Kona
A. INTRODUCTION OF APPLICANT AND NATURE OF REQUEST
1. Applicant and Landowner
The Applicant and landowner, Kula Nei Partners, LLC, is a limited liability company
whose mailing address is 2697 Waiomao Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816. Managing
members of this company are Robert and Terri Jo Lee, and Frank and Paula Farm, all of
whom have authorized the filing of this application.
2. Applicant’s Request
Kula Nei Partners, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”, is requesting a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Permit to allow for certain exceptions to the Zoning Code in
order to facilitate the development of an 8-lot agricultural subdivision and a bulk
conservation lot on a 40.421-acre parcel identified by TMK: 7-3-007:039 Lot 56-A,
hereinafter referred to as “Subject Property”.
As stipulated by Section 25-6-10,(f) of the Zoning Code regarding criteria for granting of
a PUD Permit, the basic intent of this PUD application is to develop a proposed 8-lot
agricultural subdivision accompanied by a cultural and archaeological preservation area
in a manner that will promote “The development of a harmonious, integrated whole
justifies exceptions, if required to the normal requirements of this chapter, and the
contemplated arrangements or use make it desirable to apply regulations and
requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under the district regulations.”
The Applicant, through this PUD Permit application, is requesting a very limited set of
variances from the Zoning and Subdivision Codes in order to facilitate a subdivision
design that would not otherwise be possible with the current standards and
requirements specified by the Hawaiʻi County Zoning and Subdivision Codes.
3. Statement from the Applicant representative, Robert E. Lee, Jr. My name is Robert E. Lee, Jr., and I am a Co-Manager of Kula Nei LLC. The purpose of this narrative is to further elaborate on the intentions of Kula Nei LLC in our request to acquire PUD approval for the land we now own; TMK (3)-7-3-07:39 Lot 56-A.
Kula Nei is a name that my mother, Elizabeth Maluihi Ako Lee, gave the area and the project. Kula is what the region was originally called by Hawaiians native to the area. "Kula Nei" simply translates to "This is Kula". My mother was a Master Hawaiian Arts Practitioner, as well as a "Manaleo", native Hawaiian language speaker. It was part
2 | P a g e
of her mission in life to pass on the knowledge of the original area names to future generations. She named a lot of places here in Kona for the County as well. An area was
given a name for a specific reason, and the perpetuation of those original names is vital
to the Hawaiian culture & should be respected and preserved.
Kula Nei sits within the ʻOʻoma/Kohanaiki Ahupuaʻa and is an area that my ʻohana has lived in for generations. My grandparents, Kinoulu & Haleaka Kahananui
acquired the property in the 1920s from the Territory of Hawaiʻi. They worked this land,
and were able to raise cattle on it and farm sweet potato. They used common sense,
traditions passed on to them from their kupuna, and sheer determination to support their family from these lands. My mother also spoke of trails they would use to go from the mountain to the ocean. In our ahupuaʻa, one of the trails, although overgrown in some
areas with invasive trees and weeds, is still there. One of the many stories told by my
Mom that stands out in my mind is a story about my grandfather and how he'd leave
home at 4:00am with his horse and mule utilizing these trails from the mountain to the ocean to catch fish with his throw net. He'd return by 10:00am that morning and amazingly, the fish he caught would still be alive! I questioned how this was even possible, and she explained that he would stuff the burlap bag with limu and this kept the
fish alive~talk about fresh fish! The stories she shared with us are numerous and I'm sad
that she will not be able to see this plan come to fruition, but she passed on her knowledge to us, and it is now our moral duty to ensure the next generation knows them as well.
Given my family history, it's obvious why I was eager to reclaim ownership of
these lands when they became available. Our goal is to create a community for other local families to live and grow in. Within my own family, we number in the hundreds, and my children and grandchildren have all been raised in the immediate area. There is pride in the ownership of land and a sense of power & strength that comes with ties to our
kupuna & culture. To be able to provide an opportunity for young, native Hawaiians and
others, local to Hawaiʻi, to live and work in our community is not just good for them, but for the future of our town and this island. The driving force behind the design we are submitting for our PUD is the
preservation of the many significant cultural and archaeological sites, as well as the
native plants. The Shopoff Group, who previously owned these lands, had received approval from the State to develop 270 lots on these properties. It's obvious that many of the sites we plan to preserve would've been destroyed. As a lineal descendant of this area, I feel that it is my responsibility to prevent this from happening. We appeared
before the State Land Use Commission, and relinquished the urban status secured by the
previous developer and thus returning the land to Agricultural status. On this first parcel, we hope to develop (8) lots ranging in size from two to five acres. It is also our intention to propagate and preserve the native Hawaiian indigenous and endemic plants species within the petitioned area as much as possible to assist in the repopulation of the plants
originally found there. There are lama trees that remain on the property that are as old
as the last lava flow that came through the area. It is important to keep the "country" look of the area while creating a "family type" subdivision. With this in mind, we want to develop the PUD in accordance with the Kona Community Development Plan.
3 | P a g e
If the PUD approval is granted, we will proceed with the development of Lot 56-A. Our PUD reflects our intention to create eight (8), two, three and five acre
agricultural parcels that will be available to local families with the possibility that they
may apply for an additional farm or ʻohana dwelling as allowed by the State of Hawaiʻi
and the County of Hawaiʻi within its Agricultural-designated districts, should they choose to in the future. There will be a lot of open, undeveloped native forest around the area leaving a “green buffer” between Kula Nei and the surrounding subdivisions.
We appreciate your time and consideration and are hopeful that our PUD
receives your approval. It is our goal to create a community that families can be proud to live in and where we can continue to honor our kupuna and their legacy. A place where families can remember what it was like to grow up in old Hawaiʻi, where culture
and heritage were important and belonging to a community where kids can play safely,
and neighbors look out for one another. Progress in life is often inevitable, but if we can
develop in a way that shows respect for the land and an understanding that we are merely stewards of it, we can raise a community and a generation with a greater appreciation of where they came from.
4. Location of Subject Property
The subject property, consisting of just over 40 acres, is situated adjacent to and
immediately south of Kona Acres Subdivision-Unit II and immediately west (makai) of
Kona Hills Estates Subdivision within the North Kona District at between the 850 and
1,120-foot elevations as shown on Figure 1-Location Map and Figure 2-Project Site &
Parcels Composite Map.
Figure 1-Location Map
4 | P a g e
Figure 2-Project Vicnity Map
5. Statement of Objectives and Reasons for the request
The purpose for the requested PUD Permit is to promote the development of an 8-lot
agricultural subdivision, consisting of lot sizes ranging from two (2) to five (5) acres, that
avoids the many significant cultural and archaeological sites that exist within the subject
property, as shown below in greater detail by Figure 3-PUD Concept Master Plan.
The Subject Property is currently zoned Agricultural-minimum lot size of 5 acres (A-5a).
With an overall land area of just over 40 acres, the zoning would allow for a maximum
total of eight (8) 5-acre sized lots. However, such large lots, along with its minimum
building site average width requirements, will fail to ensure the preservation and proper
management of the many cultural and archaeological resources that exist within the
Subject Property. Through this PUD Permit application, the Applicant is requesting relief
from the minimum 5-acre minimum lot size requirements and the minimum building
site average width and related requirements of the Zoning Code in order properly
configure the proposed 8-lot agricultural subdivision along with a bulk lot that will be
encumbered with a preservation easement and held by a single 501(c)(3) organization
that will ensure the protection and proper management of the important cultural and
archaeological features identified within the Subject Property.
5 | P a g e
A primary benefit of the intended smaller lot sizes is to provide for more affordable
agricultural homestead opportunities to local families. The preservation of the
Applicant’s native Hawaiian culture, as well as the protection of the native plants within
the Subject Property have been the driving force behind the project layout & design.
The option to have multi generations of the Applicant’s family being able to live
together on the same property has also been something that is very close to their
hearts, and is something that they have always done from the great grandparents down
through their great-grandchildren. Therefore, the Applicant envisions each buildable lot
within Kula Nei to be able to qualify for a second (additional) farm dwelling, as long as
there is water availability and sufficient area for a compliant wastewater disposal
system.
6. Proposed Kula Nei Project Details
a. 8-lot subdivision with lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 2-acres to a maximum of
around 5-acres.
b. Bulk cultural and archaeological preservation lot, anticipated to be just under 14-
acres in size, with no habitable structure to be permitted.
i. Identified archaeological features will be protected and a preservation buffer
established in accordance with State Historic Preservation Division
requirements and as shown on Figure 3-PUD Concept Master Plan
ii. Areas not affected by any archaeological preservation buffer will be used as a
nursery for the propagation of native Hawaiian indigenous and endemic
plants for landscaping throughout the proposed subdivision as well as for
commercial purposes. Minor agricultural structures, such as storage sheds
and greenhouses, may be established on this bulk preservation lot to support
operations solely related to the nursery and maintenance of the
archaeological preservation sites.
c. Access to all proposed lots will be provided by a private roadway constructed to
County-non-dedicable agricultural standards (Department of Public Works Standard
Detail R-25). This private roadway will be paved to a point at least 50 feet beyond
the common boundary of Lot 56-A-3 and 56-A-4 to ensure adequate access for all
proposed lots. The road right-of-way, however, will be extended through the entire
length of the Subject Property and stub-out at its common boundary with Parcel
038, Lot 57 in order to provide for future interconnection opportunities between
properties. The Applicant will ensure proper rights of access and utility over this
non-dedicable agricultural road will be granted in favor of Parcel 038.
d. Water system to each of the 8 buildable lots will be provided by the County. A total
of 14 water units are available, as confirmed by the Department of Water Supply via
a letter dated May 28, 2024 (See Exhibit A).
e. Individual wastewater systems approved by the State Department of Health will
serve each of the 8 buildable lots.
DATE:
REV#ISSUE DATE COMMENT
SCALE:
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
FILE:
SHEET
OF ★★★·
WA PGPG SITE PLAN
09-23-2024
230418E1
1 1
LOT 56-A - O'OMA, N. KONA, ISLAND OF HAWAII
T.M.K. (3) 7-3-007:039
AS SHOWN KULA NEI PARTNERS, LLC
CIVIL GRADING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS FOR THE KULA NEI SUBDIVISION0FEET80160Figure 3 – PUD Concept Master Plan
7 | P a g e
7.List of Requested Deviations from the Zoning Code
In order to accomplish these stated objectives, the Applicant is requesting, through this
PUD Permit application, the following code exceptions as detailed below:
Zoning Code Section Requested Exception
Section 25-4-30. Minimum street frontage.
The following minimum street frontage standards apply to every
building site:
(b)One hundred feet for any building site in a zoning district providing
for a minimum building site of over one acre, except for flag lots, any
building site located at the end of a cul-de-sac, and any building site
where the access to the building site is by means of a roadway
easement.
(c) The width of the pole or fifteen feet for any flag lot.
(d) Fifteen feet for any building site located at the end of a cul-de-sac.
(e) No street frontage shall be required for any building site where
access to the building site is by means of a roadway easement.
The Applicant requests that the requirements of
Section 25-4-30 be waived to:
•Allow a minimum roadway frontage of 140
feet for each proposed habitable lot in lieu of
the minimum 200 feet of roadway frontage
based on existing A-5a zoning. This is
consistent with minimum roadway frontage for
a FA-2a zoning district as each proposed
habitable lot will be no less than 2 acres in size.
•Allow a minimum roadway frontage of 15 feet
(minimum width for access pole) for the
proposed cultural and archaeological
preservation lot, which will not be habitable.
This lot will have direct access to the proposed
private subdivision roadway.
Section 25-4-31 Minimum building site area; minimum average width.
(a) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, each main building must
be located on a building site having not less than the established
zoning district minimum building site area.
(b) Any building site which has less area or width than that required by
the established zoning district, may be used as a legal building site;
provided that the owner of the building site owns no adjoining
property at the same time.
(c) A building site shall be deemed to conform to the requirements for
building site average width if any portion of the building site
considered separately has the minimum building site area with the
minimum average width.
The Applicant requests that the requirements of
Section 25-4-31 be waived to allow for:
•Minimum building site area of 2 acres in lieu of
the 5-acres based on the existing A-5a zoning
district.
•Minimum building site area average width of
140 feet in lieu of 200 feet based on existing
A–5a zoning district.
Section 25-4-32 Reduction of building site area below minimum area
(a) A building site may not be reduced below the established zoning
district minimum building site area, and an existing building site,
which is below the minimum building site area, may not be further
reduced in area, except as provided under section 25-3-5.
The Applicant requests that the requirements of
Section 25-4-32(a) be waived to allow for:
•Minimum building site area of 2 acres in lieu of
5-acres based on the existing A-5a zoning
district.
•Minimum building site area average width of
140 feet in lieu of 200 feet based on existing A-
5a zoning district.
Section 25-5-74. Minimum building site area.
The minimum building site area in the A district shall be five acres.
The Applicant requests that the requirements of
Section 25-5-74 be waived to allow for:
•Minimum building site area of 2 acres.
Section 25-5-75. Minimum building site average width.
Each building site in the A district shall have a minimum average width
of two hundred feet for the first five acres of required area plus twenty
feet for each additional acre of required area. Provided that no building
site shall be required to have an average width greater than one
thousand feet.
The Applicant request that the requirements of
Section 25-5-75 be waived to allow for:
•Minimum building site average width of 140
feet, consistent with an FA-2a zoning district.
8 | P a g e
8.Anticipated Timeframe for Development
Should the PUD Permit be approved by the end of 2024, the Applicant will promptly file
a subdivision application with the Planning Department. Anticipated completion of the
subdivision is expected within 5 years from the date of approval of the PUD Permit, or
by the end of 2029.
B.RELEVANT HISTORICAL PROPERTY INFORMATION
9.October 21, 2008: State Land Use Commission (LUC) approves Urban classification for
129.99 acres of land that includes the Subject Property and other adjoining lands shown
in Figure 4 – Shopoff Petition Map, then owned by The Shopoff Group, L.P. ("Shopoff”).
Attached as LUC Decision and Order as Exhibit B-Docket A06-770. Petitioner Shopoff
proposed the development of approximately 270 residential units, including
approximately 216 to 220 single-family homesites as well as affordable housing units
that were needed to conform to County of Hawai'i affordable housing requirements.
Also proposed were a 4.4-acre private community park, a wastewater treatment plant,
individual wastewater systems, an offsite drinking water well, storage reservoirs, water
transmission lines, an internal roadway circulation system, and offsite roadway
connections.
10.December 6, 2010: Petitioner Shopoff notifies the LUC that Petition area was scheduled
to be conveyed to Central Pacific Bank. Conveyance consummated on December 15,
2010.
11.December 9, 2014: Kula Nei Partners, LLC, a Hawaiʻi limited liability company, acquired
the petition area from Central Pacific Bank.
12.June 9, 2016: CON-16-000329 (see Figure 5 – CON-16-000329) allowed for the
consolidation of Lot 56, consisting of 39.420 acres, with the adjoining lot within Kona
Acres subdivision identified as Lot 63, consisting of 43,705 square feet, resulting in
Lot 56-A consisting of 40.421 acres. This consolidation action provided the Subject
Property with direct frontage with Kukuna Street.
13.July 11, 2019: State Land Use Commission orders the reversion of the 129.99-acre
petition area, which includes the Subject Property, from its previous Urban District
classification to the Agricultural District due to lack of substantial commencement of the
proposed 270-lot development by former Petitioner Shopoff. The Successor Petitioner,
Kula Nei Partners LLC, stipulated that it has not, and does not intend to comply with the
representations and conditions of the LUC Decision and Order dated October 21, 2008
and did not oppose the LUC order to revert the 129.99-acre Petition Area to its former
Agricultural land use classification, as reflected in Exhibit C – Decision and Order
Reverting the Petition Area.
9 | P a g e
Figure 4 – Shopoff Petition Map
10 | P a g e
Figure 5 – CON-16-000329
11 | P a g e
C. LAND USE AND OTHER REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
14. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Low Density Urban
The County of Hawaiʻi General Plan is the policy document for the long-range
comprehensive development of the island of Hawaiʻi. The General Plan Land Use
Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map classifies the Subject Property and immediately
surrounding area for Low Density Urban uses. The existing A-5a zoning of the Subject
Property and its proposed minimum 2-acre sized agricultural lots via the issuance of the
requested PUD Permit zoning are consistent with the Low Density Urban designation.
Low Density Urban consists of single-family residential uses with ancillary community
and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses with an
overall residential density of up to six units per acre. (see Figure 6 - General Plan LUPAG
Map)
15. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural.
The Subject Property is situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. (see
Figure 7 - State Land Use Map). The State Land Use Law (Chapter 205, Hawaiʻi Revised
Statute) defines the use of such designated lands for agricultural and its related
purposes, while maintaining a minimum lot size of no less than one (1) acre. The
proposed Kula Nei project, an agricultural subdivision with minimum lot sizes of no less
than two (2) acres, will be consistent with the intent and purpose of the State Land Use
Agricultural District.
16. County Zoning: Agricultural-minimum 5-acre lot size (A-5a)
The Agricultural (A) zoning district provides for agricultural and very low density
agriculturally-based residential use, encompassing rural areas of good to marginal
agricultural and grazing land, forest land, game habitats, and areas where urbanization
is not found to be appropriate. With a zoning of A-5a, the required minimum lot size
within this zoning district is 5 acres. (see Figure 8 - Existing Zoning). As previously
mentioned, this PUD Permit application seeks relief from this minimum lot size
requirement in order to allow for a minimum 2-acre lot subdivision, to be designed
around a large cultural and archaeological preservation lot. The requested PUD Permit,
as detailed above, requests a number of exceptions related to minimum lot and building
site configuration, but does not increase overall permitted density nor introduce a use
that is inconsistent with the existing A-5a zoning district classification.
12 | P a g e
Figure 6 – General Plan LUPAG Map
Figure 7 – State Land Use Map
13 | P a g e
Figure 8 – Existing Zoning
17. Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP)
The Kona Community Development Plan (“KCDP”) became effective on September 10,
2008 (Ordinance No. 08 116). The County Council approved a slate of interim
amendments to the CDP on September 18, 2019 that emphasized the CDP as providing a
framework of guidance policies towards future development within the North Kona
district rather than a series of mandates that actually hindered development in specific
locations rather than promoting reasonable approaches to such development that in the
end, accomplishes the very intent of what the CDP was attempting to achieve in the first
place.
The Subject Property is situated within the Kona Urban Area (“KUA”) and is not situated
within or in close proximity to any Transient Oriented Development (TOD) area. The
Subject Property is situated within Concurrency Zone D (refer to Figure 9 – Portion of
Kona CDP Concurrency Map), which identifies the proposed extension of Kealakaʻa
Street (9A) from Hina Lani Street south of the Subject Property northward to Holoholo
Street.
14 | P a g e
Figure 9 – Portion of Kona CDP Concurrency Map
Note that Section 25-2-46 of the Zoning Code regarding Concurrency requirements
applies only to a zoning amendment or request for an extension of time to perform a
conditions of a zoning amendment, none of which are being requested by the Applicant
via this PUD Permit application. Therefore, the issuance of a PUD Permit to support the
proposed Kula Nei project will not conflict with the KCDP nor be subject to any “area
mitigation” requirements.
D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
18. Project Site Description: The Subject Property (see Figure 10 – Aerial View), consisting
of 40.421 acres, is roughly shaped as an irregular rectangle and is situated adjacent to
the south of Kona Acres, and immediately makai of Kona Hills Estates. As previously
mentioned, the Subject Property resides approximately between the 920 and 1,150-foot
elevations, with an average slope of 10 to 12 percent from its highpoint along its mauka
(east) boundary to its lowpoint at its makai (west) boundary. The project site is
currently vacant of any structures or uses with an extensive cover of dense vegetation.
Portions of the Subject Property along the alignment of the proposed subdivision access
road from Kukuna Street, has been grubbed and graded. Previous grubbing activities
have occurred along the entire perimeter boundary of the Subject Property, although
much of it has now become overgrown.
15 | P a g e
19. Description of Surrounding Area: The Subject Property is situated adjacent to existing
agricultural subdivisions (Kona Acres and Kona Hills Estates) that maintain lots as small
as one (1) acre in size. The Applicant owns two contiguous properties, both with no
immediate plans for any use or development (see Figure 10 – Aerial View).
Figure 10 – Aerial View
20. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The US Corps of Engineers’ Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) designates the Subject Property to be situated within Zone X, or areas not
subject to a 500-year frequency flooding event. (See Figure 11 – FIRM)
21. Flora/Fauna Resources: No professional floral or faunal survey was conducted of the
Subject Property. Identified vegetation consists of mango (Mangifera indica), silver oak
(Gravillea robusta), Christmas-berry (Schinus terebinthifolius), ēkoa (Leucaena
leucocephala), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), kukui (Aleurites moluccana), guava
(Psidium guajava), autograph trees (Clusia rosea), ti (Cordyline fruticosa), and fountain
grass (Pennisetum setaceum), along with other non-native vines, grasses, shrubs, and
weeds.
22. ALISH: Identified as “Other Important Agricultural Land”, which is land other than
“Prime” or “Unique Agricultural Land” that is of state-wide or local importance for the
production of food, feed, fiber and forage crops. The lands in this classification are
important to agriculture in Hawaii yet they exhibit properties, such as seasonal wetness,
16 | P a g e
erodibility, limited rooting zone, slope, flooding, or droughtiness, that exclude them
from the “Prime” or “Unique” classifications.
Figure 11 - FIRM
23. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological inventory survey of the Subject Property
was conducted in 2005 by Rechtman Consulting (Clark and Rechtman 2005) and which
identified nineteen archaeological sites comprised of sixty-six features. Of the nineteen
sites, one site (Site 50-10-28-23834), a Historic era ahupuaʻa boundary wall) was
previously identified by (Haun and Henry 2003) and the remaining eighteen sites were
newly identified by Clark and Rechtman (2005). These nineteen sites consisted of seven
historic walls, a historic era enclosure, a historic era roadway, two trails segments, a
Precontact era habitation modified outcrop, a Precontact era habitation terrace, three
Precontact era habitation lava blisters, one lava blister with human remains, a
Precontact era habitation complex with five features, and an expansive agricultural
complex with forty-four features that extend across the entire project area except at the
access pole from Kukuna Street. All nineteen sites were assessed as significant for their
information content because they have yielded, or are likely to yield information
important to understanding the prehistory or history of the project area. One site was
17 | P a g e
additionally assessed as significant due to `its association with events that have made an
important contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and one site was
additionally assessed as significant for its cultural value because of the presence of
human remains.
The 2005 Rechtman report recommended the preservation of two sites, a lava blister
with human remains and a historic boundary wall. Four sites were recommended for
data recovery. However, upon learning that the data recovery for these four sites
would require backhoe trenching, the Applicant elected to halt all data recovery
excavations and to pursue a preservation treatment for these sites instead. This
decision resulted in “An Archaeological Preservation Plan for Sites 50-10-28-24762,
24764, 24773 and 24776” dated August 2021 prepared by ASM affiliates, included with
this report as Exhibit D. This PUD Permit application represents the implementation of
these preservation measures.
24. Cultural or Native Gathering Rights: According to the Applicant, there are no known
traditional or customary Native Hawaiian cultural rights being practiced within the
Subject Property beyond the family members of the Applicant’s representatives, Robert
and Terri Jo Lee.
25. Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina Analysis: This analysis was commissioned by the Applicant and
prepared by ASM Affliliates in a report dated April 2019 (see Exhibit E-Kula Nei Partners,
LLC, Planned Unit Development, Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina Analysis). According to the
analysis report, the oral history it collected and especially from descriptions given by
Elizabeth Maluihi Ako Lee, mother of the Applicant, describes sweet potato cultivation
taking place within the project area that extended well into the early twentieth century.
The presence of human skeletal remains in a lava blister also reveals the nature of
traditional burial practices of this lava ridden region. During the Historic Period,
following the arrival of cattle and goats, grazing was also practiced on these lands.
During the mid-1800s, following the Māhele ʻĀina, ʻOʻoma 1 and 2 was included in the
government land inventory and by 1898, the larger portion of the subject parcel was
sold to E. M. Paiwa as part of the government homestead program. The latter half of
the 1800s saw the development of various homestead lots, including the ʻOʻoma-Kalaoa
Homesteads community. As the concept of private property developed and to control
the free roaming ungulates, various historic-era walls were constructed that delineated
property boundaries and prevented the wild ungulates from impacting the gardens of
the homesteaders. The oral histories indicate that several of the historic era walls were
constructed by the grandfather of the Applicant. A total of seven historic era walls and
one historic era enclosure were recorded during the 2005 archaeological survey. Prior
to the development of larger and wider roads, foot trails served as the main routes of
travel between the agriculturally fertile uplands and the coastal fisheries of ʻOʻoma.
Two trail segments were recorded on the parcel during the archaeological inventory
survey. As these homestead communities developed, larger roads were constructed to
eased mauka-makai travel for the area residents, one of which was the old ʻOʻoma
18 | P a g e
Homestead Road, which lies just outside but adjacent to the south boundary of the
subject parcel.
Given the culture-historical background presented above combined with the results of
prior archaeological and cultural/oral-historical studies conducted specific to and within
the immediate vicinity of the current project area, it is the finding of the current analysis
that there are no ongoing traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being
exercised or occurring within the subject property
26. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or
mountain areas that traverses the Subject Property. Old ʻOʻoma Homstead Road runs
outside and along the entire southern boundary of the Project Site in a mauka-makai
alignment, and will not be affected by the proposed subdivision.
19 | P a g e
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A. The construction of the project can begin and be completed within a reasonable period of
time from the date of approval.
Should the PUD Permit be approved by the end of 2024, the Applicant will promptly file a
subdivision application with the Planning Department. Anticipated completion of the
proposed 8-lot subdivision is expected within 5 years from the date of approval of the PUD
Permit, or by the end of 2029.
B. The proposed development substantially conforms to the General Plan, any adopted
community development plan or adopted master plan and, if applicable, any adopted
design guidelines and/or standards affecting the project area.
HAWAIʻI COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be
made to better time or stage developments to achieve quality growth. The implications of
these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on
other similar areas in the County.
Land use is one of the principal focal points of public concern and policy. The Land
Use Element of the General Plan provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance
of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide
for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth
goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without
congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and
visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the
County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards
are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's
residents.
In addition to its goals, policies and standards, the General Plan also includes the
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which is a graphic representation of the
document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of all
sectors of the County by presenting a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among
the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for
areas within the County.
The Subject Property is situated within an area designated for Low Density Urban
uses, which consists of single-family residential uses with ancillary community and public
20 | P a g e
uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses with an overall residential
density of up to six units per acre. The proposed subdivision will create a very low density,
agricultural subdivision with minimum lot sizes of no less than 2 acres, complimenting the
adjoining subdivisions of Kona Acres and Kona Hills Estates, both of which host 1-acre sized
lots.
The requested PUD Permit seeks certain exceptions from the Zoning Code to
facilitate the appropriate design of the proposed 8-lot Kula Nei agricultural subdivision that
will promote more affordable agricultural homestead opportunities while ensuring that
cultural and archaeological features are protected and nurtured. The bulk lot preservation
area will include the propagation of native Hawaiian indigenous and endemic plants for
landscaping throughout the proposed subdivision as well as for commercial purposes. The
proposed agricultural lots would complement the nursery operations.
Therefore, approval of this PUD Permit will conform to the following goals and
policies of the LAND USE ELEMENT of the General Plan:
Goal
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
Policies
• Encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the
needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment.
Goals
• To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical,
social and economic needs of the island residents.
More specifically, approval of the requested PUD Permit will also conform to the
following relevant goals and policy regarding the Single-Family Residential component of
the LAND USE ELEMENT:
Goals
• To maximize choices of single-family residential lots and/or housing for residents
of the County.
• To enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities.
Policy
• Incorporate reasonable flexibility in codes and ordinances to achieve a diversity
of socio-economic housing mix and to permit aesthetic balance between single-
family residential structures and open spaces.
21 | P a g e
And most importantly, approval of the requested PUD Permit will also conform to
the following relevant goals and policy regarding the HOUSING ELEMENT:
Goals
• Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people
• 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.
• Encourage and expand home ownership opportunities for residents.
Policy
• Vacant lands in urban areas and urban expansion areas should be made available
for residential uses before additional agricultural lands are converted into
residential uses.
KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Relative to the CDP, Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the
development and eventual County Council adoption of Community Development Plans. The
General Plan states that the CDP “will translate the broad General Plan statements to
specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas.” The General Plan also notes
that should the CDP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered concurrent
with the adoption of the CDP. However, “If there is a direct conflict between the
Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling.”
The Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) identifies the Subject Property is
being situated within the Kona Urban Area and not situated within or in close proximity to
any Transient Oriented Development (TOD) area. The KCDP directs most of the future
growth in Kona to the Kona Urban Area, where growth would be directed to compact
villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to,
existing development.
The proposed Kula Nei agricultural subdivision, while not presenting urban-levels of
density appropriate within the Kona Urban Area, is appropriate given the cultural and
archaeological resources that exist on the Subject Property. With the adjoining agricultural
subdivisions of Kona Acres and Kona Hills Estates, Kula Nei will continue the low-density,
rural land use pattern prevalent within this particular section of North Kona.
22 | P a g e
C. Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the
surrounding area, that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise
specified for the district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high
as that otherwise specified for the district in which the development occurs.
Kula Nei is presented as an 8-lot agricultural subdivision that will not exceed the
permitted density specified by its A-5a zoning district designation while promoting
agricultural opportunities at a more-affordable lot size while respecting the cultural and
archaeological resources that reside within a significant portion of the Subject Property. The
bulk preservation lot also creates an open-space buffer from the adjoining Kona Acres and
Kona Hills Estates subdivision, both subdivisions that maintain minimum lot sizes of only
1 acre as compared with the 2-acre minimum lot size within Kula Nei.
Must credit must be given to the Applicant, who elected to preserve archaeological
features he considers important to his culture, rather than proceeding with data recovery
and its removal in order to optimize the amount of land that can be subdivided and cleared
for a homestead and agricultural activities. Kula Nei is a type of project that is designed to
fit the landform and its resources, and the type of project that should be promoted through
the issuance of a Planned Unit Development Permit.
D. The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to
the normal requirements of Chapter 23 and Chapter 25, Hawai‘i County Code, as
amended, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it desirable to apply
regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under the district
regulations.
As discussed above, the Subject Property has certain physical constraints that prohibit the
implementation of a cookie-cutter, 5-acre minimum lot size subdivision. The proposed Kula
Nei subdivision, in return for limited exception to requirements regarding minimum lot size
and building site average width and lot frontages, will offer a subdivision that respects the
cultural and archaeological heritage of this property that has been passed down by family.
The Applicant noted a previous proposed development of these lands that included about
270 single family residential lots that would have destroyed all of the cultural and
archaeological resources that the Applicant is currently trying to protect and cultivate. The
code exceptions that Applicant is requesting is minor in comparison to the potential loss of
these cultural and archaeological resources. Granting of the PUD Permit is justified, as it
seeks to implement Kula Nei, a project that was designed around the concept of providing
agricultural homestead opportunities, but within an environment that will respect, protect
and promote the cultural and archaeological resources that should define these lands.
23 | P a g e
E. Assessment of archaeological, historic and valued cultural resources.
In view of the Hawaiʻi State Supreme Court's " PASH" and "Ka Paʻakai O KaʻAina"
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. The Subject Property was historically used
for cattle and limited agricultural activities. The property does not host any floral or faunal
resources that are protected, threatened or endangered nor could it be considered as
providing a resource for any cultural practices. Finally, there is no known public access to
mountain or shoreline areas that traverses through the Subject Property. Nevertheless, the
Applicant has recognized the need to protect the archaeological features found within the
Subject Property, while also establishing a nursery that will promote the cultivation of
native Hawaiian plants. Both the protection of these archaeological resources and the
cultivation of native Hawaiian plants are important to Hawaiian history and culture, and
while not actively practiced on the property by anyone other than the Applicant
representative’s family, the Applicant now wishes to be that steward to provide agricultural
opportunities to local families while protecting the important historical and natural
resources that make these lands so special.
With respect to the archaeological resources, the recommendations from the 2005 AIS have
been implemented, thereby mitigating any potential loss of these cultural features.
However, and although not required, it is the intent of the Kula Nei PUD applicant to
preserve, through the creation of green spaces and the avoidance of, the valued cultural,
historical, and natural resources (i.e. native and endemic plants) present within the subject
property. The Applicant’s genealogical ties to these lands and his long-standing efforts to
preserve the vestiges his family’s and the community’s heritage within the traditional
cultural landscape of ʻOʻoma has undoubtedly shaped the proposed Kula Nei PUD plan.
According to the authors of the Ka Paʻakai O KaʻAina analysis that was prepared in support
of this PUD application, they contend that the proposed Kula Nei PUD is a good faith effort
to preserve isolated pockets of remaining traditional cultural landscape of ʻOʻoma, and thus
provide for the protection and enhancement of valued cultural, historical, or natural
resources; and will in no way negatively affect or impair any traditional and customary
native Hawaiian rights.
CONCLUSION
As presented in the discussion above, the Applicant finds that granting of the
proposed Kula Nei PUD will encourage comprehensive, inclusive site planning of the
proposed 8-lot agricultural subdivision in a manner that will be compatible with the
character of the surrounding community and that adapts the design of proposed project to
the particular characteristic of the land.
24 | P a g e
As discussed, approval of the PUD will allow for a project that conforms to the goals,
policies and standards of the General Plan; adheres to the general policies and objectives of
the Kona Community Development Plan (HCDP); will not have a significant adverse impact
upon coastal resources; and would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further
the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare.
An Archaeological Preservation Plan for
Sites 50-10-28-24762, 24764, 24773, and 24776
TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039
2nd Ahupua‘a
North Kona District
Island of Hawai i
FINAL VERSION
Prepared By:
Lokelani Brandt, M.A.
and
Matthew R. Clark, M.A.
Prepared For:
Kula Nei Partners, LLC
c/o Robert E. Lee
73-4529 Kohanaiki Road #8
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
August 2021
ASM Project Number 33740.01
An Archaeological Preservation Plan for
Sites 50-10-28-24762, 24764, 24773, and 24776
TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039
nd
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i i
CHAPTERS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
............................................................... 6
....................................................................................... 6
2. CULTURE-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................8
................................................ 8
................................. 8
-.............................................................................. 8
-...................................... 9
-.......................................................
3. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK ....................................... 13
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESERVATION SITES AND DATA
RECOVERY WORK COMPLETED ........................................................................... 16
--- .........................................................................................................
--- .........................................................................................................
.........................................................................
--- ......................................................................................................... 33
.......................................................
........................................................
--- .........................................................................................................
5. PROPOSED TREATMENT ....................................................................................... 61
- ..........................................
- ................................................................
..................................
..............................................................
.................................................................................................
.......................................................................................
................................................
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX A. .................................................................................................................. 67
- ........................................ 67
APPENDIX B. .................................................................................................................. 69
- .............. 69
APPENDIX C. .................................................................................................................. 72
-
..............................................................................................................................
APPENDIX D. .................................................................................................................. 73
- ........... 73
ii (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
FIGURES
Page
..................................................................................................................................
-3-. ..........................................................3
3.. ................................................................
(. ..................
. ..................................7
6. H -83
........................................................................................................................................9
7.
....................................................................................................................................
8
.....................................................................................................................................................
9. ...............
-. ...........................................
. ................
. ......
()
. ........................................................................................
-. ...........................................
. .........
..............................
- .......................
. ........................................................................................
. ...........................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
S
-. .................................................................................................
- ....................................
-
. ...................................................................................................................................
-
. ..................................................................................................................................
. .........................................................................
. ........
-. ..................................
-. ........ 36
. ............................... 36
30.. .................................. 37
. ..................................... 37
. ............................................ 38
33.. ........................................... 39
.........................................................................................
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i iii
FIGURES
Page
in
. ...........................................................................................................
36.-
. ...........................................................................................................
37.
-3). .................................................................................................
38.
-. ........................................................................................................
39.sp.
-. ............................................................................................
E
-). .................................................................................................
,-. ...................
-
. ..................................................................................................................................
. .......................................................................
-. ...............................................
...........................................
..................................
...........................................................................................................
Si . ........................................
.......................................
.......................................
. .......................................................................................... 60
-. ............. 63
TABLES
Page
...............................................................
................................................................................................................
...........................
- ........
-
................................................................................................................................................
- .........
-3.
.....................................................................................................................
8.- .....
9.-
....................................................................................................................
.........................................................
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
1. INTRODUCTION
A P P (APP)---
.
-3-nd
,3).
-“”
I
S
. An APP
-
.
-SHPD
-
-SHPD ASM
APP. -SHPD
.
This APP A --3
-
.
---
-
-
This APP
-
776
AIS
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 3 .7-3-007.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
3. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. (.
6 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
n
-A, TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039 .
.
is in
.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
-nd
,3)
-3--3-
)-3-0
)s
d
,
,
-
),
-), (),
(
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 7
.
.
-
8 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
2. CULTURE-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
nd -
-----
)
—-
.
-
-
-
Transformation of the Traditional Land Tenure System
,
.
-
-
(3) .
, nd.,
nd
.
,
N
.
nd
-1864)
“”
.
(HAS - -).
-
nd K.
nd,
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 9
)-nd
-
-6
6. -83 .
The Government Homesteading Prog -19th Century)
.
.
-
-
, .
. S
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
-
-“”
–
nd,
-
—
.
nd -
‘-
7).
7)
7 7
.
7.
.
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Twentieth-
—
—
“” ‘
.
-
—,
-
.
--.
-
nd
,
. 8)
()
-
,
9 ,
.
-
n --
,
.
.
-,
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
9. .
3. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK
3) 7-3-007:039,
. A AIS
TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039
-3-.
-)--
-)H
)
)-
--
,
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 1. Archaeological sites recorded by
SIHP Site
No.*Formal Type Functional
Type Age Significance
Recommended
Treatment
d **
d
d
d
24762 Modified outcrop Habitation Precontact d Data recovery
d
24764 Terrace Habitation Precontact d Data recovery
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
24773 Complex Habitation Precontact d Data recovery
d
24776 Complex Agriculture Precontact d Data recovery
---
**-.
Bold
n), ). -
-).
n APP
, -SHPD
-SHPD ).
s p
-
-). s
-.
—---
-
—----
---
—--
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
-
-
(
------
---
---
---
“”
3
Table 2. Contents of the Lee Collection
Box
#
Type Contents Fullness Box Siz
(l x w x h)
Notes
3.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 3. Copy of Haun & Associates field accession record included with the Lee Collection
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESERVATION SITES AND DATA
RECOVERY WORK COMPLETED
.n
.
s.
s. Th
'
.
SITE 50-10-28-24762
-
[
,
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
-
--
-
-
-
. -.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
.
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
-
-
,
. ()
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
SITE 50-10-28-24764
-
p
s
.
-
--
-
(-
-
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. -.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. -.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
--
. s
.
.
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Data Recovery Findings at Site 24764
--
-
---
-
-
-
-
. S
-.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 4. Corresponding layers and levels for EU-1, Site 24764 from Haun & Association Data
Recovery
cmbd Layer Level Description
-I
-II
-II 3
-II
-II
-III
-III 6
-III 7
-III 8
-III 9
-III
-III
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i .-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 5. Cultural material recovered from Site 24764, EU-1.from Haun & Associates
Data Recovery
Acc.
#Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI
Weight
(g)
I sp.
-
- -
II 7 -
sp.
sp.-
-
6 -
sp.
-
sp.- 0.07
-
36 - 6.88
sp.3 -
sp.6 -
sp - 0.06
A.- -
)- -
- -
003 II 3 -
3 -
sp.
0.79
sp.-
- -
sp.- -
- - 7.79
- - 3.67
sp.3 -
sp.-
- -
A.- -
- - 7.63
- -
A.- -
II -
-- 38.76
-
- -
- -
sp.-
sp.-
sp.
sp.6 -
- -
sp.
- -
sp.-
Table 5 continues on next page.
30 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 5 continued.
Acc.
#Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI
Weight
(g)
A.7 - 6.
7 -
A.6 -
II --
--
sp.-
3 3
- -
sp - 0.39
A.-
- -
A.9 -
006 II 6 --
--
*- 7.86
- -
6 -
sp.7 -
- -
sp.-
- -
sp.-
sp.- 0.06
A.- -
A.- -
- -
007 III 6 3 -
- - 66.67
-
sp.- -
-
sp.- -
sp.- -
- -
- - 8.38
- 0.06
sp.
-
0.86
- -
A.- -
- -
A.- -
008 III 7 --8.30
- -
sp.
- -
*-
A.3 -
Table 5 continues on next page.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 5 continued.
Acc.
#Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI
Weight
(g)
-
009 III 8 --
sp.-
sp.- -
sp.
- -
A.- 0.93
-
- - 3.36
III 9 --
sp.- -
- -
- -
A.-
A.-
- -
III -
sp.-
- - 0.83
III 7 -
- -
-
- -
III -
sp.3 -
0
- -
A.- - 0.77
- 0.99
-
-
sp.-
End of Table 5
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. -
.
. -
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 33
SITE 50-10-28-24773
-
-
-E)
--[.
-
[
[
s
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
B
[
0.9
[30
C
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
[
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
. -.
36 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. -
.
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 37
30. .
. .
38 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
D
-).
[
E
[33
-
-
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 39
33. .
-
-
).
-
36
,
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. in
.
36. -
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Data Recovery Findings at Site 24773, Feature A
---3,
--
-3 in 37 -3
-37 -3
-6
-3
.s
7.--
38)
39). -3
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
37.
-3).
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 6. Corresponding levels for EU-3, Site 24773, Feature A from Haun & Associates Data
Recovery
cmbd Layer Level Description
-30 I
30-I
-I 3
-II 3
-60 II
60-70 II
70-80 II 6
80-90 II 7
90-II 8
-II 9
-II
-II
-III
-III
Table 7. Cultural material recovered from Site 24773 Feature A, EU-3.artifact) from Haun &
Associates Data Recovery
Acc. # Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI Weight (g)
I -
-
sp.-
- 3.66
I -
- -
sp.- -
sp.- -
-
-
- -
I 3 --
- - 8.66
- -
sp.3 -
- -
- -
- -
II 3 --
sp.- -
- -
- - 3.60
- -
- -
Table 7 continues on next page.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 7 continued
Acc. # Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI Weight (g)
II --
- -
sp.- -
sp.- -
sp.- -
- -
- -
-
- -
II --
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - 9.08
- -
II 6 --
- -
- -
- -
- -
II 7 --
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 0.07
- -
II 8 --
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
II 9 *-3.83
- -
sp.- -
sp.*-
sp.- - 0.37
-
- -
sp.-
- -
sp.- - 0.86
- - 7.08
- 3.67
-
Table 7 continues on next page.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 7 continued.
Acc. # Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI Weight (g)
030 II --
-
sp.-
-
”-
II -
- -
0.90
- -
”-
III -
sp.-
-
- - 0.77
- -
”-
033 III -0.03
3 -
”-
End of Table 7.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
38. -3,
.
39. sp.
-.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Data Recovery Findings at Site 24773, Feature E
---
,
-in . -
-8
-).-
9.-
. -
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. E
-).
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 8. Corresponding levels for EU-2, Site 24773, Feature E from Haun and Associates’ Data
Recovery
cmbd Layer Level Description
38-I
38-II
-III 3
-68 III
-68
68-78
78-80 6
. ,-.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 9. Cultural material recovered from Site 24773 Feature E, EU-2. from Haun &
Associates’ Data Recovery
Acc. # Layer Level Material Taxon/Description Count MNI Weight (g)
II sp.-
II 3 sp.3 -
- 0.97
III -
-
sp.9 -
- - 0.37
*-
-
sp.-
- -
--
. -
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
SITE 50-10-28-24776
[
.
u
(u
is -
d .
) .
-36 in () In
-
--
-
- [.
[. A
n
[
-
[
-
)
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
[.
-
[
-
-
-[
-
-3.
[
[
-
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. .
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
Table 10. Features of Site 24776
Feature # Feature Type Length (m) Width (m) Height m) Attributes
6.7 0.8
3
0.8
0.6
6 0.8
7 3.0 3.0 0.9
8 0.6
9
0.7
0.6
30.0
0.8 0.3
0.8
7.6 0.9
3.7
0.6
7.8 0.3
0.6
0.7
0.9 0.6
30 0.9 0.3
0.6
0.8
33 8.8
0.7
0.6
36 0.7
37 0.6
38 3.9 0.6
39 8.0 0.7
6.0 3.0
8.0
0.9
Data adapted from Clark and Rechtman (2005:105)
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. -.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
. .
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
. ).
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
60 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
.
.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
5. PROPOSED TREATMENT
-
--
. This
,
. -
INTERIM PRESERVATION MEASURES- BUFFER ZONE
s.
.
,-SHPD -
LONG-TERM PRESERVATION MEASURES
-
. N
.
s. T
Return of Cultural Recovered Material & Curation of Artifacts
.
Backfilling of the Exposed Excavation Units
,
s
Maintenance Measures
s
-
-
s ,.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
-
EDUCATIONAL LITERATURE
39
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESERVATION PLAN
--
-
---
6E-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 63
. -.
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
REFERENCES CITED
.In
1891
- ---
-3-
HI.
-7-3--7-3-
-
-
n.d.
-,
-3-
HI.
------
(3) 7-3-
-
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
---, TMK: (3) 7-3-
-
---: (3) 7-3-
-
-----,
-6.
-
-
“”
–
-7-3-
-
--A.
A
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 67
APPENDIX A.
JANUARY 2, 2008 DLRN-SHPD AIS APPROVAL LETTER
68 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 69
APPENDIX B.
JUNE 8, 2016 DLRN-SHPD PRESERVATION PLAN
APPROVAL LETTER
70 (3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
APPENDIX C.
DECEMBER 10, 2019 DLRN-SHPD BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN
APPROVAL LETTER
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i 73
APPENDIX D.
JUNE 8, 2016 DLRN-SHPD DATA RECOVERY PLAN APPROVAL LETTER
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
(3) 7-3-007:039,nd,,i
KULA NEI PARTNERS, LLC
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Aina Analysis
April 2019
Lokelani Brandt, M.A.
Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D.
ASM Affiliates
Kula Nei Partners, LLC has made application for an eight lot Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 40.421 acres
within Tax Map Key (TMK): 7-3-007:039 in ‘O‘oma 2 Ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i (Figures 1,
2 and 3). In conjunction with this development, ASM Affiliates (ASM) has conducted a Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Aina
analysis with respect to the State’s obligation to protect native Hawaiian rights as they may exist with respect to
traditional and customary practices and culturally significant places,. The subject property is immediately adjacent to
two other land parcels (to the south and southwest) owned by the applicant that have been held by their family and
traditionally used for several generations.
Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution obligates the State and its agencies, such as the Planning
Commission, “to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians
to the extent feasible when granting a petition for reclassification of district boundaries.” (Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Aina v
Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i 31, 7 P.3d 1068 [2000]). Under Article XII, Section 7, the State shall protect all
rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by
ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject
to the right of the State to regulate such rights.
In the September 11, 2000 Hawai‘i Supreme Court landmark decision (Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Aina v Land Use
Commission), an analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional
native practices specific to Hawaiian communities was created. The Court’s decision established a three-part process
relative to evaluating such potential impacts: first, to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural
resources are present; and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are
exercised; second, to identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the
proposed action; and third, to specify the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the regulatory body to reasonably
protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. In the context of the current development proposal, the County
of Hawai‘i Planning Director (letter from Michael Yee to Riehm Owensby Planners Architects, LLC dated December
11 2017) specifically requested that the applicant provide such an analysis.
In an effort to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present within the proposed
project area and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are, or have been,
exercised (the first part of the analytical process); historical archival information was investigated, and prior cultural
studies that included consultation and oral-historical interviews were reviewed. A summary of this analysis is
presented below.
Review of Cultural-Historical Background for ‘O‘oma
Over the generations, the ancient Hawaiians developed a sophisticated system of land and resources management. By
the time ‘Umi-a-d of Hawai‘i in ca. 1525, the island (moku-puni) was divided into six
districts or moku-o-loko (Fornander 1969). On Hawai‘i, the district of Kona is one of six major moku-o-loko within
continues to the summit of Mauna Loa, where Kona is joined by the dis Kona, like
other large districts on Hawai‘i, was subdivided into ‘okana or kalana (land regions comprised of a number of
ahupua‘a, yet smaller than the moku). In the district now known as Kona ‘kau (North Kona), are several ancient
regions (kalana). While the southern portion of North Kona was known as , interpretively translated
as: Kona of the distant horizon clouds above the ocean, and included the area extending from Lanihau (the present-
day vicinity of Kailua Town) to Pu‘uohau (now known as Red Hill). The northern-most portion of North Kona was
affectionately referred to as Kekaha, a descriptive term used to describe aridness of this region. Native residents of
the region referred to their homelands as Kekaha-wai-‘ole-o--Kona (Waterless Kekaha of the Kona District), or
simply as the ‘, literally translated as arid lands. It is within this region of Kekaha, that the lands of ‘O‘oma
are found. The ahupua‘a of ‘O‘oma (historically, ‘O‘oma 1st and 2nd) are two of some twenty-three ancient ahupua‘a
within the ‘okana of Kekaha-wai-‘ole-o--Kona. The place name ‘O‘oma has been literally translated as concave
(Pukui et al. 1974). To date, no tradition explaining the source of the place name has been located, though it is possible
that the name refers to the indentation of the shoreline fronting a portion of ‘O‘oma.
Ahupua‘a are land divisions that typically incorporated all of the eco-zones from the mountains to the sea and for
several hundred yards beyond the shore, assuring a diverse subsistence resource base (Hommon 1986). Although the
ahupua‘a land division typically incorporated all of the eco-zones, their size and shape varied greatly. Ahupua‘a were
further divided into smaller parcels of land. Such parcels including the were used for both horticulture and
habitation, while other parcels such as the , and , etc.), were used almost exclusively for
small scale gardening and horticultural practices. In this portion of Kona, these horticultural fields were often marked
by stone alignments (kuaiwi) that are generally oriented in a mauka-makai direction. In these smaller land parcels, the
native tenants tended fields and cultivated crops necessary to sustain their families, and the chiefly communities with
which they were associated.
Entire ahupua‘a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed konohiki or lesser
chief-landlords, who answered to an ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a (chief who controlled the ahupua‘a resources). The ali‘i-‘ai-
ahupua‘a in turn answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire district). Thus, ahupua‘a
resources supported not only the and ‘ohana who lived on the land, but also contributed to the support
of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian
life and was the product of strictly adhered to resources management planning. As long as sufficient tribute was offered
and kapu (restrictions) were observed, the (common people), who lived in a given ahupua‘a had access
to most of the resources from mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied to
residency on a particular land, and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship of the natural
environment, and supplying the needs of the ali‘i (Kamakau 1992; Malo 1951).
While there are only limited native accounts that have been recorded about ‘O‘oma, we do know that the land
was so esteemed, that during the youth of Kauikeaouli (later known as Kamehameha III), the young prince—son of
—was taken to be raised near the shore of ‘O‘oma under the care of
his steward Kaikio‘ewa from infancy until he was about five years old (Kamakau 1992). Again, this is a significant
part of the history of this land, as great consideration went into all aspects of the young king’s upbringing
Kamakau 1992). In addition to this, a few place names within ‘O‘oma were discussed in traditional accounts, thus we
have some indication of the histories associated with this land.
Hawaiian Environmental Zones
‘O‘oma Ahupua‘a crosses several traditional environmental zones that are generally called wao. These environmental
zones include the near-shore fisheries and shoreline strand (kahakai) and the shoreward/inland plains (kula kai/kula
uka). It is within the kula kai/kula uka plains that the Kula Nei Partners, LLC project area is situated. These regional
zones were greatly desired as places of residence by the natives of the land. While the kula region is now likened to a
volcanic desert, native and historic accounts describe or reference groves of native hardwood shrubs and trees such as
(Osteomeles anthyllidifolia), (Diospyros ferrea), uhiuhi (Caesalpina kavaiensis), and ‘ohe or ‘ohe makai
(Reynoldsia sandwicensis) extending across the land and growing some distance shoreward. The few rare and
endangered plants found in the region, along with small remnant communities of native dryland forest (Char 1991)
give an indication that there was a significant diversity of plants growing upon the kula lands prior to the introduction
of ungulates.
The lower kula lands receive only about 10 to 20 inches of rainfall annually, and it is because of their dryness,
the larger region of which ‘O‘oma is a part, is known as “Kekaha.” While on the surface, there appears to be little or
no potable water to be found, the very lava flows which cover the land contain many underground streams that are
channeled through subterranean lava tubes which feed the springs, fishponds and anchialine ponds found along the
kahakai (shoreline) and the kula kai (coastal flats). It is precisely for these reasons that sources of wai or fresh water
within the Kekaha lands was so highly guarded and described in several traditional accounts. Also in this region, on
the flat lands, about a half-mile from the shore, is the famed Alanui Aupuni (Government Trail), built in 1847, at the
order of Kamehameha III. This trail or government roadway, was built to meet the needs of changing transportation
in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and in many places it overlays the older near shore alaloa ancient foot trail that encircled
the island.
Continuing into the kula uka (inland slopes), the environment changes as elevation increases. This zone is called
the wao kanaka (region of man) and wao nahele (forest region). Rainfall increases to 30 or 40 inches annually, where
taller forest growth occurred. This region provided native residents with shelter for residential and agricultural uses,
and a wide range of natural resources that were of importance for religious, domestic, and economic purposes. In
‘O‘oma, this region is generally between the 1,200 to 2,200 foot elevation, and is crossed by the present-day
ala loa, or foot trail, also known as Ke-
The ancient Hawaiians saw (as do many Hawaiians today) all things within their environment as being
interrelated. That which was in the uplands shared a relationship with that which was in the lowlands, coastal region,
and even in the sea. This relationship and identity with place worked in reverse as well, and the ahupua‘a as a land
unit was the thread that bound all things together in Hawaiian life. In an early account written by Kihe (in
Hawai‘i, 1914-1917), with contributions by John Wise and Steven Desha Sr., the significance of the dry season in
Kekaha and the custom of the people departing from the uplands for the coastal region is further described:
– It was during
the season, when the sun moved over Kona, drying and devouring the land, that the chiefs and people
fled from the uplands to dwell along the shore where water could be found to give life to the people. (Ka
It appears that the practice of traveling between upland and coastal communities in ‘O‘oma greatly decreased by
the middle nineteenth century. Indeed, the only claimant for kuleana land in ‘O‘oma, during the of
1848—when native tenants were allowed to lay claim to lands on which they lived and cultivated—noted that he was
the only resident in ‘O‘oma at the time (see Land Claim Award 9162 to Kahelekahi, in this analysis). This is perhaps
explained by the fact that at time of the there was a significant decline in the Hawaiian population, and changes
in Hawaiian land tenure led to the relocation of many individuals from various lands.
Native Traditions and Historical Accounts of ‘O‘oma and the Greater Kekaha Region
This section of the analysis presents mo‘olelo—native traditions and historical accounts (some translated from the
—specific to the uplands of the Kekaha region that span several centuries. There are
very few accounts that have been found to date, that specifically mention ‘O‘oma. Thus, narratives that describe
neighboring lands within the Kekaha region help provide an understanding of the history of these ahupua‘a, describing
features and the use of resources that were encountered on the land. It may be that the reason there are so few accounts
for ‘O‘oma is that this ahupua‘a along with other adjacent lands may have been considered marginal settlement areas,
occupied only after the better situated lands of Kekaha—those lands with the sheltered bays, and where fresh water
could be easily obtained—were populated. As the island population grew, so too did the need to expand to more
remote or marginal lands. This thought is found in some of the native traditions and early historic accounts below.
However, as people populated the Kekaha lands, they came to value its fisheries—those of the deep sea, near shore,
and inland fishponds.
One of the earliest datable accounts that describes the importance of the Kekaha region fisheries comes from the mid-
sixteenth century, following ‘Umi-a-
native historian, Sa
‘Umi-a-Liloa did two things with his own hands, farming and fishing...and farming was done on all the
lands. Much of this was done in Kona. He was noted for his skill in fishing and was called Pu‘ipu‘i a ka
lawai‘a (a stalwart fisherman). Aku fishing was his favorite occupation, and it often took him to the
beaches (Ke-kaha) from Kalahuipua‘a to Makaula[1]. He also fished for ‘ahi and kala. He was
accompanied by famed fishermen such as Pae, Kahuna, and all of the chiefs of his kingdom. He set apart
fishing, farming and other practices… (Kamakau 1992:19–20)
In his accounts of events at the end of ‘Umi’s life, Kamakau (1992) references Kekaha once again. He records
that Ko‘i, one of the faithful supporters and a foster son of ‘Umi, sailed to Kekaha, where he killed a man who
resembled ‘Umi. Ko‘i then took the body and sailed to Maka‘eo in the ahupua‘a of Keahuol . Landing at Maka‘eo in
the night, Ko‘i took the body to the cave where ‘Umi’s body lay. Replacing ‘Umi’s body with that of the other man,
Ko‘i then crossed the lava beds, returning to his canoe at Maka‘eo. From there, ‘Umi’s body was taken to its final
resting place (Kamakau 1961:32-33).
As a child in ca. 1812, Hawaiian historian John Papa ‘ passed along the shores of Kekaha in a sailing ship, as a part
of the procession by which Kamehameha I returned to Kailua-Kona from his residency on O‘ahu. In his narratives,
‘ described the shiny lava flows and fishing canoe fleets of the “Kaha” (Kekaha) lands:
The ship arrived outside of Kaelehuluhulu, where the fleet for aku fishing had been since the early
morning hours. The sustenance of those lands was fish.
‘ater is!” Those
who recognized it, however, said, “That is not water, but pahoehoe. When the sun strikes it, it glistens,
and you mistake it for water…”
Soon the fishing canoes from Kawaihae, the Kaha lands, and Ooma drew close to the ship to trade for the
pa‘i‘ai (hard poi) carried on board, and shortly a great quantity of aku lay silvery-hued on the deck. The
fishes were cut into pieces and mashed; and all those aboard fell to and ate, the women by themselves.
The gentle Eka sea breeze of the land was blowing when the ship sailed past the lands of the Mahaiulas,
Awalua, Haleohiu, Kalaoas, Hoona, on to Oomas, Kohanaiki, Kaloko, Honokohaus, and Kealakehe, then
around the cape of Hiiakanoholae…–110)
Ka-Lani-Kau-i-ke-Aouli (Kamehameha III)
In ca. 1813, Ka-lani- kau-i-ke-aouli, who grew up to become Kamehameha III, was born. S.M. Kamakau (1992) tells
us that the baby appeared to be still-born, but that shortly after birth, he was revived. Upon the revival of the baby, he
was given to the care of Ka-iki-o-‘ewa, who with Keawe-a-mahi and family, raised the child in seclusion at ‘O‘oma
for the first five years of the young king’s life. Kauikeaouli apparently held some interest in the land of ‘O‘oma 2
through the of 1848, as he originally claimed ‘O‘oma 2as his personal property, but later gave it up to
the Kingdom (see records of in this analysis). Kamakau provides us with the following description of
Kauikeaouli’s birth and early life at ‘O‘oma:
Ka-lani-kau-i-ke-aouli was the second son of Ke-opu-o-lani by Kamehameha, and she called him
Kiwala‘o after her own father. She was the daughter of Kiwala‘o and Ke-ku‘i-apo-iwa Liliha, both
children of Ka-lola Pupuka-o-Hono-ka-wai-lani, and hence she [Ke-opu-o- lani] was a ni‘aupi‘o and a
naha chiefess, and the ni‘aupi‘o rank descended to her children and could not be lost by them. While she
was carrying the child [Kau-i-ke-aouli] several of the chiefs begged to have the bringing up of the child,
but she refused until her kahu, Ka-lua-i-konahale, known as Kua-kini, came with the same request. She
bade him be at her side when the child was born lest someone else get possession of it. He was living this
side of Keauhou in North Kona, and Ke-opu-o-lani lived on the opposite side.
On the night of the birth the chiefs gathered about the mother. Early in the morning the child was born
but as it appeared to be stillborn Kua-kini did not want to take it. Then came Ka-iki-o-‘ewa from some
miles away, close to Kuamo‘o, and brought with him his prophet who said, “The child will not die, he
will live.” This man, Ka-malo-‘ihi or Ka-pihe by name, came from the Napua line of kahunas descended
from Makua-kau-mana whose god was Ka-‘onohi-o-ka-la (similar to the child of God). The child was
well cleaned and laid upon a consecrated place and the seer (kaula) took a fan (pe‘ahi), fanned the child,
prayed, and sprinkled it with water, at the same time reciting a prayer addressed to the child of God,
something like that used by the Roman Catholics:—
(Kulia--
Or another—
Lapalapa ka honua i ke keiki
The heavens lighten with the god,
The earth burns with the child,
O son, pour down the rain that brings the rainbow,
There is heaven in the Lord.
Life flows through my spirit,
Dedicated to your law.
The child began to move, then to make sounds, and at last it came to life. The seer gave the boy the name
of “The red trail” (Ke-aweawe-‘ula) signifying the roadway by which the god descends from the heavens.
Ka-iki-o-‘ewa became the boy’s guardian and took him to rear in an out-of-the-way place at ‘O‘oma,
Kekaha. Here Keawe-a-mahi, the lesser chiefs, the younger brothers and sisters of Ka-iki-o-‘ewa, and
their friends were permitted to carry the child about and hold him on their laps (uha). Ka-pololu was the
chief who attended him; Ko‘i-pepeleleu and Ulu-nui’s mother [were] the nurses who suckled him. Later
Ka-‘ai-kane gave him her breast after she had given birth to Ke-kahu-pu‘u. Here at ‘O‘oma he was
brought up until his fifth year, chiefly occupied with his toy boats rigged like warships and with little
brass cannon loaded with real powder mounted on [their] decks. The firing off of these cannon amused
him immensely. He excelled in foot races. On one occasion when the bigger boys had joined in the sport,
a [rascal] boy named Ka-hoa thought to play a practical joke by smearing with mud the stake set up to be
grasped by the one who first reached the goal. He expected one of the larger boys to be the winner, but it
was the little prince who first caught the stick and had his hands smeared. “You will be burnt alive for
dirtying up the prince. We are going to tell Ka-pololu on you!” the boys threatened; but the prince
objected, saying, “Anyone who tells on him shall never eat with me again or play with me and I will
never give him anything again.” Kau-i-ke-aouli was a splendid little fellow. He loved his playmates and
never once did them any hurt, and he was kind and obedient to his teachers… (Kamakau 1992:263-264)
“Kaao Hooniua Puuwai no Ka--Miki)
It is not until the early twentieth century, that we find a few detailed native accounts which tell of traditional features
and residents of ‘O‘oma and the nearby vicinity. The writings of John Whalley Hermosa Isaac Kihe, a native son of
Kekaha, in Hawaiian language newspapers (translat
history of the land and sense the depth of attachment that native residents felt for ‘O‘oma and the larger Kekaha-wai-
‘ole-o--Kona. Kihe (who also wrote under the name of Ka-‘ohu-ha‘aheo-i--kuahiwi-‘ekolu) was born in 1853,
kahuna of the
Kekaha lands). During his life, Kihe taught at various schools in the Kekaha region; served as legal counsel to native
residents applying for homestead lands in ‘O‘oma and vicinity; worked as a translator on the Hawaiian Antiquities
collections of A. Fornander; and was a prolific writer himself. In the latter years of his life, Kihe lived at Pu‘u Anahulu
and Kalaoa, and he is fondly remembered by elder of the Kekaha region. Kihe, who died in 1929, was also
one of the primary informants to Eliza Maguire, who translated some of the writings of Kihe, publishing them in
abbreviated form in her book s (Maguire 1926).
Kihe and his co-authors provide readers with several references to places and events in the history of ‘O‘oma and
neighboring lands. Through the narratives, we learn of place name origins, areas of ceremonial significance, how
resources were managed and accessed, and the practices of those native families who made this area their home. One
example of the rich materials recorded by native writers, is found in “Ka‘ao Ho‘oniua Pu‘uwai no Ka-Miki” (The
Heart Stirring Story of Ka-Miki). This tradition is a long and complex account, that was published over a period of
four years (1914-1917) in the weekly Hawaiian-language newspaper . The narratives were
primarily recorded for the paper by Hawaiian historians John Wise and J.W.H.I. Kihe. While “Ka-Miki” is not an
ancient account, the authors used a mixture of local stories, tales, and family traditions in association with place names
to tie together fragments of site-specific histories that had been handed down over the generations. Also, while the
personification of individuals and their associated place names may not be entirely “ancient,” such place name-person
accounts are common throughout Hawaiian (and Polynesian) traditions. The English translations below are a synopsis
of the Hawaiian texts, with emphasis upon the main events and areas being discussed. Diacritical marks and
hyphenation have been placed to help with pronunciation of certain words.
This mo‘olelo (tradition) is set in the 1300s (by association with the chief Pili-a-Ka‘aiaea), is an account of two
supernatural brothers, Ka-Miki (The quick, or adept, one) and Ma-Ka‘iole (Rat [squinting] eyes). The narratives
describe the birth of the brothers, their upbringing, and their journey around the island of Hawai‘i along the ancient
ala loa and ala hele (trails and paths) that encircled the island. During their journey, the brothers competed alongside
the trails they traveled, and in famed kahua (contest fields) and royal courts, against (experts skilled in fighting
or in other competitions, such as running, fishing, debating, or solving riddles, that were practiced by the ancient
Hawaiians). They also challenged priests whose dishonorable conduct offended the gods of ancient Hawai‘i. Ka-Miki
and Ma-Ka‘iole were empowered by their ancestress Ka-uluhe-nui-hihi-kolo-i-uka (The great entangled growth of
uluhe fern which spreads across the uplands), who was one of the myriad of body forms of the goddess Haumea, the
earth-mother and creative force of nature who was also called Papa. Among her many nature-form attributes were
manifestations that caused her to be called upon as a goddess of priests and competitors. People, places named for
them, and other place names associated with ‘O‘oma appeared in the January 8th edition published in
Hawai‘i are marked below with underlining:
Kapukalua was a son of and Ka‘uluhe. He was an expert at aku lure fishing, and all other methods
of fishing of those days gone by. He married Kauhi‘onohua a beauty with skin as soft as the blossoms of
the , found in the pandanus grove of ‘O‘oma. This girl was pleasingly beautiful, and because of
her fame, Kapukalua, the exceptionally skilled son of the sea spray of ‘Apo‘ula, secured her as his wife.
Here, we shall stop speaking of the elders of Ka-Miki… (Wise and Kihe 1914–1917)
The tradition continues, recounting the training of the brothers, and preparations of their (royal
compound) at Kohanaiki. At the dedication ceremonies it was revealed that one of the kahuna of the Kaha lands, had
taken up the habit of killing people, and that he had also thought to take the lives of Ka-Miki and Ma-Ka‘iole. We
revisit the story here, and learn the name of a priest of ‘O‘oma and Kohanaiki—
…The sun broke forth and the voices of the roosters and the ‘elepaio of the forests were heard resonating
and rising upon the mountain slopes. The day became clear, with no clouds to be seen, it was calm. So
too, the ocean was calm and the shore of La‘i a ‘Ehu (Kona) was calm. The flowers of the upland forest
reddened and unfolded, and nodded gently in the breezes.
The priests gathered together to discuss these events and prepared to apologize to the children of the
chief, asking for their forgiveness. They selected ‘Elepaio, , , and Kalua--uwila
to go before the brothers for this purpose.
‘Elepaio was the high priest of . The place where he dwelt bears the name ‘Elepaio [an ‘ili on
the ‘ulu (kaulu ‘ulu) on the boundary
--iki… [April 23, 1914]
was the high priest of ‘O‘oma and Kohanaiki, the place where he lived is on the plain of Kohanaiki,
at the shore, and bears his name to this day. It is on the boundary between Kohanaiki and ‘O‘oma.
was the high priest of and , that is the waterless land of Kalaoa (Kalaoa
wai ‘ole). The place where he lived was in the uplands of Maulukua on the plain covered with ‘ilima
growth. This place bears his name to this day.
Kalua--uwila was the high priest of Kealakehe and Ke‘ohu‘olu (Keahuolu), and it was he who built
the heiau named Kalua--uwila, which is there along the shore of Kealakehe, next to the road that
goes to Kailua. The nature of this priest was that of a shark and a man. The shark form was named Kaiwi,
and there is a stone form of the shark that can be seen near the heiau to this day.
These priests all went to the door of the house and presented the offerings of the black pig, the red fish,
the black ‘awa, the white rooster, the malo (loin clothes), and all things that had been required of their
class of priests. They also offered their prayers and asked forgiveness for their misspoken words. They
then called for their prayers to be freed and the kapu ended… [April 30, 1914]
Through the 1920s, up to the time of his death in 1929, J.W.H.I. Kihe continued to submit traditional accounts and
commentary on the changing times to the paper, . In 1923, Kihe penned a series of articles, some of
which formed the basis of Eliza Maguire’s s (1926). One of the accounts, “Ka Punawai o Wawaloli” (The
Pond of Wawaloli), describes that the pond of Wawaloli, on the shore of ‘O‘oma, was named for a supernatural ocean being,
who could take the form of the loli (sea cucumber) and of a handsome young man. Through this account it is learned that
people regularly traveled between the uplands and shore of ‘O‘oma; the kula lands were covered with ‘ilima growth; and
that a variety of fish, seaweeds, and shellfish were harvested along the shore. Also, the main figures in the tradition are
memorialized as places on the lands of ‘O‘oma and neighboring ahupua‘a
o Hawai‘i (September 23rd, October 4th 1th, 1923):
The place of this pond (Wawaloli) is set there on the shore of ‘O‘oma near Kalaoa. It is a little pond, and
is there to this day. It is very close to the sandy shore, and further towards the shore there is also a pond
in which one can swim. There is a tradition of this pond, that is held dearly in the hearts of the elders of
this community.
Wawaloli is the name of a loli (sea cucumber) that possessed dual body forms (), that of a
loli, and that of a man!
Above there on the ‘ilima covered flat lands, there lived a man by the name of and his wife,
Kamakaoiki, and their beautiful daughter, Malumaluiki.
One day the young maiden told her mother that she was going down to the shore to gather limu
(seaweeds), (limpets), and pupu (shellfish). Her mother consented, and so the maiden traveled to
the shore. Upon reaching the shore, Malumaluiki desired to drink some water, so she visited the pond and
while she was drinking she saw a reflection in the rippling of the water, standing over her. She turned
around and saw that there was a handsome young man there, with a smile upon his face. He said…
[September 27, 1923] “…Pardon me for startling you here as we meet at this pond, in the afternoon heat
oehoe.”
She responded, “What is the mistake of our meeting, you are a stranger, and I am a stranger, and so we
have met at this pond.” The youth, filled with desire for the beautiful young maiden, answered “I am not
a stranger here along this shore, indeed, I am very familiar with this place for this is my home. And when
I saw you coming here, I came to meet you.”
These two strangers, having thus met, then began to lay out their nets to catch kala, uhu, and , the
native fish of this land. And in this way, the beauty of the plains of Kalaoa was caught in the net of the
young man who dwelt in the sea spray of ‘O‘oma.
These two strangers of the long day also fished for , and then for . It was during this time,
that their lines became entangled like those of the fishermen of Wailua (a poetic reference to those who
become entangled in a love affair).
The desire for the limu, , and was completely forgotten, and the fishing poles bent as the lines
were pulled back in the sea spray. The handsome youth was moistened in the rains that fell, striking the
land and the beloved shore of the land. The sun drew near, entering the edge of the sea and was taken by
Lehua Island. Only then did these two fishers of the long day take up their nets.
Before the young maiden began her return to the uplands, she told the youth, “Tell me your name.” He
answered her, “The name by which I am known is Wawa. But my name, when I go and dwell in the pond
here, is Loli. And when you return, you may call to me with the chant:
Oh great Loli moving back and forth
Doing your work moving back and forth
You are in my mind moving back and forth
The parents moving back and forth
Are at their work moving back and forth
Won’t you arise moving back and forth
To that which we two desire moving back and forth
Your command is desired moving back and forth
Having finished their conversation, the maiden then went to the uplands. It was dark, and the kukui lamps
had been lit in the house. Malumaluiki’s parents asked her, “Where are your limu, and ?” She
replied, “It is proper that you have asked me, for when I went to the shore it was filled with people who
took all there was? Thus I was left with nothing, not even a fragment of limu or anything else. So I have
returned up here.”
Well, the family meal had been made ready, so they all sat to eat together. But after a short while the
maiden stood up. Her parents inquired of this, and she said she was no longer hungry, and that her feet
were sore from traveling the long path. So the maiden went to sleep. She did not sleep well though, and
felt a heat in her bosom, as she was filled with desire, thus she had no sleep that night.
With the arrival of the first light of day, the Malumaluiki went once again down to the shore. Upon
arriving at the place of the pond, she entered the water and called out as described above. Then, a loli
appeared and turned into the handsome young man. They two then returned to their fishing for the kala,
uhu and , the native fish the land.
So it was that the two lovers met regularly there on the shore of ‘O‘oma. Now Malumaluiki’s parents
became suspicious because of the actions of the daughter, and her regular trips to the shore. So they
determined that they should secretly follow her and spy on her.
One day, the father followed her to the shore, where he saw his daughter sit down by the side of the pond.
He then heard her call out —
Oh great Loli moving back and forth
Doing your work moving back and forth
You are in my mind moving back and forth
The parents moving back and forth
Are at their work moving back and forth
[October 4, 1923]
Won’t you arise moving back and forth
To that which we two desire moving back and forth
Your command is desired moving back and forth
“O Loli, here is your desire, the one you command, Malumaluiki, who’s eyes see nothing else.”
Her father then saw a loli coming up from the pond, and when it was up, it turned into the youth. He
watched the two for a while, unknown to them, and saw that his daughter and the youth of the two body
forms (), took their pleasure in one another.
The father returned to the uplands and told all of this to her mother, who upon hearing it, was filled with
great anger, because of the deceitfulness of her daughter. But then she learned that the man with whom
and capture the loli, and beat it to death,” to which he agreed.
pond and called out, and he then memorized the lines spoken by his daughter. When she left, returning
to the uplands, he then went to the pond and looked closely at it. He then saw a small circular opening
near the top of the water in the pond. He then understood that that was where the net in the water. He
then began to call out as his daughter had done with the above words.
When he finished the chant, the loli began to rise up through the hole, and was ensnared in the net.
kula, walking to the uplands. On his way, he saw his daughter
coming down, and he hid until she passed him by.
When the daughter arrived at the pond, she called out in the chant as she always did. She called and called
until the sun was overhead, but the loli did not appear in the pond, nor did he come forward in his human
form. Thus, she thought that he had perhaps died, and she began to wail and mourn for the loss of her
lover. Finally as evening came, the beautiful maiden stood, and ascended the kula to her home.
loli to his wife. Seeing
the loli, she told her husband, “Take it to the kahuna kula of Ho‘ohila.” So
he went to the kahuna and explained everything that had occurred to him, and showed him the loli in his
net. Seeing this and hearing of all that had hap imu in which
to the great loli that moves back and forth (). He said, “When the loli is killed, then
your daughter will be well, so too will be the other daughters of the families of the land.” Thus, the imu
was lit and the supernatural loli cooked.
When the daughter returned to her home, her eyes were all swollen from crying. Her mother asked her,
“What is this, that your eyes are puffy from crying, my daughter?” She didn’t answer, she just kneeled
down, giving no response. At that time, her father returned to the house and saw his daughter kneeling
down, and he said “Your man, with whom you have been making love at the beach has been taken by the
kahuna imu that you may live, that all of the girls who this loli
has loved may live.”
That pond is still there on the shore, and the place with the small round opening is still on the side of that
pond to this day. It is something to remember those things of days gone by, something that should not be
forgotten by those of today and in time to come. [October 11, 1923]
)
The tradition of Ka loko o Paaiea
Hawai‘i in 1914 and 1924. The narratives describe traditional life and practices in various ahupua‘a of Kekaha, and
specifically describes mo‘olelo, include references
as a result of the pond overseer’s refusal to give the goddess Pele—traveling in human form—any fish from the pond:
that time the high chiefs lived on the land, and these ponds were filled with fat awa, ‘anae, , and all
kinds of fish that swam inside. It is this pond that was filled by the lava flows and turned into ,
Konohiki (overseer), Kepa‘alani, who was in
charge of the houses (hale papa‘a) in which the valuables of the King [Kamehameha I] were kept. He
was in charge of the King’s food supplies, the fish, the (long houses) in which the fishing canoes
were kept, the fishing nets and all things. It was from there that the King’s fishermen and the retainers
were provisioned. The houses of the pond guardians and Konohiki were situated at Ka‘elehuluhulu and
In the correct and true story of this pond, we see that its boundaries extended from Ka‘elehuluhulu on the
north, and on the south, to the place called Wawaloli (between ‘O‘oma and Kalaoa). The pond was more
than three miles long and one and a half miles wide, and today, within these boundaries, one can still see
many water holes.
While traveling in the form of an old woman, Pele visited the Kekaha region of Kona, bedecked in
garlands of the ko‘oko‘olau (Bidens
perhaps have an ‘ama‘ama, young , or a few (shrimp) to take home with her. Kepa‘alani,
refused, “they are kapu, for the King.” Pele then stood and walked along the (ocean side wall) of
aku fishing, and were
carrying their canoes up onto the shore…
times, the canoe fleets would enter the
and then return to the sea and go to Kailua and the other places of Kona. Those who traveled in this
manner would sail gently across the pond pushed forward by the ‘Eka wind, and thus avoid the strong
hale
papa‘a) were kept. It was also one of the canoe landings of the place. Today, it is where the light house
stone mound that is partially covered by the of Pele. If this fishpond had not been covered by
the lava flows, it would surely be a thing of great wealth to the government today… [J.W.H.I. Kihe in Ka
Hoku o Hawaii -26, 1914
and May 1-15, 1924].
Later in 1924, Kihe, described the changes which had occurred in the Kekaha region since his youth. In the following
article, titled Na Ho‘omanao o ka Manawa (in June 5th 2th 1924), Kihe wrote about the villages
that were once inhabited throughout Kekaha, identifying families, practices, and schools of the Historic Period (ca.
1860-1924). In the two-ges
that had occurred, including the demise of the families and the abandonment of the coastal lands of Kekaha.
There has arisen in the mind of the author, some questions and thoughts about the nature, condition,
living, traveling, and various things that bring pleasure and joy. Thinking about the various families and
the many homes with their children, going to play and strengthening their bodies.
In the year 1870, when I was a young man at the age of 17 years old, I went to serve as the substitute
teache
illness (ma‘i-lolo, a stroke).
In those days at the Hawaiian Government Schools, the teachers were all Hawaiian and taught in the
Hawaiian language. In those days, the students were all Hawaiian as well, and the books were in
Hawaiian. The students were all Hawaiian… There were many, many Hawaiian students in the schools,
no Japanese, Portuguese, or people of other nationalities. Everyone was Hawaiian or part Hawaiian, and
there were only a few part Hawaiians.
Ka‘ailuwale taught there. At the school of Makalawena, J. Ka‘elemakule Sr., who now resides in Kailua,
was the teacher. At the Kalaoa School, J. U. Keawe‘ake was the teacher. There were also others here,
including myself for four years, J. Kainuku, and J.H. Olohia who was the last one to teach in the Hawaiian
language. At Kaloko, Miss Ka‘aimahu‘i was the last teacher before the Kaloko school was combined as
well... [Kihe includes additional descriptions on the schools of Kona]
It was when they stopped teaching in Hawaiian, and began instructing in English, that significant changes
took place among our children. Some of them became puffed up and stopped listening to their parents.
The children spoke gibberish (English) and the parents couldn’t understand (). Before that
time, the Hawaiians weren’t marrying too many people of other races. The children and their parents
dwelt together in peace with the children and parents speaking together… [June 5, 1924]
…Now perhaps there are some who will not agree with what I am saying, but these are my true thoughts.
Things which I have seen with my own eyes, and know to be true…In the year 1870 when I was substitute
girls, and this school had the highest enrollment of students studying in Hawaiian at that time [in Kekaha].
And the students then were all knowledgeable, all knew how to read and write.
Now the majority of those people are all dead. Of those things remembered and thought of by the people
who yet remain from that time in 1870; those who are here 53 years later, we cannot forget the many
families who lived in the various () land sections of Kekaha.
‘O‘oma, Kalaoa, Hale‘ohi‘u, Maka‘ula,
-
were filled with people in those days.
There were men, women, and children, the houses were filled with large families. Truly there were many
people [in Kekaha]. I would travel around with the young men and women in those days, and we would
stay together, travel together, eat together, and spend the nights in homes filled with aloha.
with whom I traveled with joy in the days of my youth. Those families are all gone, and the land is quiet.
There are no people, only the rocks remain, and a few scattered trees growing, and only occasionally does
one meet with a man today [1924]. One man and his children are all that remain.
Kaloko was the same in those days, but now, it is a land without people. The men, the women, and the
children are all gone, they have passed away. Only one man, J.W. Ha‘au, remains. He is the only native
child (keiki kupa) besides this author, who remains.
At Kohanaiki, there were many people on this land between 1870 and 1878. These were happy years with
the families there. In those years Kaiakoili was the (land overseer)...
Now the land is desolate, there are no people, the houses are quiet. Only the houses remain standing,
places simply to be counted. I dwelt here with the families of these homes. Indeed it was here that I dwelt
with my (guardian), the one who raised me. All these families were closely related to me by
blood. On my fathers’ side, I was tied to the families of Kaloko [J.W.H.I. Kihe’s father was Kihe, his
kahuna of Kaloko]. I am a native of these lands.
The lands of ‘O‘oma, and Kalaoa, and all the way to Kaulana and Mahai‘ula were also places of many
people in those days, but today there are no people. At Mahai‘ula is where the great fishermen of that day
Ka‘elemakule moved from this place [Mahai‘ula] to Kailua where he prospered, but his family is buried
there along that beloved shore (kapakai aloha). He is the only one who remains alive today… At
Makalawena, there were many people, men, women, and their children. It was here that some of the great
fishermen of those days lived as well. There were many people, and now, they are all gone, lost for all
time.
remains the son-in-
living in the place where Kauaionu‘uanu and Ahu once lived.
live on that land, all are gone, only the ‘remains. It is the same
Ko Keoni Kaelemakule Moolelo Ponoi – – Actually
In the period between 1928 and 1930, John Ka‘elemakule Sr., who was a native of Kekaha, living at Mahai‘ula, Kaulana
and Kohanaiki, wrote a series of articles that were published in serial form in . The story is a rich account
of life in Kekaha between 1854 and 1900. Ka‘elemakule’s texts introduce us to the native residents of Kekaha, and include
descriptions of the practices and customs of the families who resided there. In the following excerpts from Ka‘elemakule’s
and neighboring lands, and the practices
associated with procuring water in this region:
“Kekaha Wai Ole o na Kona” (Waterless Kekaha of Kona)
…We have seen the name “Kekaha wai
Hawai‘i
in the uplands of Kekaha wai ‘ole, that was told by Ka-‘ohu-ha‘aheo-i--kuahiwi-‘ekolu [the penname
used by J.W.H.I. Kihe]. I think that certain people may want to know the reason and meaning of this
name. So it is perhaps a good thing for me to explain how it came about. The source of it is that in this
land of Kekaha even in the uplands, between Kaulana in the north and ‘O‘oma in the south, there was no
water found even in the ancient times. For a little while, I lived in the uplands of Kaulana, and I saw that
this land of Kekaha was indeed waterless.
The water for bathing, washing one’s hands or feet, was the water of the banana stump ().
The was grated and squeezed into balls to get the juice. The problem with this water is that it
makes one itchy, and one does not really get clean. There were not many water holes, and the water that
accumulated from rain dried up quickly. Also there would be weeks in which no rain fell… The water
which the people who lived in the uplands of Kekaha drank, was found in caves. There are many caves
from which the people of the uplands got water… [September 17, 1929:3]
…The had very strict kapu (restrictions) on these water caves. A woman who had her menstrual
cycle could not enter the caves. The ancient people kept this as a sacred kapu from past generations. If a
woman did not know that her time was coming and she entered the water cave, the water would die, that
is, it would dry up. The water would stop dripping. This was a sign that the kapu -of-the-water-
of-life (Kaneikawaiola) had been desecrated. Through this, we learn that the ancient people of Kekaha
the sea from the caves. This is what the ancient people of Kekaha wai ‘ole believed, and there were people
who were kia‘i
24, 1929:3]
When the kapu of the water cave had been broken, the priest was called to perform a ceremony and make
offerings. The offerings were a small black pig; a white fish, and ; young taro leaves; and awa.
When the offering was prepared, the priest would chant to Kane:
A e hoomaemae i
Amama.
Forgive the transgression done by man,
Clean the water house (source),
Cause the water to increase in the house,
That the people may live,
Those who are dependent on this waterless land.
It is finished.
It is not surprising today, many of the caves found with ‘O‘oma and the neighboring lands often contain cultural
material. Along trails, near residences, and in once remote areas, a wide range of uses occurred. Caves in the Kekaha
lands were used to store items, keep planting shoots cool and fresh for the next season, to hide or take shelter in, to
catch water, and for burial.
Disposition of ‘O‘oma Ahupua‘a During the of 1848
Prior to 1848, all land, ocean, and natural resources were held in trust by the high chiefs (ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a or ali‘i ‘ai
moku). The use of land, fisheries and other resources were given to the (native tenants) at the prerogative of
the ali‘i and their representatives or land agents (konohiki), who were considered lesser chiefs. By 1845, the Hawaiian
system of land tenure was being radically altered, and the foundation for implementing the was set in
place, a system of fee-simple right of ownership. As the evolved, it defined the land interests of Kauikeaouli
(King Kamehameha III), some 252 high-ranking Ali‘i and Konohiki, and the Government. As a result of the ,
all land in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i came to be placed in one of three categories: (1) Crown Lands (for the occupant
of the throne); (2) Government Lands; and (3) Konohiki Lands (Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands of the
Territory of Hawaii 1929). The “Enabling” or “Kuleana Act” of the (December 21, 1849) further defined the
frame work by which (native tenants) could apply for, and be granted fee-simple interest in “Kuleana” lands.
The Kuleana Act also reconfirmed the rights of to access, subsistence and collection of resources necessary
to their life upon the land in their given ahupua‘a.
In the Buke Kakau Paa no ka Mahele Aina (Land Division Book) (1848), between Kamehameha III and his
supporters, we learn that by the time of the , ‘O‘oma was divided into two ahupua‘a, ‘O‘oma 1and 2.
During the , ‘O‘oma 2 was initially claimed by Kekaha, who then, on February 12, 1848, returned this land to
Kamehameha III (1848:157). ‘O‘oma 2 was held by Kamehameha III, and then subsequently assigned to the
Government land inventory on March 8, 1848. ‘O‘oma 1, on the other hand, was claimed by, and awarded to, Moses
on January 27,
1848 (ibid.administrator of
the estate, relinquished in commutation, his rights to ‘O‘oma 1, giving the land over to the Government land inventory
(Clark et al. 2017). By the end of the 1848 , both ‘O‘oma 1 and 2 were incorporated into the Government
land inventory.
A review of land records identifies only one native tenant who filed a claim of residency and land use in ‘O‘oma
during the . The claim—Land Commission Award 9162, by Kahelekahi—was not awarded, and except for an
entry in Native Register there is no further record of the claim. In Kahelekahi Native Register, it was reported that in
1848, and for fifteen years prior, he was the only resident in ‘O‘oma. Kahelekahi does not provide any other details
regarding land use.
The decades following the of 1848 are characterized by a growing detraction from traditional subsistence
activities to commercial industries one of which included ranching and coffee. The shift to private fee simple
ownership of land also ushered in a new tax system, one based on the capitalistic model requiring land owners to pay
a monetary fee instead of labor and goods as practiced under the traditional system.
Land Grants in ‘O‘oma (1855-1864)
In conjunction with the , the King also authorized the issuance of Royal Patent Grants to applicants for tracts
of land, larger than those generally available through the Land Commission. The process for applications was set forth
by the “Enabling Act” of August 6, 1850, which set aside portions of government lands for grants. Tracts of land in
‘O‘oma and neighboring ahupua‘a were let out to native residents.
A total of five land grants were patented in all of ‘O‘oma. Two land grants were awarded within ‘O‘oma 2; Land
Grant 2027, consisting of 101.33 acres was awarded to K.K. Kameheu in 1856 and the other, Grant 1600 for 58.50
acres was awarded to Kaakau in 1855. Grant No. 2027 (for Kameheu), situated in ‘O‘oma 2, extends from the makai
edge of the Upper Government Road, and borders the Kula Nei Partners, PUD at the mauka end, at about 900 foot
elevation. ‘O‘oma 2 grantee Kaakau (Grant No. 1600), also held an interest in a grant in Kalaoa 5th and ‘O‘oma 1st,
which he shared with his relative, Kama. Three grants were awarded in ‘O‘oma 1. Grant 2031 consisting of 24.50
acres was awarded to Koanui in 1856. Grant 1590 patented to Kauhini in 1855 originally consisted of 1,816 acres but
was later reduced to 376 acres. Kauhini, a resident of the Kalaoa-‘O‘oma area, however, moved away before that grant
was patented. A portion of the Kula Nei Partner’s, PUD extends into the southeast end of Grant 1590. Aside from
Grant 1612 to Keone, appearing on J. S. Emerson’s (Hawai‘i Registered Map 1280, ca. 1882-83), no additional
information about the grant acreage or date of issuance was obtained.
Throughout the 1880s, J.S. Emerson, began surveying the Kekaha region as part of his work for the subdividing
of the subsequent Homestead Program, which included the upper portion of ‘O‘oma. His maps provide some of the
most detailed information about the ‘O‘oma vicinity. Of the maps produced by Emerson, two (Hawai‘i Registered
Map Nos. 1280 and 1449; Figures 4 and 5) shows the location of the government issued land grants in the ‘O‘oma
vicinity, roads, place names, the emerging homesteads, topographical variations and other historically significant
features. Notations made on Emersons’ 1888 map (Hawai‘i Registered Map 1449; see Figure 5) shows that the current
location of the Kula Nei Partner PUD during the late 1800s was being considered for grazing, coffee, and fruit trees.
This 1888 map also documents two traditional place names within and adjacent to the proposed Kula Nei Partners
Planned Unit Development; Kauhini and Pu‘u Kou, the latter of which was a triangulation station used by early
surveyors. Although Emerson does not provide any further details regarding the meaning to these place names, it is
possible that the name Ka-uhini, may be in reference to Kauhini, the grantee for land Grant 1590.
The Government Homesteading Program (Late-18th Century)
Following the and Grant programs of the middle 1800s, it was found that many native tenants remained on
lands for which they had no title. In 1884, the Hawaiian Kingdom passed the Homestead Act to create Homestead lots
on Government lands—a primary goal being to get more Hawaiian tenants in possession of fee-simple property. The
Homestead Act allowed applicants to apply for lots of up to 20 acres in size and required that they own no other land.
Several lands in the Kekaha region , were selected and a surveying program was authorized
to subdivide the lands. Because it was the intent of the Homestead Act to provide residents with land upon which they
could cultivate crops or graze animals, most of the lots were situated near the mauka road (near the present-day
Early in the process, native residents of Kekaha began writing letters to the Minister of the Interior, observing
that 20-acre parcels were insufficient “to live on in every respect.” They noted that because of the rocky nature of the
land, goats were the only animals that they could raise, and thus, try to make their living (cf. State Archives–Land
File, December 26, 1888, and Land Matters Document No. 255). During the first years of the Homestead Program, all
By 1889, the demand for homestead lots in the Kekaha region was so great that King
surrendered his interest in the lands, which included those for ‘O‘oma (Hawai‘i State Archives, Interior
Department, Lands). Tracts of land in ‘O‘oma and the neighboring ahupua‘a were let out to native residents, and
eventually to non-native residents as well. Those lands which were not sold to native tenants were sold or leased to
ranching interests—most of which came under John A. Maguire, founder of Hu‘ehu‘e Ranch. One requirement of the
Homestead Program was that lots which were to be sold as homesteads to the applicants, needed to be surveyed. J.S.
Emerson.
Four Homestead lots were granted in ‘O‘oma 2 (Lots 56-59), located between 700 and 1,100 feet elevation and
containing 40.50 to 45 acres each. The proposed Kula Nei Partners PUD area consists of the entire Lot 56, comprised of
40.45 acres that was sold to E. M. Paiwa. The remaining three lots in ‘O‘oma 2 were sold to the following individuals: Lot
57 to Holokahiki; Lot 58 to Kainuku; and Lot 59 to James Kuhaiki but later patented to Mrs. Hattie Kinoulu as Grant
9468).
Another eight lots were awarded in ‘O‘oma 1 (Lots 48-55),
Highway and containing approximately 15 to 25 acres each, and sold between 1895 and 1899. These eight lots were sold to
the following individuals: Lot 48 to J. Palakiko; Lot 49 to J. M. Lilinoe; Lot 50 to J. Hoolapa; Lot 51 to L. Kahinu; Lot 52
to Kaulainamoku; Lot 53 to Palapala (w); Lot 54 to Loe Kumukahi; and Lot 55 to S. Kane.
The location of the homestead parcels within ‘O‘oma 1 and 2 are showing on Hawai‘i Registered Map 1512 drafted by
Emerson in 1889 (Figure 6). Also depicted on this map are the government issued land grants that were issues during the
middle 1800s (see Figure 6), but omits Grant 1612 awarded to Keone in ‘O‘oma 1. The remaining government lands that
were not patented as a land grants or as Homestead lots were retailed by the government and portions leased out for grazing.
By 1899, John A. Maguire had established Hu‘ehu‘e Ranch and leased out portions of land in both the makai and mauka
section of ‘O‘oma 2.
Twentieth Century Travel in the ‘O‘oma Vicinity
Alahele (trails and byways) and alaloa (regional thoroughfares) are an integral part of the cultural landscape of
Hawai‘i. The alahele provided access for local and regional travel, subsistence activities, cultural and religious
purposes, and for communication between extended families and communities. Trails were, and still remain important
features of the cultural landscape. Traditional and historical accounts describe at least two traditional trails that were of
regional importance which pass through the lands of ‘O‘oma. One trail is the alaloa—parts of which were modified in the
1840s and later, into what is now called the Alanui Aupuni —
that crosses the makai (near shore) lands, linking royal centers, coastal communities, and resources together. The other major
thoroughfare of this region is “Kealaehu” (The path of ‘Ehu), which passes through the uplands, generally a little above the
mauka lo in Pu‘u
makai alaloa and Kealaehu join together as the and into Kohala, passing
through Kawaihae and beyond. The mauka route provided travelers with a zone for cooler traveling, and access to inland
communities and resources. It also allowed for more direct travel between the extremities of North and South Kona (Ellis
Malo 1951 and Records and Boundary Commission Testimonies). By nature of
traditional land use and residency practices, every ahupua‘a also included one or more mauka-makai trail. In native
terminology, these trails were generally known as—ala pi‘i uka, ala pi‘i mauna, or kaolo (trails that ascend to the
uplands or mountain). Some of these trails are described in native accounts and oral history interviews (Rechtman and
Maly 2003). The practice of continued travel between upland residences and near-shore shelters, is also described by
kupuna Peter K. Park, and Elizabeth Lee (mother of Robert E. Lee, Kula Nei Partners PUD applicant), who was born
and raised in the mauka section of ‘O‘oma, and by other kupuna from neighboring lands (Rechtman and Maly 2003).
As the homesteads developed additional roads were needed. In March and April of 1902, S. M. Kanakanui and
his assistant George F. Wright surveyed and subdivided 1,736 acres of land in the makai portions of ‘O‘oma 1 and
Kalaoa 5 ahupua‘a into fifteen homestead lots (Lots 1-15) known collectively as the Kalaoa-‘O‘oma Homesteads. A
portion of the Kalaoa-‘O‘oma homestead included lands that were originally granted to Kauhini as Land Grant 1590.
They also surveyed the remaining portions of the boundary of ‘O‘oma 2 (the area leased to J. A. Maguire), laid out a
road from the homesteads to the mauka Government, laid out a realigned portion of the makai Government Road, and
accurately surveyed two miles of coastline. Hawai‘i Registered Map 2123 (Figure 7) prepared in 1902 by the
aforementioned surveyors shows the alignment of a road with a portion of it running parallel to the western and
southern boundary of Homestead grant 58 and continues in a mauka direction adjacent to the proposed Kula Nei
Partners PUD (shown on the 1902 map as Homestead grant 56).
who have participated in oral history interviews (see Rechtman and Maly 2003), describe on-going
travel between the uplands and coastal lands of ‘O‘oma, Kalaoa and other ahupua‘a in Kekaha throughout the
twentieth century. The primary method of travel between 1900 and 1947, was by foot or on horse or donkey, and those
who traveled the land, were generally residents of the ‘O‘oma, Kalaoa, Kohanaiki Homesteads and other lands in the
immediate vicinity. A Treasury Department map produced in July 1930 (Figure 8), for portion of North Kona
illustrates various trail and road alignments adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed Kula Nei Partners PUD.
After World War II, retired military vehicles became available to the public, and after that time, the Alanui Aupuni
and some of the smaller trails along the shore were modified for vehicular traffic. The primary routes of travel through
the 1960s, descended from upland Kohanaiki and Kaloko, or came out of Kailua. These routes remained in use
throughout the 1970s.
Aside from the creation of the homestead lots, cattle grazing, and small scale agricultural endeavors, the mauka
lands of ‘O‘oma and the grater Kekaha region remained unscathed by modern development through the 1960s.
However, it wasn’t until 1968, when construction began on the new Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway right-of-way
ceremonially dedicated, effectively replacing the Kona Airport located near Kailua. Construction on the Queen
Ka‘ahumanu continued and the section of highway stretching from the airport to Kawaihae was completed by 1973.
The expansion of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway opened up access to the Kekaha lands to the once remote Kekaha
lands, thereby creating opportunities for modern development. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the
areas surrounding the proposed Kula Nei Partners PUD, most of which were part of the former Kalaoa-‘O‘oma
homestead tract have been transformed high-end residential developments, which includes the Kona Hills Estates
Subdivision, the ‘O‘oma Plantation Subdivision, and the Kona Acres Subdivision.
Previous Archaeological Studies
In 2005, Rechtman Consulting, LLC (Clark and Rechtman 2005) completed an Archaeological Inventory Survey
(AIS) on the subject parcel. At the time of the survey, the subject parcel was comprised of two Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-
3-007:039 totaling 39.36 acres and TMK (3) 7-3-046:105, consisting of some 43,706 square feet (roughly one-acre).
The larger parcel was formerly referred to as Lot 56 of the ‘O‘oma Homesteads originally sold to E. M. Paiwa in 1898.
Prior to this 2005 AIS, no previous archaeological studies were conducted on the subject property. As a result of this
AIS, seventeen archaeological sites were recorded on TMK: (3) 3-7-003:039 and a single archaeological site was
recorded on TMK (3) 7-3-046:105. The AIS also noted several areas on the subject parcel that had been disturbed
from previous bulldozing activities. The recorded sites included seven Historic era walls (Sites 23834, 24759, 24769,
24771, 24771, 24772, and 24774), one Historic era enclosure (Site 24760), a probable Historic roadway (Site 24775),
two trail segments (Sites 24761 and 24763), a modified outcrop used for Precontact habitation purposes (Site 24762),
a terrace used for Precontact habitation (Site 24764), three Precontact lava blister habitations (Sites 24765, 24766, and
24767), one human burial within lava blister (Site 24768), a Precontact habitation complex containing five features
(Site 24773), and a large agricultural complex that spans the entire larger parcel (Site 24776). Additionally, sixteen 1
x 1 meter test units were excavated at four of the recorded sites (Sites 24762, 24764, 24773, and 24776). The findings
from the subsurface testing showed continual use of the proposed project area from Precontact times (perhaps as early
as the 1400s) to the late Historic Period. Figure 9 shows the location of all archaeological sites recorded during the
2005 AIS.
All of the recorded sites were considered significant under Criterion d. Site 24774, described as the southern
boundary wall of the larger parcel as well as the northern boundary wall of the Historic ‘O‘oma Homestead Road was
considered significant under Criterion a. Site 24768 consisting of a small lava blister containing human skeletal
remains was also considered significant under Criterion e. Sites 23834, 24759, 24760, 24761, 24763, 24765, 24766,
24767, 24769, 24770, 24771, 24772, and 24775 were all recommended for no further work. Sites 24762, 24764,
24773, and 24776 were all recommended for data recovery. The data recovery fieldwork has been undertaken at these
sites, and, while not required to do so, the land owner also intends to preserve the surface expression of these sites
within the proposed Kula Nei PUD. Sites 24768 and 24774 were recommended for preservation. A Preservation Plan
has been prepared for Site 24774, and a Burial Treatment Plan was completed for the preservation in-place of Site
24768, which has been accepted by the Hawai‘i Island Burial Council.
Previous Consultation Efforts
In 1996, and later bet d a
series of interviews with six all of whom directly descend from native residents of ‘O‘oma and the neighboring
lands. While many of their personal recollections date back to the 1920s, the knowledge shared by them from their
kupuna can be traced back to the middle nineteenth century. The information collected from these interviews was
compiled in a Cultural Impact Assessment report prepared by Rechtman and Maly (2003)for an 83-acre parcel located
makai of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway in ‘O‘oma Ahupua‘a.
Elder of the Kekaha region, tell much the same story as that described in the communications from
the period of homestead development, and in the accounts given by other native writers of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century. By the late 1800s, only a few permanent residence remained along the ‘O‘oma (and Kekaha)
people were able to cultivate a wide range of crops—both native staples and new introductions—with which to sustain
themselves, and in some case even as cash crops. By the middle to late 1800s, the kula lands, from around the 900-
foot elevation to shore, were primarily used for goat, cattle, and donkey pasturage. The families of the uplands
regularly traveled to the coast via trails to go fishing, or to round up cattle, goats, or donkeys. Their primary interest
while traveling makai was to get to the fishing ground, and in reverse, to get back home. During periods of extreme
dry weather, when water resources dried up, the families relied on the brackish water ponds in the near-shore lands.
In ‘O‘oma, near Wawaloli, the area marked on J.S. Emerson’s Register Maps 1280 (see Figure 4), as Kama’s or Keoki
Mao’s house, families still took shelter, and drank the water from the spring, through the 1940s. Such was the case at
Kapalaoa. In the region of the lower homestead lots and above, interviewees have described the occurrence of caves,
walls, and various features, including burials. Occasionally, when working the range, rounding up cattle,
or night marchers have been heard, or even seen. The explanation being that the people of old, who once lived on the
land, were traveling the trails in one direction or the other to attend to some ceremony or to venture out on fishing
journeys, or other such activities.
When asked about proposed development on the ‘O‘oma lands and in other locations of Kekaha, the interviewees
all speak with hesitancy. It is difficult for them to see the landscape that they have known all their lives, and for which
traditions were handed down, change. All interviewees believe that ilina (burial sites) should be preserved in place;
likewise, should any heiau, or other important sites be located, they should be protected. It is also believed that the
Alanui Aupuni and mauka/makai trails should be preserved. Whenever possible all sites, such as shelters, house sites,
petroglyphs, walls, and other features should be protected.
In 2005, as part of the Archaeological Inventory Survey prepared by Clark and Rechtman (2005) for the current
subject property, an additional oral interview was conducted with Elizabeth Maluihi Ako Lee, (mother of
Robert E. Lee, Kula Nei Partners PUD applicant). Auntie Elizabeth was born in 1929 and was raised by her hanai
family, Kahananui, in upland ‘O‘oma. As a child, Aunty Elizabeth recalled walking the upland trails and cultivating
sweet potatoes on the current study parcel. Her h nai parents were responsible for building at least two of the boundary
walls on parcels near the current study parcel for cattle control purposes. Her family owned the parcel immediately
south of the current study parcel, on which they used to graze cattle. Auntie Elizabeth recalled a Korean man living
on that parcel during the 1930s and that his house had burned down when his still exploded sometime
around 1939.
In 2006, as part of an Archaeological Inventory Survey (Nelson et al. 2007) conducted on TMK: (3) 7-3-009:007,
located to the southwest of the current property, Robert B. Rechtman (co-author) again visited with Mr. Robert E. Lee
(the parcel owner), and his mother, Elizabeth Maluihi Ako Lee. During their field visit, Auntie Elizabeth related that
as a child in the 1930s and early 1940s she helped her hanai family cultivate sweet potatoes on the parcel. She
described clearing cobbles from soil areas and then planting sweet potato cuttings in the rock-free soil. The cobbles
removed from the soil were collected into clearing mounds. Auntie Elizabeth pointed out several small mounds that
were similar to those she had created as a child, but she noted that they were not nearly as tidy as the neatly stacked
features her family normally built. Mr. Lee related that his grandfather had built the western and northern boundary
walls of the parcel during this same time period.
Findings and Conclusions
A review of the culture-historical background literature reveals that the lands of ‘O‘oma are within the traditional
‘okana (land division) of Kekaha Wai ‘Ole —a region that was historically frequented by forces of
Pelehonuamea, the deity of lava. The lava tubes formed as a consequence of continued volcanic activity created
subterranean water resource collection area that were accessed via small openings. These water collection areas were
a traditionally guarded and treasured resource that is celebrated in many of the traditional accounts of the Kekaha
lands. The archaeological study conducted on the subject property by Clark and Rechtman in (2005) coupled with the
oral histories for ‘O‘oma (Clark and Rechtman 2005; Rechtman and Maly 2003) reveal that the subject property was
utilized throughout the Precontact and Historic Period for habitation and agricultural purposes. The archaeological
study revealed that traditional habitation sites were constructed around lava outcrops and lava blisters and that the
entire subject parcel contained diverse agricultural features that include modified outcrops, mounds, terraces,
enclosures, and kuaiwi walls. The oral history collected, especially those descriptions given by Elizabeth Maluihi Ako
Lee (Nelson et al. 2007), describes sweet potato cultivation taking place well into the early twentieth century. The
presence of human skeletal remains in a lava blister also reveals the nature of traditional burial practices of this lava
ridden region.
During the Historic Period, following the arrival of cattle and goats, grazing was also practiced on these lands.
During the mid-1800s, following the , ‘O‘oma 1 and 2 was included in the government land inventory
and by 1898, the larger portion of the subject parcel (noted as Lot 56 in Figures 6 and 7) was sold to E. M. Paiwa as
part of the government homestead program. The latter half of the 1800s saw the development of various homestead
lots, including the ‘O‘oma-Kalaoa Homesteads community. As the concept of private property developed and to
control the free roaming ungulates, various historic-era walls were constructed that delineated property boundaries
and prevented the wild ungulates from impacting the gardens of the homesteaders. The oral histories indicate that
several of the historic era walls were constructed by the grandfather of the current PUD applicant, Robert E. Lee. A
total of seven historic era walls and one historic era enclosure were recorded during the 2005 archaeological survey.
Prior to the development of larger and wider roads, foot trails served as the main routes of travel between the
agriculturally fertile uplands and the coastal fisheries of ‘O‘oma. Two trail segments were recorded on the parcel
during the archaeological inventory survey. As these homestead communities developed, larger roads were
constructed to eased mauka-makai travel for the area residents, one of which was the old ‘O‘oma Homestead Road,
which lies just outside but adjacent to the south boundary of the subject parcel.
Given the culture-historical background presented above combined with the results of prior archaeological and
cultural/oral-historical studies conducted specific to and within the immediate vicinity of the current project area, it is
the finding of the current analysis that there are no ongoing traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being
exercised or occurring within the subject property. With respect to the archaeological resources, the recommendations
from the 2005 AIS have been implemented, thereby mitigating any potential loss of these cultural features. However,
and although not required, it is the intent of the Kula Nei PUD applicant to preserve, through the creation of green
spaces and the avoidance of, the valued cultural, historical, and natural resources (i.e. native and endemic plants)
present within the subject property. The PUD applicant’s genealogical ties to these lands and his long-standing efforts
to preserve the vestiges his family’s and the community’s heritage within the traditional cultural landscape of ‘O‘oma
has undoubtedly shaped the proposed Kula Nei PUD plan. It is the authors’ contention that the proposed Kula Nei
PUD is a good faith effort to preserve isolated pockets of remaining traditional cultural landscape of ‘O‘oma, and thus
provide for the protection and enhancement of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources; and will in no way
negatively affect or impair any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights.
References Cited
Buke Mahele
1848 Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i Hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha III a me Na Lii a me Na
Konohiki ana. Hale Alii Honolulu.
Char, W.
1991 Botanical Survey of Honokohau 1 and 2, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. Prepared for
Lanihau Partners, LP.
Clark, M. R., A. K. Dircks Ah Sam, J. D. Nelson, and R. B. Rechtman
2017 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a roughly 210-acre portion of the NELHA HOST Park
situated North of Makako Bay Drive TMKs: (3) 7-3-043:072, 073, 074, and 078 (por.), ‘O‘oma 1st
and Kalaoa 5th ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i. ASM Affiliates ASM Report
23390. Prepared for Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai‘i Authority (NELHA), Kailua-Kona, HI.
Clark, M. R., and R. B. Rechtman
2005 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMKs:3-7-3-07:39 and 3-7-3-46:105, ‘O‘oma 1st and 2nd
Ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i. Rechtman Consulting, LLC Report RC-0311.
Prepared for Stacy Dickensen, ‘O‘oma Plantation, Kailua-Kona, Hi.
Ellis, W.
1963 Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with remarks on the History,
Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. Advertiser
Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu.
Fornander, A.
1969 An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and the Ancient History of the
Tokyo.
Hommon, R.
1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai‘i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution
and Transformation, edited by Patrick Kirch, pp. 55–88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
1959 Fragment of Hawaiian History. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 70. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu.
Kamakau, S.
1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised edition. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.
Maguire, E.
1926 Kona Legends. Paradise of the Pacific Press, Honolulu.
Malo, D.
1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2. Second edition. Translator
Nathaniel B. Emerson. B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Nelson, J. D., M. R. Clark, and R. B. Rechtman
2007 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-3-009:007, ‘O‘oma 2nd Ahupua‘a, North Kona
District, Island of Hawai‘i. Rechtman Consulting, LLC Report RC-0312. Prepared for Mr. Robert
E. Lee, Jr. Kailua-Kona, HI.
Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands of the Territory of Hawaii
1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian
Islands. Star Bulletin Press, Honolulu.
Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. Mo‘okini
1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Rechtman, R. B., and K. Maly
2003 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of TMK:3-7-3-9:22, ‘O‘oma 2nd
Ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i, Volumes I and II. Rechtman Consulting Report
RC-0154. Prepared for Helber Ha
Wise, J., and J. W. H. I. Kihe
1914–1917 Kaao Hooniua Puuwai no Ka-miki. Ka Hoku O Hawaii, January 8–December 6.
Figure 1. Tax Map (3) 7-3-007 showing Kula Nei Parners, LLC PUD on parcel 039 in ‘O‘oma 2
Ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i.
Figure 2. 2003 Google Earth® Aerial Imagery depicting Kula Nei Partners, LLC PUD in ‘O‘oma 2 Ahupua‘a.
Figure 3. Kula Nei Partners, LLC PUD project area outlined in red as shown on a portion of the 2000
USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle.
Figure 4. Portion of Hawai‘i Registered Map No. 1280 by J. S. Emerson showing awarded government
Land Grants and the location of the Kula Nei Partners, LLC PUD, ca. 1882-83.
Figure 5. Portion of Hawai‘i Registered Map No. 1449 by J. S. Emerson showing awarded
Government land grants and the location of the Kula Nei Partners, LLC PUD in 1888.
Figure 6. Hawai‘i Registered Map No. 1512 by Emerson showing the emerging homesteads in ‘O‘oma
and the previously awarded government land grants in 1889.
Figure 7. Hawai‘i Registered Map No. 2123 by S.M. Kanakanui and G. F. Wright from 1902, showing
the Kalaoa-‘O‘oma Homesteads and the current location of the Kula Nei Partners, PUD.
Figure 8. 1930 map depicting the vicinity of the proposed Kula Nei Partners PUD (highlighted
red).
Figure 9. Kula Nei master plan overlaid with the location of the previously recorded archaeological sites (Clark and Rechtman 2005)
JOSH GREEN, M.D.
GOVERNOR
KE KIA`AINA
STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU`AINA '0 HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 KA `OIHANA ALAKAU
869 PUNCHBOWL STREET
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097
October 22, 2024
VIA EMAIL: planning@hawaiicounty.gov
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
East Hawaii Office
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Attention: Mr. Christian Kay
Dear Mr. Kern:
EDWIN H. SNIFFEN
DIRECTOR
KA LUNA HO'OKELE
Deputy Directors
Na Hope Luna Ho'okele
DREANALEE K. KALILI
TAMMY L. LEE
CURT T. OTAGURO
ROBIN K. SHISHIDO
IN REPLY REFER TO
STP 00597.24
STP 8.3843
Subject: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit Application (PL -PUD -2024-000003)
Kula Nei Partners, LLC
North Kona, Hawaii Island, Hawaii
Tax Map Key: (3) 7-3-007: 039
Thank you for your memorandum, dated September 30, 2024, requesting the Hawaii Department of
Transportation's (HDOT) review and comments on the PUD Permit Application for the subject
applicant. HDOT understands Kula Nei, LLC is requesting a PUD Permit to develop eight
agricultural lots on approximately 40.421 acres of land.
HDOT has the following comments:
1. HDOT's comments, numbers 1- 4, for the PUD Permit Application (PL -PUD -2024-00002)
in letter STP 8.3425, dated July 7, 2022, are still valid and applicable.
2. Describe strategies to reduce carbon emissions from the project, if any. Suggestions
include:
a. Providing accessible, safe, and comfortable facilities and routes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders.
b. Facilitating access and growth of the multimodal transportation network in the
community.
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
October 22, 2024
Page 2
STP 8.3843
c. Sustainable materials: Using sustainable, recycled, or low -emission materials in
construction and manufacturing.
Please submit any subsequent land use entitlement -related requests for review or correspondence to
the HDOT Land Use Intake email address at DOT.LandUse@hawaii.gov.
If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Blayne Nikaido, Planner, Land Use Section of the
HDOT Statewide Transportation Planning Office at (808) 831-7979 or via email at
blayne.h.nikaido@hawaii.gov.
Sincerely,
EDWIN H. SNIFFEN
Director of Transportation
DAVIDY. IGEJADE T. BUTAY
GOVERNORDIRECTOR
Deputy Directors
ROSS M. HIGASHI
EDUARDO P. MANGLALLAN
EDWIN H. SNIFFEN
INREPLY REFER TO: STATEOFHAWAII DIR0587DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
869PUNCHBOWLSTREET STP 8.3425
HONOLULU, HAWAII96813-5097
July7, 2022
VIAEMAIL: planning@hawaiicounty.gov
Mr. Zendo Kern
Planning Director
County ofHawaii Planning Department
EastHawaii Office
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Attention: Mr. Christian Kay
DearMr. Kern:
Subject:Planned UnitDevelopment (PUD) Permit Application (PL-PUD-2022-000002)
KulaNeiPartners, LLC
North Kona, Hawaii Island, Hawaii
Tax Map Key: (3) 7-3-007:039
Thank youfor the memorandum dated June 15, 2022, requesting the StateofHawaii Department
of
HDOT understands KulaNei Partners, LLCisproposing todevelop eight (8) agricultural lots on
approximately 40.421-acreparcel inNorth Kona on Hawaii Island.
HDOT has thefollowing comments:
Airports Division (HDOT-A)
1.Theproposed agriculture development isapproximately 2.68milesfrom theproperty
boundary oftheEllison Onizuka Kona International Airport atKeahole (KOA). All
projects within 5milesfromHawaii Stateairports areadvised to readtheTechnical
Assistance Memorandum (TAM)forguidance with development andactivities thatmay
require further review andpermits. TheTAMcan beviewed atthislink:
http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/docs/TAM-FAA-DOT-Airports_08-01-2016.pdf.
2.TheFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation requires the submittal ofFAA Form
7460-1Notice ofProposed Construction orAlteration pursuant totheCodeofFederal
Regulations, Title14, Part77.9, iftheconstruction oralteration iswithin 20,000feet ofa
public useormilitary airport which exceeds a100:1surface fromany point ontherunway
Mr. Zendo Kern STP8.3425
July7, 2022
Page2
ofeach airportwith itslongest runway more than3,200 feet. The form andcriteria for
submittal canbefound atthefollowing website:
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp.
3.
aware ofpotential single event noisefromaircraft operations. Thereisalsoapotential for
fumes, smoke, vibrations, odors, etc., resulting from occasional aircraft flightoperations
overornear theproject. Theseincidences may increase ordecrease over timeand are
dependent onairportoperations.
4. Theproposed agriculture development shallnotestablish anylandscape andvegetation that
willcreate awildlife attractant, which canpotentially become ahazard toaircraft
operations. Please review theFAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33C, Hazardous Wildlife
Attractants On OrNear Airports
wildlife attractant, thedeveloper shallimmediately mitigate thehazard uponnotification by
theHDOT-Aand/orFAA.
Highways Division (HDOT-HWY)
Access tothesitewould beonKukuna Street (County jurisdiction) onthenorthern boundary of
thesite. Kukuna Street provides access via subdivision roadsnorth ofthe site toKaiminani Drive.
Kaiminani Drive intersects withMamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) totheeast andQueen
Kaahumanu Highway (StateRoute 19) tothewest, 1.5miles and3miles fromthe site,
respectively.
Based on theinformation provided, theproposed agricultural subdivision would have no
anticipated direct orindirect impact onStatehighways.
Ifthere areanyquestions, please contact Mr. Blayne Nikaido ofthe HDOT Statewide
Transportation Planning Office at (808) 831-7979viaemail atblayne.h.nikaido@hawaii.gov.
Sincerely,
JADE T. BUTAY
Director ofTransportation
Daryn Arai
Land Use Planning Consultant
P.O. BOX 4501, HILO HAWAII 96720
PHONE: (808) 895-3218 EMAIL: DARYN ARAI@OUTLOOK.COM
November 12, 2024
Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Director
County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Director Kern:
Subject: Response to Agencies’ comments regarding
Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD) Application PL-PUD-2024-000003
Applicant: Kula Nei Partners, LLC
TMK: 7-3-007:039, ʻOʻoma 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaiʻi
This letter will respond to comments received from consulting agencies that have reviewed the
above-described request. We appreciate these agencies’ comments being provided to the
Applicant and hope these responses assist with your review of this application.
Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (letter dated October 23, 2024)
The Applicant appreciates the thorough assessment of the PUD application and proposed
8-lot subdivision by OPSD, which they acknowledge that the smaller proposed
agricultural lot sizes of no less than 2 acres “would allow for more affordable
agricultural opportunities” than the current minimum 5-acre lot size required by the
property’s Agricultural-5 acres (A-5a) zoning.
The Final Archaeological Preservation Plan dated August 2021 was accepted by the State
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) by its letter dated September 14, 2021 (see
attached). Furthermore, the Applicant will seek proper guidance and approval from
SHPD should future extension of the subdivision access road across the historic Ooma
Homestead Road and adjoining historic era ahupuaʻa boundary wall (Site 24774)
previously identified by Haun and Henry (2003) be contemplated. The Applicant
anticipates that these requirements will be made a condition of the PUD permit, should it
be granted.
SHPD noted the completion of the data recovery investigations and subsequently
accepted the archaeological preservation plan, which prompted the notice to the County
that “the permit issuance process may proceed.”
As of November 2023, the Applicant established Mālama O Kekaha, a 501(c)(3) entity
whose mission is dedicated towards the proper stewardship of the land. They will strive
Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Director
Page 2 of 4
November 12, 2024
to protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources of Hawaiʻi, including its forests,
oceans, and sacred sites, through sustainable practices and community collaboration. By
integrating traditional Hawaiian knowledge and practices into their work, they aim to
cultivate a harmonious relationship between community and the land, ensuring its
preservation for future generations. Through education, advocacy, empowerment, and
charitable causes we seek to inspire others to embrace mālama ʻāina, fostering a resilient
and thriving environment for all.
Mālama O Kekaha will assume responsibility for the protection and management of
Archaeological Site 24774 (ahupuaʻa boundary wall) and its preservation easement,
along with all other important archaeological, cultural and natural resources that have
been identified within the subject property.
Department of Health (memo dated October 17, 2024)
The Applicant acknowledges that the Department of Health will allow for the use of
individual wastewater systems (IWS) to support the proposed 8-lot agricultural
subdivision as each proposed lot will be larger than 10,000 square feet in size and will
not accommodate any multiple-family residential units.
The Applicant will coordinate with the Departments of Health and Public Works to
ensure compliance with NPDES requirements during the design and construction of
storm water systems within the proposed subdivision. Similarly, through the construction
design and permitting processes, the Applicant is compelled to comply with and
implement appropriate mitigating actions regarding the control of fugitive dust,
hazardous material substances and runoff to ensure the proper mitigation of any adverse
effects that may be caused by actions related to the development and occupation of the
proposed subdivision, thereby protecting valued groundwater resources and air quality.
Department of Transportation (letter dated October 22, 2024)
The Applicant appreciates HDOT' s comments, which includes comments provided
during a previous filing of a PUD application for the same property (PUD-2024-00002)
by memo STP 8.3425 dated July 7, 2022. These previous comments, which are attached,
refer to the location of the proposed subdivision to the Ellison Onizuka Kona
International Airport at Keahole, approximately 2.68 miles to the west. As
recommended, the development of the proposed subdivision, along with all permitted
uses, will adhere to the Technical Assistance Memorandum (TAM) provided by HDOT
to ensure that flight operations at the airport are not adversely affected. This would
include, if applicable, the filing of notices with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) for a vertical construction that may be deemed as obstacles to air safety and the
efficient use of the navigable airspace around the airport.
Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Director
Page 3 of 4
November 12, 2024
The Applicant is aware of the proximity of the airport to the proposed subdivision, and
will duly inform future residents of the potential single event noise from aircraft
operations, including the potential of fumes, smoke, vibrations, odor and other effects
generated by occasional aircraft flight operations over or near the proposed subdivision.
The Applicant will include covenants within its design guidelines to ensure that
agricultural activities will not establish any landscape and vegetation that will create a
wildlife attractant, which can potentially become a hazard to aircraft operations. If
informed by HDOT or the FAA that such a situation has or is occurring, the Applicant
and/or future residents will be compelled to take appropriate mitigating actions.
Finally, given the limited scope as an agricultural subdivision, there are no specific
strategies to reduce carbon emissions that will be generated by the project. It would be
impractical to implement pedestrian, bicyclist and multi-modal transit facilities within
this type of large-lot subdivision. Such facilities are more effective, and practical, in high
density urban environments. The Applicant will explore the use of more sustainable
building materials, such as recycled or low-emission construction materials. But as a
subdivision, the choice of construction materials will be ultimately determined by the lot
owner.
Police Department (memo dated October 22, 2024)
The Applicant notes that the Police Department does not have any comments or
objections to the PUD request and proposed subdivision.
We hope that we have adequately responded to comments offered by the respective agencies.
Please feel free to contact me should there be any questions or need for additional information.
Sincerely,
DARYN ARAI
Land Use Planning Consultant
Encls: SHPD Memo dated September 14, 2021
State DOT Memo STP 8.3425 dated July 7, 2022
cc w/encls via email: Kula Nei, LLC
DAVID Y. IGE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
September 14, 2021
STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD, STE 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707
SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY M. KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS
IN REPLY REFER TO: Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director Project No. 2021PR00338
County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works Submission No. 2021PR00338.001 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 through 2021PR00338.006
Hilo, HI 96720 Doc. No. 2108NM03 public_works@hawaiicounty.gov Archaeology
Dear Ikaika Rodenhurst:
SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review
County of Hawaiʻi Grubbing Permit Application for Kula Nei Partners LLC/Robert E. Lee, Jr. End of Fieldwork for Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites 50-10-28-24764 and 50-10-28-24773 Archaeological Preservation Plan
ʻOʻoma 2nd Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i TMK: (3) 7-3-037:039
This letter provides the State Historic Preservation Division’s (SHPD’s) review of the End-of-Fieldwork archaeological data recovery letter report titled, End of Fieldwork Letter Report for the Data Recovery Efforts
Completed at SIHP Sites 50-10-28-24764 and -24773, TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039, ʻOʻoma 2nd Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Island of Hawaiʻi (Brandt, July 2021) and the preservation plan titled, An Archaeological Preservation
Plan for Sites 50-10-28-24762, 24764, 24773, and 24776, TMK: (3) 7-3-007:039,ʻOʻoma 2nd Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Island of Hawaiʻi (Brandt and Clark, August 2021). The archaeological data recovery End-of- Fieldwork letter report was received by SHPD on July 14, 2021 (Submission No. 2021PR00338.004). The initial draft preservation plan (PP) was received by SHPD on April 23, 2021 (Submission No. 2021PR00338.002). The data recovery results were added to the PP and uploaded to HICRIS on August 4, 2021 (Submission No. 2021PR00338.005). SHPD requested revisions to the PP via HICRIS on August 27, 2021 and those comments were addressed on August 29, 2021 (Submission No. 2021PR00338.006). SHPD received the grubbing permit application, the grubbing plans, a TMK map, a SHPD 6E Submittal Form, and a Google Earth map on March 24, 2021 (Submission No. 2021PR00338.001). ASM Affiliates prepared the End-of-Fieldwork archaeological data recovery letter report for Site 50-10-28-24764 and 50-10-28-24773 and the preservation plan for Sites 50-10-28-24762, 50-10-28-24764, 50-10-28-24773, and 50- 10-28-24776 at the request of SHPD and Kula Nei Partners LLC/Robert E. Lee, Jr. (landowner). The landowner proposes grubbing activities for land clearing and access. The corridor will be approximately 50 to 100 feet wide
and 1,000 feet long.
ASM Affiliates (Clark and Rechtman 2005) conducted an archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for the proposed subdivision project which included the current project area. The AIS documented 19 sites. The sites included seven
historic walls (Sites 50-10-28-23834, 50-10-28-24759, 50-10-28- 24770, 50-10-28-24771, 50-10-28-24772, 50-10-28-24774), one historic enclosure (Site 50-10-28-24760), one roadway (Site 50-10-28-24775), two pre-Contact trails
(Sites 50-10-28-24761 and 50-10-28-24763), one pre-Contact habitation area (Site 50-10-28-24762), one pre-Contact habitation terrace (Site 50-10-28-24764), three pre-Contact habitation lava blisters (Sites 50-10-28-24765,
50-10-28-24766, and 50-10-28-24767), one lava blister containing human remains (Site 50-10-28-24768), one pre-Contact habitation complex (Site 50-10-28-24773), and a large agricultural complex consisting of 44 features
extending throughout the project area (Site 50-10-28-24776).
Ikaika Rodenhurst September 14, 2021 Page 2
All 19 sites were assessed significant under Criterion d and Sites 50-10-28-24774 and 50-10-28-24768, were
additionally assessed significant under Criteria a and e, respectively. The AIS provided mitigation recommendations that included no further work for 13 sites (Sites 50-10-28-23834, 50-10-28-24759, 50-10-28-24761, 50-10-28-
24763, 50-10-28-24765, 50-10-28-24767, 50-10-28-24769 through 50-10-28-24772), data recovery for four sites (Sites 50-10-28-24762, 50-10-28-24764, 50-10-28-24773, 50-10-28-24776), and preservation of two sites (Sites 50-
10-28-24768, 50-10-28-24774). SHPD accepted the AIS and concurred with the report’s significance assessments and mitigation recommendations on January 2, 2008 (Log No. 2006.4192, Doc. No. 081TS01). In a letter dated June
8, 2016 (Log No. 2015.02900, Doc. No. 1606KM09), SHPD accepted the archaeological data recovery plan for Sites 50-10-28-24762, 50-10-28-24764, 50-10-28-24773, 50-10-28-24776 completed by Haun and Associates (Haun
and Henry, March 2016). In a letter dated June 8, 2016 (Log No. 02899, Doc. No. 1606KM09), SHPD accepted the preservation plan for Site 50-10-28-24774 (Haun and Henry, March 2016).
SHPD received from ASM Affiliates a preservation plan (Brandt and Clark, April 2021) for the subject parcel that includes the sites originally slated for data recovery (April 23, 2021; Submission No. 2021PR00338.002); at that time, the data recovery results had not yet been submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance. On June 21, 2021,
Susan Lebo, Sean Naleimaile, and Nicole Mello (all SHPD) spoke with Alan Haun (Haun and Associates) via telephone conference to discuss details regarding the data recovery project. The meeting determined that only part of the data recovery was completed because the landowner requested to discontinue the planned data recovery work. On the same day, SHPD requested via HICRIS for the data recovery results to be submitted either as a data recovery report or as part of the preservation plan, prior to reviewing and accepting the preservation plan. The End-of-Fieldwork letter report (Brandt, July 2021) states the data recovery work was undertaken by Haun and Associates intermittently between September 22 to October 4, 2016. No backhoe trenching was conducted during the data recovery work as specified in the data recovery plan (Haun and Henry, March 2016). Three units were hand excavated at Sites -24764 and -24773. These consisted of a single 1-meter by 2-meter excavation unit (EU- 1) at Site -24764, a 1-meter by 2-meter excavation unit (EU-2) at Site -24773, Feature E, and another 1-meter by 2-meter excavation unit (EU-3) at Site -24773, Feature A was partially completed. A map associated with the Feature A excavation indicates it was not completed due to the fieldwork being terminated by the landowner. Mapping was also completed for the two sites. The rest of the planned fieldwork was terminated by the landowner and data recovery for Sites -24762 and -24776 was not started. A field inspection by ASM affiliates was conducted on March 17, 2021 and confirmed at least three units were excavated since the locations were still not backfilled. The Brandt and Clark (August 2021) PP includes the detailed results of the data recovery as well as the preservation
measures for Sites -24762, -24764, -24773, -24776. ASM Affiliates received the field notes and recovered materials from the data recovery work. The results are included in the site descriptions in the current PP. The information is
based off the materials received by ASM Affiliates although they did not complete the fieldwork. To ensure the data is not misinterpreted, ASM Affiliates decided to input the original field maps as they were drawn in the field and thus, they were not digitized. ASM Affiliates sorted and analyzed the collected cultural materials. Cultural materials identified include a coral abrader, an urchin file, fish and mammal bones, marine shell, perforated cyprea sp,
volcanic glass, basalt, and a polished adze. The excavations at Site -24764 and Site -24773 supports the AIS interpretation that these sites were used as pre-Contact habitation. The sites originally slated for data recovery will
now be preserved.
The form of preservation for Sites -24762, -24764, -24773, -24776 is avoidance and protection (conservation), with the following provisions:
Short-Term Conservation Measures
• Orange construction fencing will be installed along the 20-foot preservation boundaries of each site.
• The fencing will be checked by a qualified archaeologist and verified in writing with photographs and sent to SHPD prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities.
• No construction work will be permitted within the preservation easement. Restoration and backfilling of excavated units in archaeological features
• The cultural materials recovered during data recovery will be returned to their respective excavation units, the open units will be filled, and this will occur under archaeological supervision.
• Soil and rocks from the original units will be placed back in their respective units.
Ikaika Rodenhurst September 14, 2021 Page 2
• The surface of the excavated units will be restored in such a manner that it matches the natural architecture and design characteristics of the site or feature. • Nearby archaeological sites will not be used to backfill and will not be disturbed.
• The five identified artifacts, coral abrader, urchin file, basalt adze, basalt abrader and perforated cyprea sp., will be curated by the landowner and potentially used as part of future Hawaiian cultural interpretive programming.
Permanent Conservation Measures
• Long-term preservation will be in the form of avoidance and conservation.
• A permanent 20-foot preservation easement will extend from the defined edge of each site.
• No permanent physical barriers are proposed to mark the preservation easements.
• No planting of non-native vegetation and no heavy equipment machinery of any kind is permitted within the preservation easement.
• Vegetation clearance and trash removal will be undertaken by the landowner using hand tools only.
• All requirements and restrictions of this preservation plan, including the metes and bounds description of the revised easement and a map showing the extent of the easement will be incorporated into the property deed as a restrictive covenant and will be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances with a copy sent to SHPD.
• Landowner will notify the SHPD of any degradation or change of site condition.
The End-of-Fieldwork Letter Report (Brandt, July 2021) adequately documents the completion of the data recovery
investigations as specified in HAR §13-275-9. It is accepted. The preservation plan meets the minimum requirements of §13-277. It is accepted. Please send two hard copies of each document, clearly marked FINAL, along with a copy of this review letter and a text-searchable PDF version of the documents to the Kapolei SHPD office, attention SHPD Library. Additionally, please upload a text-searchable copy of each plan to HICRIS Project
2021PR00338 using the Project Supplement option and PDF copies to Lehua.k.soares@hawaii.gov. SHPD hereby notifies the County the End-of-Fieldwork letter, and the PP has been accepted and the permit issuance process may proceed. SHPD requests written and photographic verification that the interim protection measures for the preservation sites have been implemented prior to project initiation. SHPD requests written notification of project initiation. Please contact Nicole A. Mello at Nicole.Mello@hawaii.gov for any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Aloha, Alan Downer
Alan S. Downer, PhD Administrator, State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Dion Gonzales, County of Hawaiʻi, Dion.gonzales@hawaiicounty.gov Leilani Lewi, County of Hawaiʻi, Leilani.lewi@hawaiicounty.gov Bailey Pimentel, County of Hawaiʻi, Bailey.pimentel@hawaiicounty.gov Peter Dahlberg, Aina Engineers Inc., pdahlberg@hawaii.rr.com Lokelani Brandt, ASM Affiliates, lbrandt@asmaffiliates.com, HICRIS@asmaffiliates.com Robert E. Lee, landowner, robertrleegroup@gmail.com