Loading...
2023-02-14 Planning Commission Agenda Packet1 KAUA`I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2022 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair Cox at 9:02 a.m. - Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Gerald Ako Ms. Donna Apisa Ms. Helen Cox Mr. Francis DeGracia Mr. Jerry Ornellas Ms. Lori Otsuka Excused or Absent The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Ka`aina Hull, Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Staff Planner Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, Kenny Estes, Romio Idica, Kristen Romuar-Cabico, and Planning Commission Secretary Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney – Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai, Office of Boards and Commissions – Support Clerk Lisa Oyama. Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Cox: Called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: First order of business Madam Chair is roll call. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ako? Commissioner Ako: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Commissioner DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Commissioner Ornellas: Here. D.1. Feb. 14, 2023 2 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Commissioner Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madam Chair. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hull: Up next, we have Approval of the Agenda. The department has no recommended changes to the agenda. Chair Cox: May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Mr. DeGracia: Motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 6:0. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Mr. Hull: Next we have the approval of minutes for the August 23, 2022, meeting. Chair Cox: Anyone have any changes/corrections? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Ako: I move to accept the minutes of the August 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Apisa: I make a motion accept/approve the minutes of the meeting of August 23, 2022. Mr. Ornellas: Second. Chair Cox: All those in favor say aye? Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 6:0. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Hull: No Receipt of Items for the Record. We have no Continued Agency Hearings. New Agency Hearing Mr. Hull: Moving on to New Agency Hearing. First one is F.2a. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-3) and USE PERMIT (U-2023-3) to allow operation of a retail agriculture feed store on a parcel situated on the southern side of the Alapaki Road/Ka'apuni Road intersection in Kapa'a Homesteads, further identified as 6121 Alapaki Road, Tax Map Key: 4-6-011 :049, and affecting a portion of a parcel approximately 2.015 acres in size = AARON E. & KANOELANI S. BANDMANN, TRUSTEES. [Director's report received 10/25/2022]. 3 Mr. Hull: Is there any members of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? That is attending in person, no one has signed up, if there is anybody that would like to testify in person? Seeing none, do we have anybody attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, please indicate so by raising your virtual hand. Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: At this time there are no Zoom attendees with their hands raised. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, the department would recommend closing the Agency Hearing for this application. Chair Cox: May I have a motion to close the Agency Hearing? Ms. Apisa: Move to close the Agency Hearing on Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-3) and Use Permit (U-2023-3). Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: All those in favor? Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next we have the Agency Hearing for SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-2), CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-4) and USE PERMIT (U-2023-4) to allow expansion of the Lihue Airport runway and associated site improvements, further identified as 3901 Mokulele Loop, Tax Map Key: 3-5-001 :008, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 721 acres = STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. [Director's report received 10/25/2022]. Mr. Hull: Is there anybody here in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? If so, please approach the microphone. If you can state your name and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Roslyn Cummings: Can I give my testimony from this into the next agenda? One time? Is that allowed? Mr. Hull: Is that about Kukui`ula? Ms. Cummings: Yes. Mr. Hull: It’s your discretion Chair. Chair Cox: I’d rather have it separate. I think it would be really quick and it would just be clearer if we had two separate testimonies. Ms. Cummings: Okay. Chair Cox: Is that okay? Ms. Cummings: Yes. Chair Cox: Alright, thanks. 4 Ms. Cummings: Aloha no, inoa Roslyn Nicole Manawai`akeamalama Cummings (speaking Hawaiian). Is there a legal representative in this room? Can you please state your name? Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai: Good morning, Roslyn, Deputy County Attorney, Laura Barzilai. Ms. Cummings: Thank you. So, for this particular permit I’m requesting a Ka Pa`akai Analysis. Reason be that this is connected to the story of 'Ahukiniala'a and I’m concerned about the expansion and I’m definitely for improvements but it’s covering 721 acres. Also, I would like to question the property interest, is this DHH land? Does anyone know? Mr. Hull: It is not. Ms. Cummings: Okay, well I’m going to do a further title search and see because I thought it was part of DHH land. As far as this goes, an expansion worries me because of the current traffic issue, our waste issue. The County is not providing any of these issues as far as maybe traffic, I see round-a-bouts, I see new traffic lights, any type of expansion is actually telling me that we’re going to progress anyway, that we’re going to have more people moving here and more people visiting here. So, I’m concerned about our water usage, our waste usage/waste management, traffic, evacuation plan, and I want to see all of this somehow within these permitting processes. So, thank you for your time. Chair Cox: Thank you very much. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else here in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? Again, this would be Lihue Airport extension. Seeing none, if anyone attending virtually would like to testify on this agenda item, please indicate so by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We do have a Zoom attendee with their hand raised, Dennis Silva Jr., I’m going to allow you to enable your audio/video on your end, you’re going to have to accept on your end and turn on your camera and unmute yourself. Whenever you’re ready, you have three minutes. Mr. Silva, you might have to unmute yourself. Mr. Dennis Silva Jr.: Aloha, Dennis Silva from ACOM representing H. Airports… Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Hi, Mr. Silva, so sorry this is the time for public testimony. If you’re representing the applicant, then you’ll be able to make your representation… Mr. Silva: At a different time, oh okay. Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Zoom attendee room wishing to testify, please indicate so by raising your hand? No one else in the Zoom attendee room with their hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Jodi. With that, the department would recommend closing the Agency Hearing. Chair Cox: Can I have a motion? Ms. Otsuka: Motion to close New Agency Hearing for Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA(U)- 2023-2) Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-4) and Use Permit (U-2023-4). Chair Cox: Is there a second? 5 Mr. DeGracia: Second. Chair Cox: We’ve been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have Agency Hearing for CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-5) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-1) to allow a deviation from Section 8-4.4(a)(3) of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, concerning the development standards of a residential subdivision, involving a parcel in Kukui'ula and situated on the makai side of the Ala Kukui'ula/Kahela Place intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4) 2-6-022:055 and containing a total area of 140,009 square feet = KUKUIULA VISTAS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022]. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone in the audience here in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? If so, please approach the microphone. Ms. Cummings: Aloha, again, Roslyn Cummings on the record. So, I pulled up through various EIS and cultural assessments, there’s a part here that says, Cultural Surveys Hawaii 1998 reported on the recovery of Kukui`ula Town Community Project, encompassing approximately 219 acres. The project included estimation of twenty different sites, totaling 64 individual features, there’s a total of 212 excavation units and 19 backhoe trenches, only 14 backhoe trenches were (inaudible). Large quantities of (inaudible) and artifacts, 10,635 items recovered and reported on. Artifacts included a wide range of types with both indigenous, 2,592 items and historic 8,043 items (inaudible). Radiocarbon dates range from AD 1050 on (inaudible) came from habitation burial cave, site number 50-30-101927A, in addition the habitation sites, (inaudible) dating sites from agricultural features were also analyzed. I’m giving public notice as evidence against the upcoming developments (inaudible) permitted by this agency and its agents. Notice to agents is notice to principal, notice to principals is notice to agents. Knowingly and willingly put forward motion to displacement of kānaka, kānaka maoli vested rights. The depletion and deterioration desecration through na iwi kūpuna heiau ahu severance of the aha aku mo’o mo’oku’auhau kuleana to kānaka (speaking Hawaiian) and many more, under whose authority given and name your superiority. Where as Ka`aina Hull, the Director gladly speaks on laws as if he holds a bar license to practice law. This agency making legal determination by citing HRS, Hawaii Revised Statues ordinance and (inaudible) to directly working with Historical Preservation Division, (inaudible) he claims to protect and preserve, to know our history but focuses on the plantation whose makers created shipping companies, hotels, real estate, title companies, and banks. Committing of not only (inaudible) but also genocide. I have issues with the UIP request, evidence not providing not all archeological survey for project areas. TMK use is also fraudulent (inaudible) real estate licensing knows the truth and needs (inaudible) mahele. Others who practice law know the (inaudible) 103-150, the Apology Resolution, admittance of executive of the (inaudible) United States of America whereas indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims (inaudible) sovereignty as a people or over their natural lands to the United States. Now you know I make my claim to my interest, request for a full internal investigation. I did not take oath to as those in office, public service an oath to hold up to the United States constitution, a constitution defect the State of Hawaii, such as codes and policies are not laws, a statute is not a law, (inaudible), a code is not a law, (inaudible), a concurrent joint resolution is not a law, (inaudible), (inaudible) statute the writing will of legislature solemnly express according to the (inaudible) prescribed in the constitution and act of legislator. U.S. Supreme court, the common laws of real law, the supreme law of the real land, the codes, and regulations… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. 6 Ms. Cummings: …policies and statutes (inaudible). Violation of oath is $250,000, 18 USC 3571, the denied provision of constitution $250,000 18 US Code 3571. Thank you for your time and I ask you to please hold your ethics and your oath, and your duty to the people. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Do we have anyone else in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, if anybody is attending virtually and would like to testify on this agenda item, please indicate so by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We have a couple of attendees. First, I’m going to recognize Kiara Lorenzo Rodrigues. I’m enabling you to turn on your audio and video at this time. You have to accept on your end. Ms. Kiara Lorenzo Rodrigues: Welina, mai ka kou. Can you folks hear me well? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes. You have three minutes. Ms. Lorenzo Rodrigues: Okay. Thank you. I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’d first like to state my intentions, and that is the preservation and protection of all things that are precious to my people, the original people of these lands, the kanaka 'oiwi. I have to just thank the speaker prior to me for stating all this laws and we now know that with all these things being said, we need to understand the movement of the water and not only that the protection of these places, as she stated that there’s lots of iwi kupuna that have been here far before these plans were even made and they need to be held, they are held actually, iwi kupuna are held in the public trust, and when it comes to public trust, you guys have to do your due diligence and ensure that these things are not being taken lightly. As a lineal descendant of these people, I have to ensure that you guys are doing your utmost to hold everyone accountable and ensure that none of your ethics are being broken, as there is no trust, the public has with the developers on these Kukui`ula lands, which is unfortunate, and I ask you folks to be the tip of the spear when it comes to holding these people accountable and protecting the people because it seems again and again and again private interest is totally, totally, totally preferred over the public and I just have to ensure that you guys know that we are watching you guys and we are holding you accountable, so please do your due diligence and protect what needs to be protected. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Tara Rojas. I’m enabling you to turn on your audio and video on your end. Ms. Tara Rojas: Aloha, can you hear me? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes, whenever you’re ready. Ms. Rojas: Okay, so I would like to just testify that, do you all know what gentrification is? Why is that continuing to happen on Kaua`i? Do you know what lands you are on? Do you know the history of Hawaii? And just, why are you buying up Kaua`i, basically. It’s always going to be greed over `aina, never. `Aina over greed always. When you step foot on this land, whether you’re coming as a foreigner, you do not live here but now you live here no matter how many years you live here, whether you’re born and raised of here, if you’re not of koko, you need to understand and to respect the laws of this land, which is the Hawaii kingdom. Now you can write what you all want in the rules but you know how the history of Hawaii has transgressed throughout the years that is based on greed, illegal occupation, foreigners coming in and disposing or just dethroning the queen of her rightfully, of her lands, of her 7 people, of her `aina, of her wai, of her kai. So, I’m looking here, it’s says, what are the archeological/biological risks, you’re called AB site. Burial grounds, endangered plant and animal life, lava tubes, and other historically and archeologically significant sites exist throughout the community and may be set aside for preserving historical, archeological, and biological areas and habitats. Why is it going to be set aside, that should be the law, right then and there. You do not set aside kānaka maoli, native Hawaiian cultural rights, burial sites, and then all of a sudden you put a plaque on it. You’re going to disinter iwi kupuna, which should not be moved, only in Hawaii is iwi kupuna, our kupuna, the bones of our ancestors ever moved and evicted even and after they have passed. Does that not bother you all? Do you only see dollar signs in front of you? Uphold your own laws, uphold native Hawaiian cultural rights to gather, to practice their cultural, just their cultural rights, their practices. We’ve been in enough meetings. When is this going to stop? When is Hawaii going to stop? When there’s…it’s all bought up? Greed over `aina, never, `aina over greed, always. That’s it. Be thinking about that in your everyday life, your actions on this Planning Commission board, and for the… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. Ms. Rojas: …mokupuni of Kaua`i. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Ana Mo Des. I’m allowing you to turn on your audio and video on your end. Ms. Ana Mo Des: Aloha, can you hear me, okay? Okay, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Ana Mo Des for the record, and I’m not exactly sure which Kukui`ula portion this is, but I have issues with two of them. One of them I have the information that a certain developer is participating in asking for more allowances while there is a court lawsuit in place by the community and the community is also suing the county for possible (inaudible) misrepresentation and there’s talks about collusion and corruption and being out in the community hearing what I’m hearing that this is just how it is and it’s how it’s been, I’m here to say that that’s absolutely not true. That is against the law, the behavior that has been accustom to the people here time and time again, and as you’ve noticed many are in uproar, so I don’t understand how there’s an agenda item allowing a developer to ask for more allowances to continue on with the same behavior while there’s an active court date, maybe if you guys can put a full stop for any further requests. It doesn’t matter what LLC it’s under, it’s the same actions. And maybe this will incentivize the developer to finally go through the process instead of requesting for the lawyer to have endless continuances, because we do need to end this matter. The community had to take it upon themselves because there was a lack of participation in the Planning Department, possible Planning Commission, the County Council, the Mayor’s Office to do essentially what they are there to do, so I ask you all as commissioners, you’re appointed to be a line of defense for us, members of the community to protect Kaua`i and to ensure that the laws are respected, that protocols are respected, that the rules are respected, which there’s evidence of complete violation and that is why there is a court, so I would like to understand the answer to that, how this is even on the agenda for discussion, for further plundering of very important (inaudible) lands, and also, the, I’m sure if this involves the coffee fields, everything’s very, a blur at this point. I remember the general plan five years ago many people participated, so much so that they needed to move to the War Memorial to allow for everyone to be able to speak their peace and there was never… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. Ms. Mo Des: …I’m sorry. 8 Mr. Hull: Three minutes. You get to have for your testimony. Ms. Mo Des: Three minutes. Okay, so coffee fields should not be ever touched, that was never part of any sort of conversation and the community needs to be involved anytime there’s any (inaudible) so, I guess I’ll speak again on that matter when that comes up, and I’d like clarity for each agenda item so we know what we’re talking about as testifiers. Thank you so much for the time. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Nakai`elua. I’m allowing you to enable your video and audio on your end. Ms. Nakai`elua: Aloha mai kākou. O Nakai`elua Villatora ko`u inoa, on the record. He wahine maoli, kānaka maoli no ka mokupuni o Kaua`i. I am here to put my testimony on opposition of granting the request for agenda item 2.C. and 2.D. to Kukui`ula Vistas, LLC. The reason why I wanted to testify and give my opposition is because of the fact that the significance, the cultural significance and the historic significance of this particular area and if most of you are not understanding that in Lawai or Lawa`i, this particular ahupuaʻa was beloved and famed by many po`e kānaka, po`e kānaka maoli, and within this area, this ahupuaʻa our most beloved mo`i wahine, Kamakahelei. She has a very, very prominent presence in this ahupuaʻa and also because she is also the mother of our last, ali’i, Kaumuali’i here on Kaua`i. So, most people, most kānaka maoli if, I mean everybody has been to Kaua`i and has a connection to Kaua`i has heard of these people, and for me, I see it as, as a kānaka maoli we have our vested rights to be able to protect and preserve our `aina, our resources or for the next seven to twenty-one generations. And I don’t understand why the Planning Commission continues to deprive us of our vested interest and rights as kānaka maoli. Yes, you guys say that you guys have to permit these projects or these developments because as the Planning Commission they’re supposedly the private owners of that particular land but they’re not. When it comes down to it, the great mahele was the only clear title for any land in Hawaii nei. So, if they’re not the original title holders of this `aina, they are not the original owners or they’re not the owners of that property. So, continuing that our kānaka maoli we are the lineal heirs of the original title holders of Kaua`i nei. We, I have to say that I don’t permit any other permissions granted by the Planning Commission to continue this desecration, this deprivation because it’s detrimental to our people and it’s continued genocide on our cultural significance, our physical existence here on `aina on Kaua`i nei. Thank you so much for your time. Have a great day. Aloha. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Last call for anyone attending by Zoom who which to testify. Please raise your virtual hand. There are no other attendees with their hands raised. Mr. Hull: Last call for anyone in person that would like to testify on this agenda item. Seeing one. (Inaudible) is requesting (inaudible) standards. The department actually recommends keeping this agency hearing open until the commission feels appropriate to take action on the actual agenda item. Chair Cox: Okay. Do we need to make a motion to keep it open? Mr. Hull: Correct. You either have to do a motion to close or a motion to defer. Ms. Apisa: Just a little more clarification on keeping it open for more testimony or for what? Mr. Hull: Well, it depends, but if the commission wants to close it, it absolutely has the authority to close it right now, if that’s your (inaudible) the department has no objections to that. It’s just that when you 9 have a variance it’s going above and beyond the standard (inaudible) zoning permit application. This application is asking to (inaudible) standards, contingent or pursuant to a request made from Public Works Engineering division because of road way issues, so if the commission is okay with closing it, the department is fine with that as well but just being that it’s a variance. That’ll be the recommendation, if this body decides to take action on it, say today during the actual agenda item, the first move would be to close the agency hearing and then act upon it, but if the commissions comfortable closing the agency hearing as well, the department has no issues. Chair Cox: Do we have a motion? Or do we need further clarification? Ms. Otsuka: We need a motion to continue the agency hearing or close? Mr. Hull: Yeah, the two only options this commission has for agency hearing, is a motion to close, it’s not approving the agenda items, just a motion to close the (inaudible) agency hearing. Ms. Otsuka: Just so you folks can do more investigating. Mr. Hull: I’ll be honest with you, the department doesn’t need any further investigation to do this. (Inaudible) of caution because it’s a variance, if there are questions that this commission has, given the testimony that was received or the reasoning that the applicant gives for the variance, those are the only reason for possible recommendation for deferral. Chair Cox: Just clarifications, we would still ask those questions when it comes to… Mr. Hull: When it comes to that (inaudible). Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ako: I have a question, Madam Chair. Chair Cox: Yes. Mr. Ako: If we decide to keep the agency hearing open, then we do not take action on this (inaudible) item today? Chair Cox: We still can. We still can, it’ll come back up in L. Mr. Ako: Which at that time then we come back to close the agency hearing? Ms. Barzilai: (Inaudible). Chair Cox: After we accept. Ms. Barzilai: I don’t see any harm (inaudible). Chair Cox: Yeah, I don’t see any harm. It seems like it’s (inaudible) some caution but it would allow us to hear more testimony and we can close the agency hearing when we get to L, and finish discussion. Ms. Otsuka: I’ll make a motion. Motion to keep open the agency hearing for Class IV Zoning Permit(Z- IV-2023-5) and Variance Permit (V-2023-1). Chair Cox: Is there a second? 10 Mr. Ako: I’ll second. Chair Cox: we’ve been moved and seconded. Maybe we can have a roll call on this one. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Motion to defer the Agency Hearing. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have agency hearing for CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-6) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-2) to allow a deviation from Section 8-4.4(a)(3) of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, concerning the development standards of a residential subdivision, involving a parcel in Kukui'ula and situated on the makai side of the Ala Kukui'ula/Kahela Place intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: ( 4) 2-6-022:054 and containing a total area of 87,919 square feet = KUKUIULA VISTAS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: Is there anyone in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, please indicate so by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We have one testifier on Zoom. At this time Nakai`elua, I’m allowing you to enable your video and audio on your end. Ms. Nakai`elua: Aloha mai kākou. O Nakai`elua Villatora ko`u inoa, on the record. He wahine maoli, kānaka o`iwi on Kaua`i nei. I just wanted to also reiterate for this particular one because it’s a separate agenda item, 2. D. So, particularly this is the same LLC, separate location, separate tax map key, and looking on top of the agenda item, it’s 87,919 square feet, for this residential subdivision, and realizing as a person that lives here on Kaua`i nei, knowing that we are in a housing crisis, even for the people, the kānaka maoli population, also the local residents population, we’re already struggling to be able to find 11 housing and, actually sustain ourselves on top of this island. Like, for me, I’m originally, I grew up on the East side, also lived in Northshore, but currently I’m living all the way in Kekaha, because it’s the only place that I can afford to live and my partner, my kane, he is working in Lihu`e, so understanding that there’s a lot of people in our situation that is similar to us but yet our county is still making room and pushing the need aside for these private developers to continue their luxury residential developments for their prime piece of paradise is really sickening and it makes me frustrated because of the fact that, when it comes to our housing crisis, where is the county even at with that. There’s a lot of people that are currently still waiting for, to be housed and to be able to have, and everybody knows that after Covid, and even within the last two years, our workforce here in Hawaii has moved to the U.S. because the fact that we can’t even find places to stay, so why are we continuing to have the Planning Commission approve these developments for an 87,919 square foot development in Kukui`ula. We should continue to privatize the land so that kānaka maoli cannot continue to practice in that area, gather in that area, I don’t even know many people that still continue to fish in that area or kuleana that area because there’s so much privatization of the access points to that particular ahupuaʻa, so yet again, this is the continuance of what progress looks like on Kaua`i nei and it should be saddening to you folks that you guys have to be the ones that have to work with the po`e kānaka to realize that, yeah these people are coming here because they want t little piece of paradise, they want a little piece of our… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. Ms. Nakai`elua: … kānaka history and for me I thank you guys for your time, but that’s what I have to say. Mahalo nui. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Kiara Lorenzo Rodrigues. Enabling you to turn on your audio and video on your end. Ms. Kiara Lorenzo Rodrigues: Aloha mai kākou. Can you hear me? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes. Ms. Kiara Lorenzo Rodrigues: I just want to also testify against this and for the reason the testifier spoke before me. People that are ma`a to these `ainas to be (inaudible) have to leave their lands that they love to make room for people who do not have any ties here, doesn’t make sense. The Board says they want to create more affordable housing for the people of Kaua`i, but what are they truly doing, they’re taking people out of the lands that they know that they grew up out of and putting them where they see fit. It doesn’t make sense and I have to testify against this, and I have to say that the Board should do better to create housing in all ahupuaʻa, so people that are of those ahupuaʻas can stay there. It doesn’t make sense that they’re leaving their cultural practices, their iwi kupuna that they tend to, they should be on their `aina and that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have a Zoom attendee, AS. I’m allowing you to enable your video and audio on your end. You have to unmute on your end then you may begin. Ms. AS: Aloha, my name is Alex, and I must oppose this variance, it’s bad enough that this particular developer looks to be destroying the entire Southside of Kaua`i, but now this developer is asking not just for approval but for approval that goes above and beyond regular development. You might say it’s not the biggest deal, we understand that the lots aren’t appropriately sized. What happens is, every time 12 somebody looks the other way this developer is colonizing the island and as the other testifiers have mentioned, people that grew up here cannot stay. What we have is a situation that goes exactly against what the general plan says. It’s very disheartening when the Planning Commission and Planning department holds up the general plan only when it’s appropriate for them, only when it satisfies and underscores what you all want to do. But the general plan specifically says that the focus is going to be on, affordable development and Kukui`ula is anything but affordable development. Please do the right thing. Really check what's happening here in Kaua`i. It's up to you all, you are the gatekeepers, and it doesn't seem that you're doing a terrific job. Please do better. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Tara Rojas. Unmute on your end. Thank you. Ms. Tara Rojas: Aloha, so I'm gonna continue. This is Tara Rojas. I’m gonna continue on with this as well. When you look around, what percentage of kānaka maoli do you see? Saw some videos, saw some pictures when I was there myself, it’s really sad to see that, that is…this is Hawaii, and that Hawaiians are the minority, again because of the history and because of these type of planning commission decisions that allow developers to purchase luxury housing, to purchase `aina, to purchase the wai for their own self-interest, corporate interests. So, is that what this comes down to, the planning commission and Hawaii is for who has the most money. When will this stop? When is enough, enough? As you all of us testifying. You need to be held accountable for your decisions. You need to pivot and really rethink what your position there is. Is it for the county or is it for a specific developer or developers, or people now being brought on board? When you look at this new subdivision, and special permitting and all of this `aina and the wai going to it. It’s in the name of this new subdivision. You can actually see, literally, what’s happening. We can all see it. And I’m going to say it, because it’s been out in the news, even people watching, the FBI has also seen it as well. So, corruption and greed does not belong in the planning commission nor in the `aina. You know that just…you need to really (inaudible) there on behalf of the public to make the right and pono decisions. Please stop just permitting and passing these things through and deferring, especially this permit. You don’t need anymore research or investigation. Keep ag land, ag land, keep Hawaii, Hawaii. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Next, we have Kainani Littlejohn. Please enable your audio and video on your end. Ms. Kainani Littlejohn: Aloha mai kākou. Can everyone hear me? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes. You may begin. Ms. Kainani Littlejohn: I’m here today from Oahulua, to oppose this heinous and hewa plan. I’m here to remind the people that this is pure genocide at it’s finest, and I don’t know how you guys can sleep at night. This is genocide of `aina, this is genocide of kānaka, this is genocide of our culture, of our iwi kupuna. There is no Hawaii without kānaka, without Hawaiians. Enough is enough. We need to start putting wai over greed, we need to start putting `aina over greed, kupuna over greed, iwi kupuna over greed. I have nothing more to say. Mahalo and have a good day. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Last call for any testifiers attending by Zoom wishing to testify, please raise your virtual hand. There are no other hands raised at this time. 13 Mr. Hull: With that, last and final call for anyone in person that would like to testify on this agency hearing, if so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, the department also in this matter (inaudible) because it’s a variance but also to, the department is recommending (inaudible) this application which could leave to a contested case, so the department could request that this agency hearing be deferred. Chair Cox: Are we ready for a motion or do we need further clarification? Ms. Barzilai: Motion to defer the agency hearing, Madam Chair. Chair Cox: Yeah, I know what is being asked for. I’m asking the commission members if they need further clarification like the last time or is this clear this time at what’s being asked for is that we’re leaving the motion, we’re deferring the agency hearing and it will come up on the agenda later. Ms. Apisa: I move that we defer this New Agency Hearing for Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-6) and Variance Permit (V-2023-2). Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: Been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Or maybe we better do a roll call again. Mr. Hull: Roll call? Chair Cox: Yes. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next we have the last agency hearing which is, 14 CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-7), USE PERMIT (U-2023-5), and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2023-1) to allow operation of a gymnastics academy on a parcel along the western side of Kawaihau Road in Kapahi, further identified as 5859 Kawaihau Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 4-6-011 :061, affecting a portion of a parcel containing 43,560 square feet = GARDEN ISLAND GYMNASTICS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: Is there anyone who would like to testify on the agency hearing, that is here in person? This is for members of the public, for the applicant we will have time during the separate agenda item to actually go over the application but is there anyone here in person that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so please approach the microphone. Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agency hearing, if so, please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendees with their hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing for this application. Ms. Apisa: I move we close Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-7), Use Permit (U-2023-5) and Special Permit (SP-2023-1) for Garden Island Gymnastics LLC. Mr. DeGracia: Second. Chair Cox: We’ve been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 6:0. Continued Public Hearing – None New Public Hearing Mr. Hull: We have the New Public Hearing for, ZA-2023-2: Request: County Zoning Amendment from Open District (O) to Residential District (R-4). Location: Lawa'i, Kaua'i. Located along the southern side of Koloa Road, and approximately 200 feet west of the Koloa Road/Horita Road intersection, further identified as 3980 A Koloa Road and containing a total area of 40,075 square feet, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-6- 009:021 = KURT BOSSHARD/STEVEN ABSHER. [Director's Report received, deferred 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: At this time is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item that is here in person, if so please approach the microphone. Seeing none, is there any members of the public that are attending virtually that would like to testify on this public hearing, if so please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendees with their hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Seeing none, we move to (inaudible) this is the zoning amendment we moved right before we got into the actual agenda item, so I’ll turn it over to Dale for the staff report pertaining to this agenda item. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. 15 Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Cox: Thank you Dale. May we have the applicant? Mr. Kurt Bosshard: Kurt Bosshard for KRB Lawai. So, I want to thank the agency for moving this along, expeditiously. It’s a thorough report. Essentially this would allow the construction of a thousand square foot residence immediately adjacent to Koloa Road on a lot that is relatively level (inaudible) chance of (inaudible) present or visible for probably sixty or seventy years. So, thank you. Chair Cox: Any questions for Kurt? Okay, may we have the recommendation from the department. Mr. Cua: Sure. Moving on to the recommendation, based on the foregoing, we have recommended that Zoning Amendment ZA-2023-2 to amend Zoning ZM-LW300 from Open District to Residential District (R-4) (inaudible) subject to the following conditions. There are a total of five conditions, (inaudible) any questions. Chair Cox: Need them read or are you okay? Ms. Apisa: I’m okay. Chair Cox: Thank you for your recommendation, the department recommendation. Any discussion or re we ready for a motion? Ms. Apisa: I’m ready to move that we approve Zoning Permit ZA-2023-2, applicant Kurt Bosshard/Steven Absher. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: We’ve been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Then we’re ready for a roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. 16 Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Bosshard: Thank you all very much. Chair Cox: I believe we might want to take a recess now. Would the Commissioners like to take a recess at this point? Okay. Mr. Hull: Take a recess? Chair Cox: Yes. We’ll take a ten-minute recess. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 9:56 a.m. The Commission reconvened the meeting at 10:08 a.m. Chair Cox: We will reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on we have no (inaudible) items J and I: COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Committee Mr. Hull: We have two reports, first one is: Consideration and Action on all Subdivision matters listed on the October 25, 2022, Subdivision Committee Agenda. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone here in person that would to further testify on the actions that occurred on October 25, 2022, Subdivision Committee Agenda? Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to further testify on Subdivision Committee Actions on the agenda for October 25, 2022, so if so please indicate so by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendee has their hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Ako, Chair of the Subdivision Committee for the report. Mr. Ako: Madam Chair, the Subdivision Committee did meet on October 25, at which time we had entertained two Final Subdivision Map Approvals, one was for Tower Kaua`i Lagoons 9C, it was a proposed 2-lot consolidation, and the second one was for Tower Kaua`i Lagoons 8, it was another proposed 2-lot subdivision. Both were approved by 2:0. Chair Cox: Thank you, Gerald. Is there a motion to approve the report? Ms. Apisa: Motion to approve Subdivision Committee report on October 25, 2022, 17 Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: It’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion passes 6:0. Mr. Hull: Moving on to J.1.b. Consideration and Action on all Subdivision matters listed on the November 15, 2022, Subdivision Committee Agenda. Mr. Hull: Are there any members of the public in person that would like to further testify on this agenda item? Woman from audience: Which item on the agenda is it? Mr. Hull: J.1.b. Subdivision report for November 15, 2022. Woman from audience: Is that the (inaudible)? Mr. Hull: No. Woman from audience: (Inaudible). Mr. Hull: Is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so, please so by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendee with their hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: With that, there’s questions that the Commissioners has for the applicant. (Inaudible) consideration for the applicant has made a request to actually testify before the whole commission. So, with your discretion, Chair. Chair Cox: Yes, we’d like to hear your comments. Thank you, Mauna Kea. Mr. Mauna Kea Trask: Aloha, Chair, (inaudible) commission, Mauna Kea Trask for the record. Thank you for this opportunity, and usually developers and attorneys will not approach you and they’ll walkout the back door if they can, but with this project it’s tentative subdivision approval so basically we’ll be back for the final. And it’s very important for the developer that the commission and the general public know that it is aware of, and cares deeply about the Hawaiian culture resources in this area, both natural archeological and spiritual, etc. And there is a lot of misinformation out there, you’ve heard some of it this morning, so what we would like to do is take a brief moment to give you, walk you through this history, the development and culture. Just so you’re comfortable having the confidence to do the right thing today, which is (inaudible) approve, I’m sorry (inaudible). Ms. Apisa: Could you pull the mic a little closer? Mr. Trask: Sure. Thank you. So, it’s not contested by the public or the department that the preliminary map does not comply with the subdivision ordinance, it does. So, that’s all the technical, architectural, engineering stuff is done, at this point. But this really hinges on the Ka Pa`akai Analysis, and so I’d like to go through that. So, our Ka Pa`akai Analysis is an assessment of the effect of the further subdivisions, golf course and upper scale residential lands within the state urban land use district, not the agriculture (inaudible), and the County R4 Zoning district of Kukui`ula. As you know, Ka Pa`akai is an analytical 18 framework for addressing the preservation and protection of (inaudible) traditional and customary practices. It’s a three-part process, first to identify whether any value, cultural, historical, or natural resources are present, and the extent to which any traditional, and customary native Hawaiian rights are (inaudible). Then, we identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action. Finally, we specify the feasible action, if any, could be taken by the regulatory body to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights, if they are found to exist. Now, what Ka Pa`akai (inaudible) with, it’s not to, it’s not a tool to stop development, Ka Pa`akai is a tool to identify and preserve, and protect when feasible, and reasonable native Hawaiian customary practices. It has it’s legal foundation, the Hawaii State Constitution, Hawaii State Law, and Hawaii Kingdom (inaudible) Law, going back to the (inaudible). So, the portion of, Kukui`ula we’re dealing with, is actually in the (inaudible), it’s not in Kukui`ula. Kukui`ula is a land division of the Koloa district, but it’s right there on the edge, so what you know as Kukui`ula is cut in two (inaudible). In this area, as you may know, has been an extensive sugar cane cultivation since about 1870. So, the cultural history of Kukui`ula, in our Ka Pa`akai Analysis, we looked at going back to kingdom records, and there’s a complete absence of place names on early historic maps of 1872, 1891, 1896, and 1900, and what this indicates is that there were little traditional Hawaiian activity within the project area, I’m not talking about within the region, generally, but within Kukui`ulas project area, this specific site. There is no potable water, closer that Lawa`i stream, which (inaudible) it’s closest to be about 300 meters away, within the Lawa`i valley. So, NTBG, that’s the closest fresh water. Hawaiians live by fresh water, there’s no fresh water in the project area. You’ve heard a lot of talk about Chiefess Kamakahelei, Kaumualiʻi, George Humehume, who are the last Kaua`i chiefs. Now, setting aside the fact that their actually related to all the other chiefs, we know that all the other chiefs interbred, and Kaumualiʻis (inaudible) grandfather is actually from Oahu, with that aside, after the Kaua`i rebellion in 1824, all the Kaua`i lands were granted to Kamehameha chiefs and (inaudible) from Hawaii and Maui, none of whom had any particular affinity for Kaua`i. So, when you look at going pre…rebellion, of course there’s no land title at that time and all that stuff. That was all according to tradition and culture (inaudible). All the kuleana lots, from the beginning to the mahele, and the kuleanas were claimed, they were all down in Lawa`i Valley, again with a perineal stream to supply irrigation and drinking water. You also heard and you’ll hear testimony regarding many of the descendants of Kekūāiwa. So, Moses Kekūāiwa died in 1848, he was 19 years old. He had no children. He did claim lands in Wahiawa, which is like Kalaheo, by Brydeswood, and that’s the Wahiawa area, and he also had the entire ahupuaʻa of Koloa, so the eastern portion of the Kukui`ula development, going into the beginning of Kekūāiwa’s (inaudible). The east side where we are, was the entire ahupuaʻa of Lawa`i was granted to (inaudible) Kanehoa and his first wife, Namapu`elua, and (inaudible) Kanehoa, he was from the Big Island, he was the chief, his father was (inaudible), who was the American guy who jumped (inaudible), he made a chief by Kamehameha, and from him are descendant chiefs of Hawaiians and non-hawaiians alike. So, upon Ka`inoa’s death, his widow, Hi`poni at the time received the land and she deeded it to Queen Emma, that’s why we all know Queen Emma owned the (inaudible). She wasn’t the original title holder, but it was deeded to her by (inaudible). Now, (inaudible), he died when he was 19, no issue. All his lands went to his sister, (inaudible), and that’s all his lands on Kaua`i, both Koloa and Wahiawa, Hanapepe, all that. So, in 1860 (inaudible) leased the (inaudible) to Duncan McBryde for cattle ranching, there was no theft there, it was a lease. During the mid to late 19th century, McBryde expanded into sugar cane. In 1876, Queen Emma leases her Lawai Kukuiula lands to Duncan McBryde for sugar. In 1886, one year after Queen Emma’s death, Elizabeth McBryde purchased the kona lands of Kekūāiwa and Queen Emma, including Wahiawa, Kalaheo, Lawai, Kukui`ula and Koloa. And in 1889, Walter McBryde established McBryde sugar company, and it’s been in cultivation ever since. So, when you hear, I’m not saying there wasn’t land (inaudible), I’m not saying any of that, but when it comes to our project, title’s clear, everything is (inaudible). A lot of what you heard to is on gentrification, that’s true, that’s a big problem on Kaua`i. But, ironically because of the way the County laws are set up and land use, and especially it’s affordable housing program. It is large developments, like Kukui`ula, like hotels are really the source of all our affordable housing, and that’s because of the affordable housing exaction. So, for example, as it applies to this case, in 1993, (inaudible) first petition with a land use commission to amend 19 the State land use district from ag to urban. In the original planning (inaudible) with single and multi- family housing, gold courses, clubhouse, essentially use of what you see now, it was originally planned in 1993. In 95 the LUC approved the reclassification to two increments, subject to 41 conditions. Phase 1 is the east side, Phase 2 is the west side, where we are now. Now some of the conditions I’m going to go through. These are what Kukui`ula has complied with, or it’s predecessors and interest, etc.…So, because of the Kukui`ula development, Kaua`i has realized 301 affordable housing units, which are at conveyed developed, conveyed to the county or developed by the land owner. Ele`ele Nani, at a 160 affordable housing units, Pa`anau at 60 affordable housing units, County ordinance 2004370, Pa`anau 50, and Koa`e Makana 75, so I doubt that myself, you or anyone in this room can afford the houses that are going to be built, with affordable housing that was built predicated upon this development that’s benefited 301, over 300 people. You hear a lot of talk about the environment, so because of this development, near shore water quality monitoring has been ongoing since 1991. (Inaudible) NPES permits acquisition and compliance since the 90’s. They prepared and submitted an individual solid waste management plan in 2006. (Inaudible) constructed and continued operation of wastewater treatment plan since the 1990’s, which services Kukui`ula, Pa`anau, Koloa School, Koloa Estates, Lopaka Paipa Blvd., which produces R1 water for golf course use, and further they participate in the regional waste water treatment system, and they are ongoingly involved and supported. So, prior to Kukui`ula you basically say the whole southside is (inaudible), which is terrible. So, Kukui`ula has majorly invested and has carried the weight of pretty much the majority of the waste water treatment on the southside since it’s (inaudible). So, they continue to put out a funding of construction of local and (inaudible) roadway plans and improvements, so they put in the western bypass road. They contribute their share to keep the infrastructure going over there for everyone’s use. They’ve constructed and conveyed potable water source and storage, and transmission facilities to the Department of Water. Now as you know the lack of water (inaudible) impediment to affordable housing development on this island, and Kukui`ula builds source and storage for the county (inaudible). They completed and implemented archeological preservation data, recovery plans, they conveyed 16 acres to the royal order of Kamehameha, expanding Prince Kuhio Park, they provided public bike paths, and pedestrian paths within the project and along the bypass road, and public parking, and a defacto public park in Lawai Harbor. So, if you go to Kukui`ula Bay, Lawai Harbor, that whole grass area, where everybody hangs out with their family, that’s Kukui`ula land, for general public use. There’s a parking facility, it’s a gravel parking lot to the east of it, that’s Kukui`ula land, for public use. They’ve trained and employed displaced sugar cane workers, and use local contractors to the maximum extent legally permissible. And finally, they conveyed NTBG;s visitor site, right there across Salt Pond, the National Tropical Botanical Gardens. I’m not trying to say that I’m no one to judge but a lot of people have opinions about corporations, and I’m not here to guess that, but Kukui`ula has proven (inaudible). So, again subdivision of the site was looking at analyzing the presence of traditional customary practices. There's absolutely nothing within the proposed subdivision. It's part of a 29-year-old Kukui`ula plan development. It's surrounded by golf courses, through northeast and west. And there are already preexisting luxury, home sites along it’s makai border. The land is barren, for all useful materials, and all the la`au is invasive scrub brush, so you’re looking at guinea grass, alekoa, etc.…So, as far as rights, traditional, customary use (inaudible), there is nothing you can use to make (inaudible), there is no ti-leaf, there is no house timber, there’s no medicinal plants (inaudible). The Ka Pa`akai Analysis has actually been going back since 1988, and in short up until May of this year, Kukui`ula has interviewed an outreach over 60 parties, including Neo Plant organizations, State and County advisory boards, ohana lineal descendants individuals, and those who are just interested, that aren’t even in the ahupuaʻa. So, we complied with the first step of the Ka Pa`akai Analysis, now Ka Pa`akai step 2, identified the extent to which traditional customary resources will be affected, again, there’s none in existence, so, none will be affected. Generally, you’ve heard concerns about caves, there's no caves in this area. That's another part of Koloa. There's concerns about burials there's no burials in this area, we’ve looked extensively, Kukui`ula, the last thing you want to do is find burials, and it’s not like we’re trying to avoid them. Might as well know before the dozers come because they’ll be found eventually. But, again this has been in sugar cane cultivation since 1870, those of you who remember sugar cane know, it was scraped and 20 burned, and scraped and burned for 200 years, so, there’s nothing on the surface over there. And finally concerns about endangered species, for the same reason, there's no endangered species in the area. And again, finally identifying a feasible action to be taken by yourselves to protect native hawaiian rights, again, nothing there, nothing to do. So, in summary of Ka Pa`akai Analysis, that we presented to you is more than sufficient according to law policy. There are no (inaudible) upon traditional customary resources identified in the project area. There are no native hawaiian traditional customary resources exercised in the project area. And the project will not interfere with modern established mauka, makai accesses. So, to remind you, like, I said before, there's already preexisting public use trails who didn't develop it. That was on the first things the county required, and the county (inaudible) on this project. Makai access is not affected at all because Lawai road runs the whole makai coastline, and you can access, not only from directly from the beach but also various strategically placed coastal access (inaudible). No burials, no caves, no endangered species, and for all these reasons, we respectfully request and appreciate you approving tentative subdivision application today. And, finally I just want to say that the appeals you’ve heard regarding, well let me say this, your job is to, is not to stop development, your job is not to do justice for the hundreds of years in injustice, you’re just the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua`i. You have very limited jurisdiction, and this is a limited venue. If people have title concerns they (inaudible) circuit court, it’s not resolved here. People have international law concerns, I’m not going to get the validity of that. They can go up to some international body. They got a problem with the federal government, federal laws, go to D.C. This is a Planning Commission, and I haven’t heard anything regarding the content of the application, content of the map, or any of the requests made here already, so, for those reasons, unless you have any questions, I thank you for the time. Chair Cox: Questions from anyone? Thank you for clarifying and correcting some misinformation. Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Yes. That was an excellent report. Thank you. Mr. Ako: Okay, for our second report, the Subdivision Committee did meet this morning again. Present was myself, and Francis DeGracia, we had entertained one Preliminary Subdivision Map Approval. Applicant being Kukui`ula Development LLC., and this was for a proposed 31-lot subdivision, and that vote was taken up and it passed with a 2:0 vote. Chair Cox: Thank you. Can we have a motion to approve the subdivision or deny it? Ms. Apisa: I make a motion we approve the November 15, 2022, Subdivision Committee report. Ms. Otsuka: second. Chair Cox: We’ve been moved and seconded. Perhaps we should do a roll call for this one. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. 21 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Chair Cox: Thank you. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Hull: We have no Unfinished Business for this agenda. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) Mr. Hull: So, moving on to L.1. New Business (For Action). Returning back to (inaudible) previously had agency hearings. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-3) and USE PERMIT (U-2023-3) to allow operation of a retail agriculture feed store on a parcel situated on the southern side of the Alapaki Road/Ka'apuni Road intersection in Kapa'a Homesteads, further identified as 6121 Alapaki Road, Tax Map Key: 4-6-011 :049, and affecting a portion of a parcel approximately 2.015 acres in size= AARON E. & KANOELANI S. BANDMANN, TRUSTEES. [Director's report received 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Dale, who has the report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: (Inaudible) Good morning, Commissioners. Mr. Hull: Sorry Dale. I’ll make a call, for those that did not…is there anyone in person that did not testify in the agency hearing for this agenda item? If you’d like to testify on this agenda item, please approach the microphone. Hearing none. Is there anyone that is attending virtually that did not testify during the agency hearing, and would like to testify on this agenda item? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We do have an attendee with their hand raised. I think she may have already testified. Mr. Hull: On this agenda item? This is for the feed store. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I’m sorry, not for that. Sorry. Kiara Lorenzo-Rodrigues, I am allowing you to enable things on your end. Ms. Lorenzo-Rodrigues: Hello, I just wanted to make a statement of what was said by, I think, I believe that was the lawyer for the development. 22 Mr. Hull: Ma`am, ma`am, sorry, we’re on a separate item. There was a call for testimony during the previous subdivision action. If you’d like to testify on the Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-3) and Use Permit (U-2023-3) for a feed store in Kapa`a, this is the appropriate time. Ms. Lorenzo-Rodrigues: Okay, no thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you. Is there anyone else attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so, please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No other attendee with their hand raised at this time. Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Dale with the report pertaining to this agenda item. Mr. Cua: At this time, I’ll go through my report and summarize. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Cox: Thank you, Dale. May we hear from the applicant? Mr. Trask: Aloha, Chair, and Commissioners. Mauna Kea Trask for Mr. & Mrs. Bandmann, you basically said it all, so, Aaron and Kanoelani, they’re born and raised on Kaua`i. Aaron’s a Bandmann, Kanoelani’s a Bettencourt. They’ve been farming and ranching on the eastside for generations, literally. The motivation to develop this feed store, well, I’m going to call it a feed store but it’s not a feed store, it’s essentially what Aaron wants to do is use an existing ag shed to deliver agricultural products to his friends and neighbors, who’s still the last agricultural cattle ranchers and farmers on that side of the island. So, the property’s divided into two area, like, Dale said, the makai portion is a pasture, where the applicants livestock graze, the mauka portion contains their farm dwelling and accessory structures. Current structures area all permitted. The reason why Aaron and Kanoelani want to do this is because when Farias feed store went out of business after the hurricane sometime, it left a hole, and farmers have had to go to Lihue, and deal with traffic and, if you want to order the shipping costs are exorbitant, so Aaron’s trying to bring that service to the community. They’re not proposing to construct any new structures, and again they just want to do their part consistent with the CZO and the general plan to support agriculture on the eastside of Kaua`i. Thank you. Chair Cox: Thank you. Any questions for the department or for Mauna Kea or the applicant? I have one and it’s out of my own ignorance. I think I already know the answer but what immediately occurred to me was that there had been some really terrible events, internationally when fertilizer has been used as an explosive, or even by accident, on Lebanon, the explosion on Lebanon was actually fertilizer. So, I just wanted to know, are there any special requirements that are needed to store fertilizer at this scale? Mr. Trask: I’m not aware of any, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s not. I don’t think so. These are like, for personal and small-scale use, so Aaron’s not shipping in large quantities of nitrate or anything like that. These are bags, but nonetheless, I believe that whatever is in there, like a lot of products that contain those kind of materials, the label is the law. So, anything on that bag you have to comply with, it’s not like pesticides. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Sounds like most of the products would be feed. 23 Mr. Trask: Yes, feed, maybe some medicines, and stuff like that. Chair Cox: I believe that we have a commissioner here who also let me know that Jerry has more experience in this area and also help me to understand that perhaps I don’t need to worry about this. That is the first thing that occurred to me, so I thought I should ask. Any further questions? Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Ornellas: I move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-3) and Use Permit (U-2023-3) to allow operation of a retail agriculture feed store. Chair Cox: Oh, I just realized we never heard the recommendation from the department. Thank you, Donna. I was so taken up with the explosive fertilizer. Dale, can you give us a department recommendation? Sorry, Jerry. Mr. Cua: (Inaudible). Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended that the subject request to allow an operation involving retail sale of agricultural products through Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-3) and Use Permit (U-2023-3) be approved subject to the following conditions. There are a total of 8 conditions identified in the Directors Report. Any questions, I’d be more than happy to go over them. Chair Cox: Any questions? If not, we can go back to Jerry. Mr. Hull: I’ll just make a real brief statement to the…I know the ladies have questions (inaudible) about this. With applicants like this, quite honestly the department wrestles a little bit, not because we have a problem with it, but because we’re required to run them through a very scrutinous and laborious process, like a Planning Commission hearing. And so, the reason that it is, is because there has been through existing laws one would argue somewhat of a misuse or a use of agriculture land (inaudible) not really intended for. Things like farm dwellings and (inaudible) and how a papaya tree, a single papaya tree singles a bonafide farm under a farm owner agreement plan, there are things like that. There are also desires to commercialize agricultural land for which the farm really (inaudible) under state law it’s been (inaudible) for decades but the commercialization of agricultural lands for either, (inaudible), non- agricultural purposes has put the department of looking at our own rules and regulations, and recognizing that there is no (inaudible) at this time between what is bonafide commercial operations and what non- bonafide commercial operations, so the interpretations then is just, and it’s not just (inaudible), it’s been for decades, is any commercial agricultural lands in order to protect agriculture lands, to an extent you still can but commercial aspect needs to be run through a use permit because all commercials uses should be, but like I said, we wrestled with this because of the fact, when we look at an application like this, these are bonafide farmers with a bonafide agricultural operation that we have to run through a very laborious process, so, they update the commission that there is discussions going on at Council right now with the department until we further consult farmers and looking at operations like these, possibly be (inaudible) bonafide commercial line whereby (inaudible) would not need to go through the use permit process it is what it is today, but that’s kind of been on the horizon over this year. Ms. Apisa: I’ll just add my comment, I think an important part of this is the fact that they’re going to do deliveries and not have customers coming to the house, to me that’s an important part of this. Chair Cox: Thank you for the clarification. Back to Jerry. Mr. Ornellas: Madam Chair, I move to approve a Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-3) and Use Permit (U-2023-3). 24 Chair Cox: Is there a second? Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Cox: We should do a roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Mr. Ornellas: Can we have discussion? Chair Cox: Oh, yes. You have a discussion? Mr. Ornellas: Yes, Madam Chair, are we speaking in favor of the motion? A feed store existed about 20 years ago. Very close to the present facility and that was a retail outlet, where you would have to drive up to it and pickup feed, so, it’s in keeping with the rural nature of that area. Right now I need to drive to Lihue to pick up feed, if I can call Aaron and have him deliver feed to me, that would be great, and I think regarding your comments, Director, I think decentralizing some of these agricultural operations at least for us farmers would be very, very helpful, right now there are no fertilizer or feed outlets in Kapa`a, there used to be, but not anymore. Chair Cox: Thank you, Jerry. Any further discussion? Okay, I guess we’re ready for a roll call vote. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Chair Cox: Great idea. Mr. Hull: Moving onto New Business L.2. 25 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-2), CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-4) and USE PERMIT (U-2023-4) to allow expansion of the Lihue Airport runway and associated site improvements, further identified as 3901 Mokulele Loop, Tax Map Key: 3-5-001 :008, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 721 acres= STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. [Director's report received 10/25/2022]. Mr. Hull: Before I turn it over to Romio, is there any member of the public that did not previously testify during the agency hearing that would like to testify on this agenda item, that is here in person, if so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, is there any member of the public attending virtually that did not previously testify on this agenda item during the agency hearing that would like to testify, if so, please indicate by raising your digital hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No hands raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, I’ll turn it over to Romio for the report pertaining to this matter. Staff Planner Romio Idica: Good morning, Commissioners for your consideration on Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-4) and Use Permit (U-2023-4) and Special Area Management Permit (SMA(U)-2023- 2). Mr. Idica read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Idica: I would like to pause at this time for any questions from the Commissioners or any questions for myself or the applicant. Chair Cox: Any questions at this point? Thank you, Romio. Mr. Hull: And I’ll just make a clarifying statement too because I know there was (inaudible) previously and some concerns raised by members of the public before the hearing. Simultaneous to this proposal the Department of Transportation (inaudible) is looking at possible improvements aside from the runway and that was a proposal that’s been (inaudible) just a proposal in the works and it’s been going for the process (inaudible) for the past year and a half to expand the actual facilities in the airport to handle say possibly more airplane traffic, and adding additional gates. This is not that. There’s been a lot of community concerns raised by the airport expansion of additional gates and the County of Kaua`i has raised concerns and issues and so far as I understand the department has (inaudible) that proposal back, but I want to be clear, there was some confusion I think before about this being that expansion, well it was before the Planning Commission, isn’t (inaudible)we use the wrong word, expansion, it’s an extension, it literally is an extension of the runway that currently does not meet FAA requirements, and so, that’s (inaudible) purposes. Should the airport decide to look at and propose a possible expansion, they have a right to do so, but that will be vetted on a separate application, so just prepare for the (inaudible). Chair Cox: Thank you. I think that was a needed clarification, because there was some misunderstanding earlier. Do we have Department of Transportation here to present? Mr. Hull: Mr. Silva, do you plan on presenting on behalf of DOT Airports? Mr. Silva: Aloha, yes. This is Dennis Silva. I can do a share screen now if I understand correct. I’m doing a power point and it’s probably about 10 minutes. Is that okay? 26 Chair Cox: Okay. Mr. Silva: Okay, thank you. Can you see the power point screen? Chair Cox: Yes, now we can. Mr. Silva: Okay, sure, thank you. Chair Cox: Go ahead. Mr. Silva: Okay, thank you. Aloha, Dennis Silva from AECom, representing H. Airports on this Lihue Airport runway 3-21 relocation. As the staff report mentioned, all U.S. airports were mandated by Congress to comply with FAA runway safety area standards by the end of 2015. Lihue Airport is currently the only airport in the country which does not comply with the RSA requirements. The project will not be expanding, runway 3-21. The operational length of the runway will remain as it is today. This next slide here shows the makai side of the project, which is within the special management area, the SMA area, hence the required SMA permit for relocation of the runway for safety improvements. This slide illustrates, although the physical length of the runway appears to increase, it is offset by the FAA mandated 1,000 feet RSA requirement, government safety area requirement therefore, the runway operational length will remain unchanged, and the slide is pretty busy, so I’ll just kind of run through the components here. So, that kind of the top arrow there the yellow is vehicle access road and maintenance inspection road, and I just want to clarify this part of the runway is the mauka side of the runway, not the SMA area side, and a taxi way extension to meet the runway 3 is that kind of brown-orange color here, and the yellow is the 855 feet of new pavement and the red line going towards the edge of the project area there is a new retaining wall and jet blast deflector beyond the end of the runway, and the blue section is the 284 foot blast pad and they'll also be drainage improvements as well. So, this slide shows the makai side the SMA, part of it is within the SMA, as shown in the slide there in the blue, the sky blue. So, the brownish, that orange is on vehicle service road, and then the red kind of a small new retaining wall, that small red section there is a new retaining wall, a new airport operations area perimeter fence. And that turquoise section towards the bottom is the fill compact and grade area, the area between the end of the runway and the retaining wall, and this portion of the runway will also include drainage improvements. And, approximately a 920 foot retaining wall will meet the grade of the runway safety area fill. The public road in the vicinity of the retaining wall will be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic, the road will remain open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic throughout construction activities. This was discussed with DOT airports, and County of Kaua`i in April of 2021, and the project will coordinate with the agencies to notify the community when partial closure occurs, so it'll be communication between the agencies and County of Kaua`i, so the public is properly notified. Other activities include new inspection road, between the Northeast end of the runway and the new retainer wall, and some material will come from 3 Earthwork borrow sites, located on the airport property adjacent to taxi ways, B, D & E. And the upgrades to runway and taxiway is just lighting as mentioned in the staff report. The project will include runway and taxi pavement work at the Southwest end of the runway 3 and add pavement marking work along the entire length of the runway. The project will also include drainage improvements, as I mentioned earlier. So, construction as mentioned in the staff report will occur during the day and night hours, and night work will occur between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m., except for fledgling season for seabirds, which is September 15th through December 15th. Night work require the use of lighting that will minimize impacts to rare, threatened and or endangered species and construction is to begin in October 2023, and last for approximately 21 months. And this slide here illustrates that there was a 2016 biological study, which was part of the final EA, which was completed and finding of no significant impact was issued by FAA in 2018, and the environmental assessment was published in the environmental notice on July 7, 2018. In the EA, Section 4.3, biological resources discuss the biological study, and for reference the biological study is in Appendix E of the final EA. So, findings are from this biological study is the most 27 abundant plant species or non-native grasses, airport grass, and (inaudible) grass, of 3 native Hawaiian plants we found, all are common throughout Hawaii and are not of any conservation concern, and that’s the `uhaloa, and the different types of `uhaloa, and `ilima. Next slide, federally threatened and endangered species that are in known to might occur or transit through the project area, include the Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen, Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian petrel, and a band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell’s shearwater. And as stated in the EA, there is no designated critical habitat in or near the project area. Some mitigation for bird and bats, wildlife has a management plan, they'll be doing routine patrols of the airport property, and for the Hawaiian hoary bats, no trimming or removal of trees from June 1st to September 15th, and none are anticipated during or with the project construction, and for Hawaiian seabirds, as we stated earlier and the staff report stated, we’ll avoid night construction between September 15th to December 15th, and for Hawaiian water birds, there will be a biological monitor on site. If a listed bird is observed within the project site, or flies on to the site, while activities are occurring, a biological monitor will halt all activities within a 100 feet of the bird. Some good mitigation measures there. So, in summary environmental archaeological effects, the proposed project will not result in any substantial adverse, environmental ecological effects. No affects the plants, wildlife, wetlands, coastal ecosystems, sensitive habitats, water quality, equality, or other natural resources are anticipated. Historic and cultural resources, this was also a section in the EA, and that was Section 3.9 in the EA. And the project will not cause loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource because there will be no disturbance of any kind in any know natural or cultural resource within the ground disturbance portion of the project area, and should there be in an inadvertent discovery, H. Airports will contact the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division and comply with their protocols and recommendations. And I stated earlier in the presentation, the (inaudible) was completed, received the (inaudible), and by FAA in 2018, and it was published in the environment notice on July 7th, 2018. And these next 2 slides are just copied from the directors report with preliminary recommendation of approval conditions and H. Airports will comply with these conditions. So, that concludes the consultant report, and if you have any questions for the applicant. Chair Cox: Thank you very much. Mr. Silva: Thank you. Chair Cox: Any questions from Commissioners? Ms. Otsuka: I had a question, just to clarify my own curiosity, construction starts October 2023, but it’s designated that no night work will be between September 15th to December 15th, so how does October, how do you start in October? Mr. Silva: It will probably be a H. or Jamie, who’s the project manager can clarify but, I’m assuming it will be day construction only, so no night construction, but Jamie are you online there to clarify? Ms. Jamie Hikiji: Yes Dennis. Thank you. This is Jamie Hikiji from AECom, just to confirm, yes, at the beginning of the construction work will be held only in the daytime, and a lot of that is mobilization work for the contractor. Chair Cox: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Ako: Madam Chair, I have a question. Chair Cox: Yes. 28 Mr. Ako: As I’m reading this, I’m looking at the (inaudible) that was passed, that brought the reasons to bring out the improvements in these airports happened in 2006. So, has Lihue been out of compliance from 2006 or from 2015? I think 2015, I heard that that was the timeframe when the completion should be, the upgrade should be done. Mr. Silva: I’ll refer to Jamie again. Thank you. Ms. Hikiji: Yes, I believe it’s 2006. Mr. Ako: So, we’ve been out of compliance since 2006. Ms. Hikiji: Unfortunately, yes that’s my understanding. Mr. Ako: Okay. Ms. Otsuka: Does anyone get financially penalized, all that time, being non-compliant? Ms. Hikiji: I’m sorry, that I’ll have to…there’s no financial penalty, but we do need to bring the airport into compliance, it being the last, last one that is not. Mr. Ako: So, with the improvements that are coming to the airport, my understanding that the operational runway will stay the same, the length will stay the same. The thing is the safety portions around it will be changing, but would this…I’m thinking that the (inaudible) for the changes because airplanes began to outgrow the size of their airports and then that became a safety condition. For the airports and the airplanes passengers. Now by creating this safety zone around, does this allow also for larger airplanes to come within the airports? Ms. Hikiji: It will make the airport safer for existing flights and existing aircraft. The intent isn’t necessarily to bring in larger aircraft, it’s just to make the airport safer with those flights that are existing. Mr. Ako: Right. The intent is to make it safer, but does it also allow larger aircraft to come to the airports? Ms. Hikiji: No, it will not allow for larger aircraft. Mr. Ako: Got it. Thank you so much. Ms. Hikiji: Thank you. Chair Cox: Any further questions? With that, we’re back to you, Romio. Mr. Idica: Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-4), Use Permit (U-2023-4), and Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA(U)- 2023-2) be approved with the conditions as outlined in the Directors Report. Chair Cox: Thank you. Do we have a motion? Ms. Apisa: I make a motion to approve Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA(U)-2023-2), Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-4), and Use Permit (U-2023-4), State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Ms. Otsuka: Second. 29 Chair Cox: Any further discussion? If not, we go to the roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Moving on agenda item L.3. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-5) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-1) to allow a deviation from Section 8-4.4(a)(3) of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, concerning the development standards of a residential subdivision, involving a parcel in Kukui'ula and situated on the makai side of the Ala Kukui'ula/Kahela Place intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4) 2-6-022:055 and containing a total area of 140,009 square feet= KUKUIULA VISTAS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022]. Mr. Hull: Before I turn it over to Dale. Are there any members of the public in person that hasn’t testified on this agenda item that would like to testify, please approach the microphone. Woman from audience: Aloha, mahalo for the opportunity today to testify. Can you all hear me, okay? (Dale assisted woman with turning on the microphone) Woman from audience: Aloha, and mahalo for the opportunity to testify in person, and I appreciate you all taking the time. Mr. Hull: Please state your name for the record. Woman from audience: Yes, thank you. Ana Mo Des for the record. I want to highlight something that was said by Mr. Trask with regards to proper protocol and rules. There’s a three part process to identifying any validity in retaining anything for protection and perpetuity, and the developer that is asking for further allowances and permission to expand, has violated those rules in a parcel in Koloa and that is evident, and it is a reason why it is in court. So, my request for you is to hold off on any further 30 approvals regarding anything that this developer is requesting until we get to a conclusion regarding the matter in court. There's a reason that the community is in uproar, Mr. Trask alluded to the issue of the impacts that luxury homes have on the community regarding gentrification, and such, and when I regarded you all as our front line, it wasn’t of defense, it's not that you're here to deny anyone, it’s just that you’re here to ensure that proper rules and procedure, and protocol, and the law is abided by every developer, so that lot regarding this developer in property in Koloa, and it decimated our trust of this developer much like the developer decimated the land that was previously undeveloped, nothing on the land was ever changed or moved with heavy machinery, and it very much did qualify for the second part of the three part process of a data recovery portion survey that never happened so as the community in Kalaheo, Koloa, District of Koloa, we're very concerned about the way this developer moves forward in procedure, and the way that the county just allowed it all to happen. The prerequisites were not met, even though we're told. We were also told that if iwi was ever found that it would be completely halted, but then on the following day, we were told that the the bones discovered were really just chicken or pig, or cow, and I'm not sure where in history the Hawaiian, the ancient Hawaiian people practice the same ingenuity in burying their hunt or their food in the way that they would bury their loved ones (inaudible) so, logic shows that we're not being told the truth, and… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. Ms. Mo Des: Was that three minutes? Chair Cox: Yeah, sorry. Ms. Mo Des: I believe I made my point, and I do appreciate the time. Thank you. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else in person that would like to testify on this agenda item, and did not previously testify during the agency hearing? Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, that did not previously testify during the agency hearing? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We have one hand raised, Kiara Lorenzo-Rodrigues. Chair Cox: I would like to make a statement because I believe we’ve heard from that testifier, and so, we will only accept testimony that has not duplicative, or we haven’t already heard it. Because I believe we’ve already heard from this testifier. Mr. Hull: I guess (inaudible), you can allow it, to testify on non-duplicative. Chair Cox: Yes, non-duplicative. Ms. Lorenzo-Rodrigues: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you guys. Could I testify, or no? Chair Cox: You may testify, but only if it’s additional or new information. If it’s… Ms. Lorenzo-Rodrigues: Okay. Chair Cox: …(inaudible) to what we heard before, then no. Ms. Lorenzo-Rodrigues: Okay, I just want to clarify some things. In (inaudible) in the olden days, this was actually a kauhale, which was a village, and there’s actually in your EIS multiple statements of 31 having caves that were looted and these are all posted online. If you would like me to email you that, I can go ahead and do that. I also can go ahead and email my lineal descendant claims to Moses Kekuaiwa, because on mic, they said that he died at 19, those are false allegations, we have marriage certificates of him and many other things. And, I also want to say in the regards of plantation developers to developers today, they’re digging 20 feet in to put in septic tanks and poles and things of this nature that is getting into those lower layers of where iwi kūpuna have been found and actually there’s many a cases within Kukui`ula’a EIS that show cases of looting not only iwi kūpuna but also artifacts, so to claim no cultural significance is unreal and the EIS points to all of these things and I just wanted to make the very, very clear for everyone here that EIS were done in 2008, and why, now today in 2022 they’re saying, no cultural value, I’m not sure if those informations were lost, so I just want to put that on the table, so everybody’s getting a chance to be heard and with all these things I yield. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Anyone else attending virtually that did not previously testify during the agency hearing, if so please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No other attendee with their hand raised. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, I will turn it over to Dale for the report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be summarizing the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Cox: Thank you. Any questions for the department before we move on to the applicant? Ms. Otsuka: I think I have a question. Chair Cox: Okay. Ms. Otsuka: So, originally the engineering did not approve the permit, so they (inaudible). Did they approve the reconfiguration or is it…did they approve it before the engineering approved? Mr. Cua: The sequence of these events is that the applicant initially came in with their original proposal, in knowing that that was routed to the various agencies for their review and comment, comments were taking into consideration from engineering division, and it would have been their preference to have access also. So, as a result the applicant revised their subdivision (inaudible), and that’s what you see before you today, the revised subdivision (inaudible) those lots identify (inaudible) currently do not meet the (inaudible) so, that’s why they’re here before you seeking a variance permit. Mr. Hull: Just to clarify, Commissioner Otsuka, what it goes into is the fact that their original proposal met the subdivision standards, but after the original proposal came in, Public Works Engineering said, while you meet the Planning Department's subdivision lot, width and depth standards, we don’t want the access here, we want the access to be moved to a different area, and with that move of access, it essentially would create loss that do not meet our subdivision standards, so the sole reason for the request is from the applicant saying, we’d like to vary on the standards to accommodate Public Works’ engineering requirements. So, Public Works is not the applicant but quite honestly, ultimately, it’s Public Works requirements that they’ve essentially put the applicant in the position of requesting a variance. And 32 so, the standard for a variance is not, under a regular subdivision you meet the standards and technically the commission has to sign off (inaudible) for use permits, it’s a compatibility test of, is this proposal going to be compatible. This isn’t a use permit, this is a straight up subdivision, but it is a variance request, and the standard for variance is that the size, shape, layout of the property deprives it of other uses that other property owners of the similar zoning would be able to do, and so what happens with Public Works engineering saying, okay, we’re going to need the driveway here, by that requirement, and say okay, is there an additional analysis that can be made to allow this to happen to accommodate Public Works, the departments analysis is because this is a Public Works requirement then yes, it would be in our analysis and our recommendation appropriate, but ultimately it’s up to the discretion of the body. Ms. Otsuka: So, it would be financially ludicrous to make it into 6-lots? Mr. Hull: That’s a question you can ask the applicant. Chair Cox: Are we ready to hear from the applicant? Mr. Ako: Madam Chair… Chair Cox: You have a question? Mr. Ako: Just so that I can understand the discussion a little better. What is the significance of three (inaudible)? Ms. Otsuka: (Inaudible). Mr. Ako: (Inaudible) three to one. Why is that? (Inaudible). Where that came from? Mr. Hull: I can honestly say, you would have to turn to the (inaudible) of the zoning ordinance. (Inaudible). Mr. Ako: That’s fine. Chair Cox: Jerry, you have a question? Mr. Ornellas: No, just a comment. I think that comes from those (inaudible) lots that they develop, especially on the Big Island where the (inaudible) older subdivision, you see very narrow lots, and that’s an acre lot that goes a thousand feet back, very narrow (inaudible). I think that’s where that comes from. Mr. Hull: (Inaudible). Mr. Ornellas: I don’t know if that’s the case here, it maybe not be the case here, it may (inaudible). Chair Cox: Thank you. Are we ready to move on to the applicant? Okay, let’s hear from the applicant. Woman from audience: Good morning, Commission. My name is Maren Arismendez-Herrera from Esaki Surveying. Man from audience: Dennis Esaki, good morning. Ms. Maren Arismendez-Herrera: I just wanted to add a little bit, with the variance is requested because of special conditions it's being created during the subdivision process. So, this lot 5 19 what's created during the previous subdivision, where an access permitted was establish doing this subdivision. So, this lot, Lot 33 19 was created during a previous subdivision, where an access was established doing that subdivision. Doing this subdivision, when we did the preliminary, Public Works now doesn’t like the, the location of that access permitted, and requested that the access be changed, so it’s creating an additional requirement, just special to this lot, so the variance is to address that issue. Chair Cox: Do you want to add something? Mr. Dennis Esaki: Just reiterating and clarifying that we originally designed that place on where they told us to divide on the previous subdivision. They said, this is where you’re going to in, they put an access permit, don’t come in here. So, we designed that and basically, they changed their mind and basically are taking, because in doing that, we lost 3 lots already. Ms. Apisa: So, it’s actually a financial hardship by losing 3 lots, but it’s a requirement of Public Works. Chair Cox: Questions? I have a question that has nothing to do with the 3 lots, but it has to do with, that we’ve heard testimony earlier today about caves and also about court. I’m wondering if you can, either the department or the applicant can inform us a little bit more about that. Mr. Esaki: I think they’re talking about another project several miles away, and this has been completely graded and redressed in the past year by another project. There’s no (inaudible), somebody said there… Chair Cox: It’s a court order and caves, but there’s a few things… Mr. Esaki: No, no that’s another project several miles away, and there’s no coffee fields (inaudible). Chair Cox: Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Ornellas: Yes. Just for clarifications, Mr. Esaki, would this result in a loss of density? Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: The change to the access requirement has already resulted in a loss of density to the lot. Mr. Ornellas: Thank you. Chair Cox: Any further questions? We’re ready to go back to Dale then. Mr. Cua: Moving on to the (inaudible) and recommendation. Based on the information contained in the Director’s Reports, under record for findings and evaluation, the Planning Department concluded the following: 1. Due to the topography of the property as well as the application of regulations from the Department of Public Works-Engineering Division, the strict application of the CZO regulations will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the same district. 2. The proposed development should not have any substantial adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. It is further concluded that the variance can be considered in that the departure will not create significant probabilities of harm to properties and improvements in the neighborhood, nor result in harmful environmental consequences. 4. The applicant should institute the best management practices to ensure that the subdivision does not generate impacts that may affect the health, safety, and welfare of those in the surrounding area of the proposal. 34 Mr. Cua: Moving onto the recommendations. Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-5) and Variance Permit (V-2023-1), be approved subject to the following conditions. Here in the Director’s Report, there are a total of 6 conditions. (inaudible). Chair Cox: Any further questions for Dale? If not, we need to make sure that we, if are ready to act, we need to make sure that we close the agency hearing since we left it open earlier. So, before we can take an action on this, we need to have a motion to close the agency hearing. Mr. Hull: If there is a desire (inaudible). Chair Cox: If there’s…. Mr. Hull: If there’s a desire for the Commission to make a motion to take action, either approving or denying, first you would make a motion to close the agency hearing. (Inaudible) to make a motion to defer this then no action would be (inaudible) agency hearing. Chair Cox: Thank you for the clarification. Ms. Apisa: I move that we close the Agency Hearing for Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-5) and Variance Permit (V-2023-1), Kukui`ula Vistas, LLC. Chair Cox: Is there a second? Mr. Ornellas: Second. Chair Cox: We’ve been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, I believe this one we don’t need a roll call for. Oh, okay, I guess we are going to have a roll call after all. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. 35 Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Chair Cox: The Agency Hearing is now closed. If we’re ready to move action on this item, we need a motion, (inaudible). Ms. Apisa: In consideration of the reason for the variance, I move that we approve Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-5) and Variance Permit (V-2023-1), Kukui`ula Vistas, LLC. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: We’ve been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, we’re ready for a roll call vote. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: Thank you, Commission. Mr. Hull: Moving on to agenda item, L.4. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-6) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-2) to allow a deviation from Section 8-4.4(a)(3) of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, concerning the development standards of a residential subdivision, involving a parcel in Kukui'ula and situated on the makai side of the Ala Kukui'ula/Kahela Place intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: ( 4) 2-6-022:054 and containing a total area of 87,919 square feet= KUKUIULA VISTAS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: Is there anyone here in person that did not previously testify during the agency hearing that would like to testify on this agenda item? 36 Ms. Mo Des: Aloha, thank you for allowing my testimony again. My name is Ana Mo Des for the record, and this testimony is submitted in protest to the process of how things get accomplished and approved here. Being able to justify in the actions to continue approving developers by separating jurisdiction with projects and having respected businesses step forward in representation of such developers that are being pursued with all ability from the community for violations, just further disheartens me, personally, and the belief that we as the community matter and the reason why I’ve been coming forward for 5 years after being silence for 10, respectfully paying attention to the situation and honoring all of you with the utmost respect for your position, especially as volunteers is that economic disparity caused by exploitation results in the drug and alcohol abuse, the domestic violence, the crime, the homelessness, the trafficking, survival trafficking, if you understand the difference, which leads to ultimate suicide, and I do not believe that bringing awareness by creating designating months of awareness to hunger and property and suicide makes any difference, the differences are here by what you allow to continue and I know that you are beholden to certain rules of protocol, and that developers can threaten you with lawsuits for whatever reason, but you must hold strong to the truth of the matter, no matter how it can be twisted, presented before you, because ultimately the issues, the dire issues that we face that I'm sure you all understand and believe me, and feel the same way, because ultimately I know of the goodness that exist in all of us. And people can debate on whether God exists or not, and ultimately with the question of if it's so, then how can evil exist? But God is not a dictator, this is a free will zone, and it is our ultimate freedom of choice to decide whether we are, whether we will be good, whether we do what is right or the opposite, and please just dissect the information that is presented to you because ultimately there is a huge effect, on your decisions and we see them, and they are growing. Kukui`ula is… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Madam Chair. Ms. Mo Des: Thank you, I will just say this one thing that regards Kukui`ula and agreements that were made in order to justify the luxury homes that have been allowed to build. There is one requirement that has not been met, which is a 20-acre park, and I'm not sure who now owns that responsibility, but I would like the Planning Commission and the Planning Department to keep that on the list of priorities, at the very least. Thank you so much. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else in person that would like to testify on this agenda item that did not previously testify during the agency hearing? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, that has not previously testified during the agency hearing, if so please raise your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: We have one attendee with their hand raised, Tara Rojas. Chair Cox: Let me remind you, that we are only accepting testimony that is new, if it’s duplicative of what has already been said by the testifier, we are not going to hear it. So, this must be new information. Ms. Rojas: I cannot hear what you are saying. Mr. Hull: Ms. Rojas, what the Chair is saying is that, in her discretion to allow testifiers to testify under previously testified agenda item, that please limit it to new information. If it’s found to be duplicative testimony you made on the previous agency hearing for this agenda item, that’s not the purpose of the testimony. Ms. Rojas: I don’t what happened to the sound. I could hear fine, and I really can’t hear anything. I can barely hear what you’re saying. I could hear the testifier, but I can’t hear you all, for some reason. 37 Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Sorry, can you hear me, Tara? Tara, just to reiterate, I think Chair just wishes to limit any testimony to new information at this time. And, if so, you have your three minutes now. Ms. Rojas: Oh, shucks, let me try this one more time. Something with the audio. Sorry, one sec, okay. So, aloha, I’m Tara Rojas, I just want to testify again regarding this Kukui`ula. This in a nutshell that, would you all be making the same decisions if you did not have the housing and homes that you are in, from that perspective. It’s easy to make these decisions when you are comfortable, and just realizing that the kānaka maoli and the people of this place, through forcing them out of their own homelands, this is genocide, just pushing them out of their homelands causing the negative effects, the trauma, long-lasting generational, and it’s still happening, so, just basically in itself is, Kukui`ula is representative of the hewa that is happening in Hawaii, and this new development as well, labeled Kanani, it’s just the further continuing of this hewa that really just needs to stop. It…Kauaʻi is not for luxury housing, it is for, Kauaʻi is for… Chair Cox: Excuse me, but… Ms. Rojas: …for kānaka maoli. Chair Cox: Excuse me, Tara. You have given that testimony before, is there anything additional you wish to say? We know that you, have let us know about luxury housing, and local people not having housing, is there anything new you would like to add? Ms. Rojas: Yes, that there is a water crisis in this islands and these times, so wai and ʻaina need to be protected. Mahalo. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, if you haven’t previously testified during the agency hearing, if so, please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No other attendee with their hand raised. Mr. Hull: Thank you. With that, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: Thank you. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Cox: Thank you, Dale. Any questions for Dale at this point? Now we’ll move to the applicant. Mr. Esaki: Madam Chair, can I put up these? Mr. Hull: Dennis, Dennis… Mr. Esaki: Okay. Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: Good morning, Commission. Maren Arismendez- Herrera, from Esaki Surveying. Mr. Esaki: I’m Dennis Esaki. 38 Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: We’d just like to, for the (inaudible) on the topography issue, (inaudible). The reason for the (inaudible) in the application (inaudible) so, as requesting to expand on top the topography combined with the strict application of the regulation clearly limits the developments of lot 18. We have a map right behind you. So, there’s a severe grade difference between the flat buildable area in Pua Kahela Way, which is (inaudible) roadway, with a cul-de-sac on the southside of the lot. That grade difference varies from 14 feet to 24 feet, and the access restriction along Ala Kukuiʻula requires a new roadway launch for access for the proposed lots. So, because there’s no access allowed from Ala Kukuiʻula, in that roadway, it’s behind or south of the lot with too much of a grade difference, it necessitates the developer to create a new roadway (inaudible) to provide access for the new lots. This greatly reduces the density of the lot. This would be a great difference also making this a very good use of retaining walls around the southside of all of the homesites. The retaining walls affect also lot coverage. The other limitation to the lot is the irregular shape, the lot depth varies from 122 feet, along the (inaudible) that’s on the eastside of the roadway and it increase to roughly 340 feet along the west boundary, so that’s on the left side. So, the culmination of the topography (inaudible) the necessity of the additional new roadway lot, the limited land available for the development, which is just the front area, that’s only a portion of it (inaudible) and the irregular shape of the lot creates special circumstances and combined with the strict implication of (inaudible), not only do you limit and reduce the density but also impact (inaudible) coverage, plus depriving the lot owner to make proper use of the density, which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties. The variance is (inaudible) the length to width ratio for two of the lots, I wanted to note that the other lots comply with all development standards and the two lots in question, also comply with the rest of the requirements. The variance is only sought for (inaudible). Ms. Otsuka: I have a question. Can you folks see where the slope starts? Ms. Apisa: No, I think I’m going to have to take a walk over there. Ms. Otsuka: The slope is all here. (Pointing it out on a map on the bulletin board behind her) Chair Cox: Ok, okay. Mr. Esaki: Yes, that’s a slope. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: How steep is that slope? (Multiple people speaking while looking at the map) Mr. Esaki: About 30%. Chair Cox: Questions for the applicant? Ms. Otsuka: So, the people who purchased this (inaudible) what can they do with that slope? Just foliage? Mr. Esaki: Can I say something? Ms. Otsuka: Yes, sorry. Mr. Esaki: This parcel is directly across the street from the previous lot, to the right, and there’s no access, similarly from the top because this where Public Works direction, and on the bottom is no vehicle access due to the terrain, the slope going up, and you have less than half of it is flat, usable, so you can’t 39 drive from the bottom, if it was all completely flat you probably could meet the requirements, and on the bottom left side of the photo, it’s kind of a drainage area. There will be no physical difference, but in granting this variance, not physical or no usage difference, it’s just that the line will be there for somebody who looks at the map, but they don’t know physical or use difference. Inside one of the lots, C might even make it depends on how you look at the land’s width ratio. If you notice, it comes to an interval, you can go up close to see it, but each tiny line is 2 feet difference, like Maren said, it’s about a 20 feet height from the bottom to the top flat. Ms. Otsuka: So, this variance permit, is only for lot 18 B & C? Mr. Esaki: Correct, and C might even make it, depending on how you… Ms. Otsuka: Just those two. Mr. Esaki: Yes. And one lot on the upper right, is a roadway lot. Just for access since we cannot come from the top or the bottom. Ms. Otsuka: That’s a lot of wasted space. Mr. DeGracia: Madam Chair, one question. If this variance is not granted, what would your other option be for the property for those lots (inaudible)? Mr. Esaki: I understand it could make another non-standard lot. I understand that it’s approved that could be done, Mr. Cua could correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand for utility purpose, drainage, it could be done but the only difference is, a line on the paper and then it would be a separate lot that you cannot sell or anything and then somebody has to maintain it, and all that. Mr. DeGracia: So, that would be a loss of density? Mr. Esaki: Loss of density also, yeah. Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: That would be so in the loss of density, yes. And it would impact the coverage for the development of that lot, if we remove portion of it. Chair Cox: I guess I’m having trouble because there are an awful lot of lots on this island that aren’t flat, and they do have steep slopes, and have driveways that go up steep slopes, so, I’m just having trouble with why we would create a variance, to make sure that they have a big flat area. I saw (inaudible) on the lot, it goes like this (making a motion with her hand), it’s just a question (inaudible). Mr. Esaki: For your information, there are a lot of lots that are greater than 3 to 1, in my 48 years of surveying, I’ve seen a lot. In the past they just granted it and then a lot of them were granted with variances, so this won’t be anywhere near the first one. Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: Also, given the grade difference, (inaudible) we might risk, for the driveway not meeting emergency vehicle requirements, there’s a limit to how steep a driveway can be. Chair Cox: Thank you. Can the department again, I’m asking for the history now because apparently it’s your forebearers that came up with this, but it seems to me that if we have a regulation that we don’t want to, the last case was that the, really the County was saying, please change it, and so they were accommodating that change by accommodating that change that required a variance, whereas in this case, the County is not asking for that, and I’m just wondering would the County speak to why the regulation 40 makes, so they’re there for a variance, because it just strikes me, you don’t want to do a variance on something unless there’s really a good reason. Mr. Hull: The standards are supposed to be applied evenly throughout the islands respective zoning districts, so all the residential zoning districts (inaudible) evenly and equally, all the agricultural zoning districts are (inaudible) evenly and equally, the variance process is, was set up to acknowledge the fact that there may be some properties due to their size, shape, and topography that deprives them the rights of other property within this same zoning district, that is sole purpose. Now, whether or not having to put a driveway on a steep slope is a deprivation of rights the department hasn’t been, I believe, and we’re in the middle of a loss because the subdivision planner isn’t here, he gave the analysis (inaudible), but in his analysis was, that’s not a deprivation of rights, you can still put in place (inaudible). There are questions about emergency vehicles, and then there’s a question about, oh, okay, is the Fire Department going to say, no you can’t have those driveways at that slope, or you can have those driveways with the slope but certain things like, sprinklering the house is going to be required now, at least as far as with the application, at least as far as we received it and the planner reviewed it. He and I both came to a conclusion that there’s an actual deprivation of rights here, and then that is the threshold, and whether or not the commissions of the past have reviewed whether or not there was a true deprivation of rights or whether or not there was just a bit more of a (inaudible) standard at that time, I can’t speak. I can say that under my interpretation of the variance, and it’s been my instruction to the staff is, it has to be a very unique situation where we’re going to start varying under standards that are critical to the entire island, whether there’s a clear demonstration of deprivation of rights. And right now, at least it has been proposed, it is a preliminary recommendation, at least it has been proposed, we’re not seeing a specific full deprivation of rights (inaudible). Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Cua: Madam Chair, just to add on to what the Director mentioned, in the evaluation of the, in the evaluation section of the Directors Report, I think the staff member did mention that in the departments (inaudible) considering variances, it’s almost as Ka`aina mentioned, it’s almost like a last resort in terms of other (inaudible) but (inaudible). In this instance we’ve seen, our department has seen subdivision layouts in the Kukuiʻula because of the topography where variances could be avoided in terms of designating those steep portion of those lots as (inaudible) meaning it’s dedicated for (inaudible) or anything of that sort. In this scenario I think the, it is the opinion of the department that if it may have or could have been avoided if a similar practice could have been done, where designating that steep portion of the lot as a utility or a dedicated (inaudible) infrastructure purposes where the lot, a useable portion of the lot could have meet the (inaudible) issue. So, I think in that instance the staff felt that all efforts (inaudible) fully looked into and therefore didn’t necessarily (inaudible) criteria (inaudible). Chair Cox: Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Ako: Madam Chair, what happens if, if this permit is denied because 2 lots are in non-compliance, does that affect the other 3 lots also? The permit is for the whole thing. (Multiple people speaking at once) Mr. Cua: (Inaudible) it kind of forces the applicant to revisit the subdivision area to propose a layout in such a way that it would meet the criteria, even if it means creating an additional lot for (inaudible) or something of that sort. Ms. Apisa: So, the issue here is not necessarily only the 3 to 1, it’s the access? Accessing it on that slope? Is that the question also? 41 Mr. Hull: I believe it’s part of the problem, but (inaudible) I believe that is a concern that the applicant has. Mr. Esaki: Yes, it is, and you cannot drive from the bottom to the top. That’s the top onto the bottom, and we did visit the separate lot because like, Mr. Cua said, (inaudible) adjacent area they have established small drainage lots, like on the bottom left corner (referring to the map on the bulletin board). That could have been, but it would be a sub-standard lot also, and topography is or the terrain is a legitimate acceptable reason for consideration in the CZO for (inaudible) variance, so you can (inaudible) the…it’s not a reason to…although it could be cut open to create another sub-standard lot that cannot be sold, nobody (inaudible) and they just take care of it, right. So, we attach it to that and it’s not going to hurt anybody. Ms. Apisa: So, I guess I still have a question about access. Is access possible? Direct access instead of going around. Mr. Esaki: You would have to drive, the buildable would be the top and the bottom has landscaping and drainage, drainage basin to take the drainage from all the surrounding area. There’s a small easement already on the side, and as you build there’ll be more water, there’s going to be pondage right there (referring to the map). Chair Cox: Any further questions? Mr. Ornellas: How much does (inaudible) factor into this, nowadays everybody wants to build up top (inaudible)? Mr. Esaki: If you see that dash line (referring to the map), everything below that is really steep and look at the photograph, the average height is 20 feet, so the bottom left is a lot greater than 20 feet drop. Mr. Ornellas: Nobody will build along the dotted line. Than actually… Mr. Esaki: Yes, that’s not buildable. Mr. Ako: So, Mr. Esaki, if in my mind if we re-align that lot B… (Inaudible, Mr. Esaki & Ms. Arismendez-Herrera, both speak) Mr. Ako: If we re-align that so that it comes into compliance, am I understanding that that extra property that’s on the outside, the left side. Could now be, not unusable, and somebody’s gotta maintain it… Mr. Esaki: Right. Mr. Ako: …or it’s just a slope over there that’s not going to be maintained anyway. Mr. Esaki: Obviously it’s going to be landscaped if somebody owns it, but then even just picking another lot just because of that 3 to 1, it’ll be like a pawn and it’ll be more of an issue, nobody’s going to buy it, nobody’s going to maintain it. You can see by Kukui Grove, you have those ponds along that road, that are not maintained. Chair Cox: So, I’m wondering given the fact that the, in the evaluation section of the Directors Report, as Dale mentioned, it seems like maybe there hasn’t been enough exploration of other options in the ways of doing this. I’m wondering if there would be a beneficial reason to defer action today. 42 Mr. Esaki: Well, as I mentioned there was a thought of creating such a lot as recommended by the department, but I’m saying that… Chair Cox: You’re saying no. Mr. Esaki: …it wouldn’t make any difference; in fact, it would be worse. Mr. Hull: I mean just to the point, the variance analysis is where deprivation arrangement, the previous one is, the County’s coming in and saying, we’re going to provide access this way and because we’re (inaudible) force the applicant into a non-standard (inaudible). (Inaudible) agencies saying we’re required to (inaudible) that. The issue that we established in the preliminary evaluation, so I don’t mind it at all (inaudible) work with the planner and the applicant. When I look at this, I know it’s not ideal but you could put a driveway right along that top line, across all of those lots, and now they all have access. Granted they have a driveway, (inaudible) and that may not be ideal, but it allows access in a manner that also does not deprive development. And I’m not saying that’s what we’re recommending. Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: The reason for the location of the (inaudible) is because there’s a specific access point along also along that road. (Inaudible) with the… Mr. Hull: The access point? Ms. Arismendez-Herrera: Yes. Ms. Apisa: Well, I’m hearing the departments concern is setting a precedent (inaudible)? Mr. Hull: (Inaudible), we haven’t been provided with enough information at this point for (inaudible), I mean, ultimately the final (inaudible) the commission, but at least that information (inaudible) so that the department has not allowed us to make an official determination that the standards of the CZO deprive rights for this (inaudible), and I’ll be very clear to, the variance requested (inaudible) topography size and shape of a lot to be part of analysis, but it’s from that it’s a deprivation of rights, on the flip side financial hardship is not to be entertained in the analysis of granting the (inaudible) variance. So, it might be more costly to fill up but in so far as (inaudible) rights, that’s where at least the departments at right now is that, our recommendation is (inaudible) because we have not, we have not been provided enough information that demonstrates a deprivation of rights. (Inaudible) more costly development but not a deprivation, at least from what (inaudible). Ms. Apisa: So, I see a possible deferral to allow more communication with the applicant and the department. Mr. Esaki: I believe, subsequent to the report we’ve presented to you that topography, the reason for the approval and we did look at the other option of creating another, like I said another sub-standard lot, which might be acceptable to you guys, but it won’t make any difference. Chair Cox: And just as a point of order, if the applicant is not interested in the deferral, we cannot, there’s a timeline we have to meet, that they would have to agree to an extension of the timeline, because right now it’s December, so that’s another issue. Are we ready, maybe we’re all ready to hear the departments recommendation, although we (inaudible). Mr. Cua: Okay, moving on to the conclusion (inaudible). Based on the foregoing Findings and Evaluation, it is concluded that the Applicant’s request to deviate from Section 8-4.4(a) (3) (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, cannot be considered since the Applicant has not exhausted all efforts 43 to be in compliance. As such, the proposal is not in conformance with the criteria outlined for granting a Variance Permit, Section 8-3.3(b) of the CZO. Recommendation based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-6 and Variance Permit V-2023- 2, be denied. Chair Cox: Thank you. Okay, any further questions for either the applicant or the department? If we are considering taking action, then we do need to close the agency hearing. If we are not considering, if we don’t take action then what happens? Mr. Hull: So, the thing (inaudible) with the timelines is that, if there’s a desire from the commission to defer this agenda item, I don’t hear that being stated by the applicant, but if there’s a desire for the commission to defer the agenda item, you actually have to get the consent of the applicant because there’s a need for a waiver of timelines pursuant to Chapter 8-3.1 of the Kaua`i County Code. If they don’t consent, then you folks have (inaudible). If there’s a desire not to defer or take action then ultimately you need to go back, not (inaudible) you need to like the previous one, close the agency hearing and then first do a motion, and then after it is closed, then you’d be free as a body to take action. Chair Cox: So, basically our choices at this moment are to either defer, but in that case, we need the support of the applicant, and if not, we close the agency hearing and we either approve or deny. Correct? Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Ako: So, the (inaudible) really is, you either have to redraw these lines to come in compliance and then we can take it up later, I guess, cause that’s not going to happen today (inaudible). Chair Cox: Well… Mr. Ako: Or we might (inaudible) and this whole permit goes down. Mr. Hull: I’ll say that the fair option is up to the applicant, like I stated, and it depends on where the departments analysis is in the “wind” of the commission (inaudible), where should the Commissioners be. If there’s a Commissioner (inaudible) from their analysis, they are comfortable taking action, in either direction, that is completely authority of this body. If, some of the Commissioners are Commissioners taking into account the departments analysis, the other option to what your statement was, Commissioner Ako, is either redraw the lines or kill it. From the departments stand point there is still time we think, if the applicant’s able to demonstrate through further documentation that this is a deprivation of rights. From the (inaudible) we have, from the maps we have, (inaudible) we have, we see development being more costly for other subdivision, but (inaudible) rights, they are able to provide further certification from other agencies that they would not allow certain things for them to be (inaudible) but from what we have that’s my recommendations is what it is. Mr. Ako: (Inaudible). Chair Cox: I thought I heard earlier that you are not actually interested in deferral. Is that correct? If we choose to go that direction. Mr. Esaki: I’d like to answer to the Director first, at no time did we mention the cost, so it’s not the consideration, you’re saying because of costs if we want the variance, that’s not what we, not one of the (inaudible). As I understand it’s up to this commission, there is no option of putting the (inaudible), which 44 I understand doesn’t not meet a variance with (inaudible), where utility (inaudible) it’s purpose, right. But we’ll leave it up to the commission. Mr. Hull: I think what the Chair is getting at is that, if they were to defer the action, if there’s a desire to defer the action for further work and communication with the department that as the applicant’s representative, you have to consent to an extension on time by the planner, if the extension is not granted then it’s completely your right do to not waive the (inaudible) permits. Then what the Chair is getting is that is that (inaudible) then she’s going to ask for a motion for action. Ms. Apisa: So, it’s clear if we take action, it’s clear an approval means go forward. What happens if it’s denied? Mr. Hull: Then they can’t move forward with the subdivision request at Subdivision Committee, and they have to wait at least a year to apply for the same variance if they wanted to apply (inaudible) same proposal. Mr. Esaki: Clarification, we cannot continue it if we don’t go for a variance, right? Mr. Cua: For the variance, yes, but then as far as with the subdivision (inaudible) the application (inaudible) approval then what it requires the applicant to do is a revise the subdivision layout of the subdivision (inaudible). Unless they want to pursue a variance, in that case they have to wait for (inaudible). Ms. Apisa: I’m not sure I got that, Dale. Could you repeat? Mr. Cua: Okay. Chair Cox: I think I understood. Let me see if I can state it, if I can then great, and if not then you (inaudible) for us. So, in other words what has, if we have to move, if we end up saying we deny it then what happens is, is that they can’t go forward with the variance for another year, however, since it did get tentative approval at subdivision, they could still go ahead, if they don’t need a variance, but basically it forces them into compliance if they wan to move forward. Is that correct? Mr. Cua: Correct. Chair Cox: Okay, I guess we do need to know whether you’d be willing to wait. Mr. Esaki: Just want n answer to my clarification. Chair Cox: Okay. Ms. Kanani Fu: Good afternoon, Kanani Fu with the owner. Part of what you're experiencing just to give you some insight is in the previous case when we had a reason from, we did receive comments from Public Works that gave us the sufficient time to readjust the maps and grant a variance with the previous agenda item. What we have before you guys is a preliminary subdivision map that has not yet been routed and reviewed with comments from the Public Works and Engineering Department, so there could be the possibility that the comments come back that would require us to make this improvement and then we would waive the variance permit. So, we were at the case of the chicken before the eighth scenario here, where we are simultaneously requesting the variance, while the subdivision gets reviewed by Public Works and Engineering. Like, I said after the review which takes often longer than preliminary map could result in similar challenges, that we had in lot 19, so, that's kind of the consideration we’re taking into 45 here and we followed a similar layout that we would anticipate from Public Works, but we did not receive any official review comments at this time. Chair Cox: Thank you for the clarification. Ms. Fu: Yes, our plans had gone in in early July and August, and we've just been somewhat trying to get to (inaudible) official comments, for all of the county agencies. Ms. Apisa: So, it sounds like a deferral would be proper in order to get feedback from all the departments. Ms. Fu: It looks as though at this time we are looking at wanting to do a deferral alongside, if that was something that the commission would be open to. Ms. Apisa: So, a deferral until our January 10th or 11th, when is our January meeting? Mr. Hull: If the commission is looking at deferring, and quite honestly, the applicant’s representative said that they can allow to get time to have all the agencies comment and work of those agencies. Often the comments come back that might not be exactly where the applicant’s going and there’s a back and forth, especially on (inaudible). The department would recommend having an open ended (inaudible), if the applicant is open to that, an open-ended deferral, in which the applicant waived the timeline requirements of Section 8-3.1 of the Kaua`i County Code. And they come back once they have all those comments. Ms. Fu: And also, to clarify, or could you clarify, if we resolved it through the Planning over time, and there may not be a need for the variance request, this variance request could then be rescinded from us, would allow us the opportunity to work with the Planning and Public Works. Is that correct? Mr. Hull: No, no, that’s correct. Ms. Fu: That’s an option. Mr. Hull: Working through further agency comments and discussion, the department be able to not have to propose non-conforming laws then essentially it wouldn’t require a variance and ultimately all the department would ask for is the variance request be withdrawn and we move to the normal procedures. Mr. Esaki: Okay. Chair Cox: So, it sounds like the deferral gives you the time to get comments, however that does come back to the same question again, of are you willing to wait (inaudible) the timeline? Mr. Esaki: But, this terminology, it’s an extension not a deferral? Mr. Hull: It’s a deferral. Mr. Esaki: But you have to grant the extension to the timeline, right? Mr. Hull: Correct. I just have to ask, Dennis, (inaudible) are you willing to waive the timeline requirements for this variance permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, pursuant to Section 8-3.1 of the Kaua`i County Code? Ms. Apisa: Because right now the timeline is December? Chair Cox: Yes, its’ December. 46 Mr. Hull: Sorry, (inaudible) a response. Mr. Esaki: Yes. Mr. Hull: Okay, and then we could ask to get that if we could sent it to you or if you could send it to us in informal writing, subsequent to the meeting. Ms. Fu: Yes. Chair Cox: So, in that case, if we are interested in deferral, then we leave the agency hearing open. Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Cox: But we do need a motion to defer this. Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Cox: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: I’m ready to make a motion that we defer with an open-ended timeline, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-6 and Variance Permit V-2023-2 for Kukuiʻula Vista, LLC. Chair Cox: Is there a second? Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair Cox: Okay, any further discussion? In that case, we need a roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. 47 Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 6:0. Next we have agenda item L.5. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-7), USE PERMIT (U-2023-5), and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2023-1) to allow operation of a gymnastics academy on a parcel along the western side of Kawaihau Road in Kapahi, further identified as 5859 Kawaihau Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 4-6-011 :061, affecting a portion of a parcel containing 43,560 square feet = GARDEN ISLAND GYMNASTICS LLC. [Director's report received 10/25/2022). Mr. Hull: Is there any member of the public that’s not the applicant, that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so please state your name, and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Mo Des: Thank you, Ana Mo Des, and I’m testifying in favor of the of the applicant. This is a wonderful example of what needs to be occurring more often here, allowing for the (inaudible) that (inaudible) that are positive and productive, and allow for access to opportunities of enrichment for the youth, these discipline (inaudible) come into effect in many areas in life and future adults, so I appreciate being able to have a positive instruction here, and I do appreciate the concept of deprivation of rights that I heard as far as regarding my previous questions with a certain, we’re on a different project and I can appreciate your positions on these matters and the effects it leaves, so, I will take this time to investigate further so that the community can be better represented (inaudible). Now to take more time, but yes, super in favor! Go gymnastics! Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Anyone else in person that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, that did not previously testify during the agency hearing? Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendee with their hand raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: Good afternoon. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Cox: Thank you, Dale. Any questions for the department or we hear from the applicant? Okay, applicant. Thank you for your patience. Man from audience: Yeah, no problem, it’s been a good lesson in civics for the kids. Mr. Hull: (Inaudible) children to best Mr. Jung and (inaudible). Mr. Ian Jung: Good morning, Commissioners, Chair. Ian Jung on behalf of the applicant, which is Garden Island Gymnastics, LLC., with it’s principal, Karla Villanueva-Bernal, as well as Danny Bernal. So, I know Dale went over all the specs of the land use components of this particular project, but we do want to emphasize that it is a adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse structure, it’s a 5,000 square foot warehouse structure that the Bernals had the opportunity to acquire and shift from a smaller space that is a little further up Kawaihau Road and be able to use the larger space and own the property rather than be subject to a lease and having to renew that lease and potentially move. So, they’re here to answer any 48 questions regarding the operational context to the project. We did send a notification to all the adjacent neighbors and thus far we had no concerns raised, so, if you have any other questions for us, we’ll be happy to answer them, as well as to the operation that currently exist now for the (inaudible). Chair Cox: Questions? Ms. Apisa: I’d just like to make a comment, it was actually a pleasure to watch the love within the ohana, with the kids. It was nice to see your family interacting. Mr. Danny Bernal: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Not that it has any bearing on this, but I wanted to make that comment. Chair Cox: I have a question; I also thinks it’s a great idea. I actually have a grandchild who does gymnastics and it makes a huge difference in our life, but I wanted to ask a little bit more, could you explain a little bit more about what you’re hoping to do the Animal Education Center or whatever it was called, the agricultural piece? Mr. Danny Bernal: So, my name is Daniel Bernal, I’m brains behind the reins. So, with Kauai Animal Education Farms more of a, almost like a consulting role. They’re obviously very experienced with Ag., they have operations down in Kapa`a, Karla is on the board of that operation. So, they, Christy Wong and Keola Wong are helping us with the practical items of implementing the Ag. plan portion, which is enclosures, beds, aquaponics, those kinds of things they really helping us get that so that it works properly, it's proper size, the right soil that good stuff. So that's really their role. Chair Cox: And then with the…how do the kids get involved? Mr. Bernal: Yeah, so… Ms. Karla Villanueva-Bernal: So, my main thing is, we do a lot of competitions. So, just this weekend we're going to be flying up to our state championships, and it's getting very expensive for our family, so, the main thing that I really want to imply with the Ag. section is to have a different opportunity to have it, the cost be less for our teen parent in our Booster Club in order for us to continue that to support our children within the sports, and also it's also, well for me personally it's a very good therapy for the kids you know they're doing gymnastics, and it’s really, really hard the stuff that they do, so sometimes you know, when they're having bad days or something there’s a different outlet and I believe and I know for sure that farm would be a really good outlet for that. Mr. Jung: I’ll (inaudible) on that. So, we do recognize it’s on agriculture land, which is uniquely situated right adjacent to residential land on the other side of Kawaihau Road, but we still have to comply with the standards, and one of the components of the standards, is how we promote the effectiveness of Chapter 205. So, one of the ideas we brought into it, is this partnership with the Animal Education Farm, but also to bring in the fact that you know you could have these hands on activities for the kids who are participating, but it's a 2-unit condominium on 2-acre lot and only one of those units get the density right, and the other one has this, you know, fairly large warehouse that was allowed for semi-industrial use with the prior motorcycle operation. So, what I suggested to them, which they're fully embraced, was we come up with an Ag. plan and involve the kids with the Ag. component on the property, and then they could utilize the products to sell and under the newly materialized law that allows for products to be sold right on property without a use permit there. So, that's why this particular application is limited only to the indoor recreational use rather than what's gonna happen regarding the (inaudible) that’s just generally now permitted outright use. 49 Chair Cox: Thank you. Mr. Jung: But it is a limited impact in terms of what they can do on this particular unit of (inaudible). Mr. Ako: Madam Chair, if I can add, I just wanna say, thank you so much for your involvement that you use that because I know it's a lot of time and it takes a lot of money to do that, and I have been a real big beneficiary (inaudible), but I’m wondering who these kids are back there? (Inaudible). Are they gymnasts too and can they show use (inaudible)? Mr. Bernal: They all attend (inaudible) gymnastics and they're required to do so by being born into this family. This is my daughter; her name is Luna. Luna is a level 3 gymnast, she started competing this year at 7 years old, pretty much every competition she goes to she’s the youngest, and she qualified for State Championships this year, so she’ll be traveling to Big Island this weekend with mom and some other gymnasts, representing Kaua`i, finally and other islands. When Karla actually walked into the gym for the first time to compete, they welcomed Kaua`i and they asked us, where we had been. So, anyway she’s competing and the other boys compete but their real passion at this point in our life is baseball, and that’s partly my fault, I apologize Karla. Ms. Villanueva-Bernal: But they’re forced to do gymnastics. Mr. Bernal: They still do gymnastics and help coach. And thank you for offering the beneficial, the benefits of sport, physical activity socialization for these kids it’s at the heart of everything we do, so thank you for saying that. Appreciate it. Ms. Apisa: Congratulations and thank you for representing Kaua`i. Chair Cox: I think the Ag. piece added to it is a really great idea. Mr. Bernal: Yeah, like inside we really embrace that, and it is a way to engage the kids at a different area and also explore ideas like sustainable agriculture, and feeding yourself healthy foods, and then the added benefits of offsetting the cost of competition through our first Booster Club through the sale of those vegetables via either farm stand or farmers’ market. Chair Cox: Any further questions or comments? Now I guess we’re ready to hear back from Dale. Mr. Cua: Moving on to the conclusion and then recommendation. Conclusion based on the foregoing findings and evaluation, it is concluded that through proper mitigative measures and compliance efforts, the proposed development can be considered, and it should not have significant adverse impacts to the environment or the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is generally in compliance with the criteria outlined for the granting of a Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the goal and policies outlined in the General Plan, as well as the development standards prescribed by the CZO. The applicant should institute the best management practices to ensure that the operation of this facility does not generate impacts that may affect the health, safety, and welfare of those in the surrounding area of the proposal. Recommendation, based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended that subject request to allow operation of an indoor recreation facility through Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-7, Use Permit U-2023-5, and Special Permit SP-2023-1 be approved subject to the following conditions. In the Directors Report there are a total of 12 conditions before you. If you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to clarify. Chair Cox: Thank you Dale. Any questions for Dale? Okay, in that case, I believe we ready for a motion. 50 Ms. Otsuka: I motion to accept application Class Iv Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-7, Use Permit U-2023-5, and Special Permit SP-2023-1, applicant Garden Island Gymnastics, LLC. Ms. Apisa: Second to approve. Chair Cox: Thank you. It’s been moved and seconded to approve. Any further discussion? If not, we should do a roll call vote. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye, and as a previous balance and uneven bar competitor, I’m really happy. Motion passes 6:0. Mr. Jung: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms. Bernal: Thank you. Mr. Bernal: Thank you all for your time. Mr. Hull: Moving on We actually inadvertently placed Zoning Amendment 2023-2 on the agenda. That actually is a public hearing zoning amendment that was previously acted upon and so (inaudible) acted upon in (inaudible) hearing, so there’s no action necessary but (inaudible) caution, I don’t anybody that wants to testify on this agenda item. Is there anyone attending virtually that would like to testify on this agenda item, ZA-2023-2 ((inaudible) inadvertently left on the agenda, if so, please indicate by raising your virtual hand. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: No attendee with their hand raised at this time. Mr. Hull: Thank you. So, with that, moving onto. ANNOUNCEMENTS 51 Mr. Hull: Topics for Future Meeting. We anticipated not having a December meeting (inaudible) today we can’t rule a December meeting out, so there is chance that a December meeting will happen, but more than likely we do expect one. But, staff will let Commissioners know within 2 weeks, whether or not a December meeting is (inaudible), but like I said, we do not anticipate it. Future meeting topics for January, we don’t have that many applications in. Got a couple special management area, single family dwelling permit applications, and we also have Coco Palms returning after the (inaudible). That (inaudible) they’ll be two meetings in January, but just future meetings, that’s on our radar. Other than that, I don’t think there’s anything else. Ms. Apisa: If there is a December meeting, it would be on the 13th? Mr. Hull: Correct. Mr. Ornellas: At some point, I’d like to have a sit-down discussion concerning the housing situation on Kaua`i. I’m not sure that’s appropriate to this body, but I’m really looking to discuss that issue, seeing as how we supposedly providing (inaudible) to the county. Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Clerk, I might recommend a presentation by the Housing Director. Mr. Hull: If not, I’ll provide it. Absolutely. Anything else that a Commissioner might request for future topics? If so, moving on, contact the Chair or myself to (inaudible) agenda. With that, we’re ready for (inaudible) Madam Chair. Chair Cox: We need a motion. Ms. Otsuka: motion to adjourn. Chair Cox: Is there a second? Mr. Ako: Second. Chair Cox: All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Anybody oppose? Motion passes 6:0. Chair Cox adjourned the meeting at 12:41 p.m. 52 Respectfully submitted by: _________________________ Lisa Oyama, Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated _______________. ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of __________ meeting 1 KAUA`I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 10, 2023 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair Cox at 9:02 a.m. - Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Gerald Ako Ms. Donna Apisa Ms. Helen Cox Mr. Francis DeGracia Mr. Jerry Ornellas Ms. Lori Otsuka Ms. Glenda Nogami-Streufert Excused or Absent The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Ka`aina Hull, Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Staff Planner Dale Cua, Kenny Estes, and Planning Commission Secretary Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney – County Deputy Attorney Laura Barzilai, Office of Boards and Commissions – Support Clerk Lisa Oyama. Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Cox: Aloha, and we will call the first 2023 Planning Commissions meeting to order, January 10. Hau`oli Makahiki Hou to all of you and thank you for being here. First, we need a roll call. Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Commissioner Ako: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Commissioner DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Commissioner Ornellas: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? D.2. Feb. 14, 2023 2 Commissioner Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Commissioner Nogami-Streufert: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Next up is: SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON APPOINTMENT OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON Chair Cox: So, nominations are now in order for the position of the Planning Commission Chair, nominations need not be seconded. Are there any nominations? Ms. Otsuka: Chair Cox, I would like to nominate Commissioner Francis DeGracia for the position of Planning Commission Chair. Chair Cox: Are there anymore, further nominations? If not, may I have a motion to close nominations? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I move to close the nominations. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Cox: Thank you. It’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor say ate. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 7:0. Nominations are now closed and I believe we now do a vote, is that right? Sorry, Francis DeGracia has been nominated to fill the position of Planning Commission Chair. Are there any requests for a ballot vote? If not, we will do a roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. 3 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Cox? Chair Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madam Chair. 7:0. Chair Cox: Unanimous members have voted in favor of Commissioner DeGracia, and he is duly elected to serve as Planning Commission Chair. Congratulations and I’m happy for you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, thank you. Please give us just one minute to do a little bit of musical chairs here. Thank you, Commissioners for your support moving forward. Now I’d like to do the nominations for Planning Commission Vice Chair, nominations need not be seconded. Are there any nominations? Ms. Otsuka: I would like to nominate Commissioner Donna Apisa for the position of Planning Commission Vice Chair. Chair DeGracia: Are there any further nominations? If not, may I have a motion to close the nominations? Mr. Ornellas: I move to close. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: It’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion carries. 7:0. Nominations are now closed. Commissioner Donna Apisa has been nominated to fill the position of Planning Commission Vice Chair. Are there any requests for a ballot vote? Ms. Cox: No. Chair DeGracia: If not, roll call. Please, Mr. Clerk, on the nomination of Donna Apisa to act as Vice Chair. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. 4 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 7:0. Chair DeGracia: All members have voted in favor of Commissioner Apisa, and she is duly selected to serves as Kaua`i County Planning Commission Vice Chair. Congratulations. Ms. Apisa: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Mr. Clerk, we can move forward with the agenda. Mr. Hull: Do we have any appointments for subdivision? Chair DeGracia: My apologies. I’d like to appoint Commissioner Ako as the Chair of Subdivision Committee, Commissioner Apisa as Vice Chair to the Subdivision Committee, and Commissioner Ornellas to serve as third member of the Subdivision Committee. May I have a motion to approve? Ms. Cox: I move to approve. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: It’s been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, may I have a roll call? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. 5 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 7:0. Chair DeGracia: Thank you very much and thank you for serving in this Committee, it’s a very important one. Mr. Clerk, moving forward. Mr. Hull: Moving forward in the agenda, next up we have Agenda Item D: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hull: The department has no recommended changes to the agenda. Chair DeGracia: Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Ms. Apisa: Move to approve the agenda as presented. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor, we’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. 7:0. Mr. Hull: Next is Agenda Item E: MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Mr. Hull: Meeting minutes for October 11th, 2022, as well as October 25th, 2022. Chair DeGracia: Could I get a motion to approve the minutes? Ms. Otsuka: Motion to approve minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, dated October 11th, 2022 and October 25, 2022. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: It’s been moved and seconded. Any discussion? We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Thank you, motion passes. 7:0. Mr. Hull: Next we have no addition Receipt of Items For The Record, so, moving on to G: HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: We have Continued Agency Hearing CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-6) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-2) to allow a deviation from Section 8-4.4(a)(3) of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, concerning the 6 development standards of a residential subdivision, involving a parcel in Kukui'ula and situated on the makai side of the Ala Kukui'ula/Kahela Place intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: ( 4) 2-6-022:054 and containing a total area of 87,919 square feet = KUKUIULA VISTAS LLC. [Director's Report Received, October 25, 2022; deferred, November 15, 2022). Mr. Hull: We have received a letter of withdrawal for this application for a variance, but this is an Agency Hearing, so we don’t have anybody signed up, but is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this agency hearing? Seeing none, the department will recommend closing the agency hearing. Chair DeGracia: Can I get a motion to close? Ms. Cox: I move we close the agency hearing for Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2023-6). Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made to close the agency hearing. Let’s take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Motion passes. 7:0. Mr. Hull: Moving on, we have no New Agency Hearings or Public Hearings. We have adopted agenda, so the Consent Calendar has been adopted. Moving on to Agenda Item I: GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Applicant's petition to modify Condition No. 9 to Use Permit (U-88-23), Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-88-28), and Special Permit (SP-88-3) to allow extension of the performance timeline involving the property situated at Kilauea, Kaua'i, Hawai'i, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4)5-2-013:012 (por.), and affecting a parcel containing approximately 12 acres = CG Real Estate LLC. (Formerly Living Farms, LLC.) Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good afternoon, Chair, and members of Planning Commission. Happy New Year. At this time I’d like to summarize the Director’s Report for this application. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Do we have a representative for the applicant? Mr. Ian Jung: Good morning, Chair, and members of the Commission. Ian Jung on behalf of CG Real Estate, LLC. Happy to answer any questions but as outlined in the report, we are at a point where the project has a performance timeline coming up in May of this year and we wanted to get in early because we do have a slew of building permits that have been approved, we just are now at the opportunity to hopefully get this USDA loan that will help facilitate the construction of those various projects, and as we go through those projects, picking up the building permits will allow us to set our timeline with when we can actually start construction. The conditions that are outlined in the report, I know you folks have become very familiar with performance timelines but we have been actively engaged and complying with those performance conditions, such as widening of Kuawa Road, and then also engaged with community in working with various farmers to on the Northshore to, not just do the farmer to table operation but now kind of coining the new phrase, “farm to shelf”, where you can have value added products put together to help sustain the local farmers up on the Northshore. I have Jen Luck here with me that can kind of explain the operation up there, and what’s been going on and as we kind of navigated through Covid. We did 7 have a pause with Covid because the funding became an issue and things were shut down, so they couldn’t technically run the farm table restaurant at the time. So, I’m happy to answer any questions, I know this has been a project that has been going on for some time, and we are asking for five years so we can complete construction of the, there’s originally three phases of the project, Phases 1 and 2 were complete, Phase 3 was not, but we reconfigured the site plan to allow for a little larger building of the original footprint and that’s going to be the final Phase 3 of the overall project once these building permits get issued. So, happy to answer any questions and Jen can also discuss what’s the goings on out there and the different agroforest tours and lounge nights and things like that. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Or would you like to hear what’s happening? It’s been a while since I’ve been out there. I’ve been there pre-Covid, but I’d like to hear what’s kind of going on. Ms. Jen Luck: Yeah, sure, so maybe what I’ll do is talk about what’s currently going on and then also kind of what we did during Covid with the lay of construction and everything, as Ian said, so we are currently conducting farm tours, twice a week. We installed, actually during Covid, about an additional acre of a tropical agroforestry project, and so we’re doing farm tours, Thursdays and Fridays, open to the public, are visitors, whomever would like to come, it’s a ticketed thing. It’s about a two-hour experience, educational where we’re explain the benefits of regenerative agriculture, and then we serve a meal at the end of it, that’s a 100% locally sourced food from our farm and other farms, in fact I think there should be a couple letters of support, you all received from local farms that we’ve dealt with. In additional to that, we hosted a series of lounge nights, also Thursday and Friday evenings, from August through to the end of October, menus for the lounge nights were also 100% locally sourced, everything, oil, salt all of it. And that either came from our farm or from neighboring farms, it was really good. We sold out a number of nights and in addition to that, actually during Covid we launched a foundation, CG Foundation which has an incubator program, it’s about a twelve weeklong program. We work strictly with locally based here on Kaua`i, food and beverage entrepreneurs. They can go through the twelve week program and at the end they receive a $10,000 grant award to help them achieve strategic growth goals, and again, it’s just working with food and beverage entrepreneurs that are not only based on Kaua`i, but whose products feature ingredients grown locally here as well. And then in addition to launching a foundation program during Covid, we also did a meal kit delivery program to kupuna on the Northshore, again 100% locally sourced, both from our farm and neighboring farms, we did that for several months during Covid, but right now we’re really focused on farm tours, to again, kind of open up and educate people about regenerative ag and then events like these lounge nights concepts. Ms. Cox: Can I? So, I have a question, first of all I want to applaud your work, I think what you’re doing is great. We as a Commission have been concerned as Ian mentioned about sort of performance deadlines, and so I was just wondering if you could explain, one of you, why the five years. Just because it seems like a long timeline. Mr. Jung: Yeah, sure so, the way the program out there was configured was more for when the original permit in 1988, was to facilitate more production, but now with he conversion for farm to table, the thought is, you can relocate the sighting of the buildings, consolidate two of the approved footprint plans that were approved back in 2015, and reorganize the site so that there’s more space actually for agriculture on the property, so the five year timeline we ask for five year just because we have a USDA loan application, which is hopefully set to be approved. That funding source would come in and then as you folks all know with construction on Kaua`i, it’s number one, hard to find a contractor now, and then number two, it’s just there’s persistent delays, so the five year window was to give us a little bit of buffer. We have all the building permits in and approved, so we don’t have to wait on any outstanding agencies for the building permits, but if we get the permits issued that loan funded then we can go and hopefully start construction this year, mid-year, and then anticipate two-years thereafter for Phase 1 of the Welcome Pavilion, and Phase 2, of the reconfigured site plan for the existing buildings, but that’s overall. Some of 8 the buildings will be totally complete before the five year window, but some of them likely would run up on the four maybe five year time window. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, since we’re on thing question, I mean I don’t think the question I have is not necessarily for maybe the applicants but, just regarding, for my clarification, you know in projects like where it’s a stand alone type of operation, what is the purpose of timelines? As opposed. I can see maybe if it’s a resort that’s out there, there’s a site that we don’t want to look at or if it’s maybe housing then it increases prices, but in stand alone projects like this, what is the purpose of timelines? Mr. Hull: Yeah, it’s a solid question, Commissioner. There are no hard and fast requirements per code, want to take a step back, so you have ministerial permits those Class I Zoning Permits for uses and structures in zoning districts, zoning district is meant for, right. So, you go to the residential zoning district, you want to build a single-family dwelling, you going to apply for a Class I Zoning Permit, ministerial the department front counter handles all the review, as long as you meet the setbacks, heights, all the respective regulations, we’re required by law to approve it. On the flip though, you have these discretionary permits, which is really the domain of the Planning Commission, which are Use Permits and Class IV Zoning Permits, and what have you, and these are somewhat more higher intensified uses that are being proposed as zoning districts that may not necessarily have been set up for that or just it’s a high intensified use that requires additional scrutiny to ensure among other things, compatibility of this high intensified use with the surrounding area, as well as (inaudible) with the various priorities and policies of the respective zoning district. So, when you have a higher intensified use in general coming through the Commission will view on terms of compatibility and whether or not it feels that it’s compatible indeed as the proposal is set forward as well as in perpetuity, let’s look at this and say, this will be compatible here and now. What the Commission over years has looked at some of these higher intensified use and saying, it's open to granting a discretionary permit for some of these higher intensified uses, however setting timelines to ensure that the proposal moves forward and doesn’t necessarily vest itself in perpetuity where perhaps the environment changes and they’ve got this vested right to build a commercial, agricultural operation and thirty years later they decide to come in for the building permits, and the environment has drastically changed around the area, where it may longer be compatible. That’s the primary (inaudible), there’s other reasons. I think you’re going to see the next applicant come up and in they’re discussions in the timeline for helicopters and the Planning Commission, previous of whether or not policies have changed, in the future concerning helicopter tours, so, it is a little bit dependent for the most part, it’s a compatible issue and surrounding area within the timeframe. Mr. Ako: Got it. Mr. Hull: That make sense? Sorry I was kind of rambling. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Could I ask a question? Unknown Male: Yes, please. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: You have a farm to table, is kind of understandable, farm to shelf, could you explain a little bit more of what those products are and how that’s going to be from farm to shelf? Ms. Luck: Sure, and thank you, I know I didn’t really touch on that when I was talking about a little bit about what we were doing. So, also during Covid actually we launched our ecommerce platform, just 9 kind of realizing that construction maybe delayed, construction of the restaurant, we wanted to push forward on some of the other ideas, so we launched an ecommerce platform, which features products again that are not just simply, businesses that are not, that have products that aren’t just based in Hawaii, but also feature ingredients that are grown locally in Hawaii and in Kaua`i, and so for us that means, 50% or more, their ingredients need to be grown locally, for it to be meaningful and impactful all the down the value chain. And so we feature these products only on our website, kauaicommonground.com, if you guys are interested at all, but also in our retail store, w€ have a small retail store onsite, which will expand once we’re under construction and fully built out, but for now it’s a small retail store and people come to the farm tours, and (inaudible). Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Thank you, that was a great explanation because I was wondering what percentage had to be locally grown, it could’ve been just one grain of salt. Ms. Luck: Right. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: That would not have been really farm to shelf, so thank you. Ms. Luck: Yeah, and, you’re welcome, and some of our products are, have a 100% locally grown ingredients, but that’s a tough threshold to meet for everybody. Ms. Otsuka: Can you describe the products? Ms. Luck: Sure, so some of the products that we feature, that you all might be familiar with are Meli Wraps, which is a beeswax, reusable wrap for food that you can use instead of tinfoil or something like that or like plastic wrap. We have Uncle Mikeys dried fruit, we have Uncle Willie’s Beef Jerky, so both of those are examples of 100% locally grown, (inaudible) where the ingredients are 100% locally grown. We have some vinegars that we feature, salts, and we actually have a line of products that we feature including beeswax based surf wax and some like, make up products and perfume products that feature locally grown ingredients as well. Ulu chips too, the longer I sit here I can think of more and more, it’s quite a long list. That should give you a good sampling, anyways also honey, macadamia nut butter, some macadamia nut butter is from Tiny Isle, we have honey from Moloa`a, and they have a number of different types of honey and honeycomb, again that would be an example of 100%, the ingredients are obviously 100% locally sourced for products like that. Ms. Otsuka: Would you have product growing on property? Like, it used to be guava before, is it still… Ms. Luck: We don’t currently grow any guava, we have a couple of guava trees, like Uncle Jack Gushikens guava still remains on the property. Uncle Jack worked for us almost up until the time when he passed away, and then, but we do have some products that we’re looking at to do, we would eventually, especially once the (inaudible) processing facility is up and running, create our own line of products under our label or sourced directly from our farm as well. Chair DeGracia: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: So, how many acres are actually under cultivation on the farm, excluding forestry? Ms. Luck: Excluding forestry, we inherited a portion of property that was already growing food, that was installed by the previous owner, and then we added to that. So right now, it’s under active cultivation and farming we have about five acres. Mr. Ornellas: Out of twelve acres, well actually originally forty-five acres site, is that correct? 10 Ms. Luck: Right. The parcel itself is about forty-six acres and we have an additional lease, and we’re actually right now looking at expanding our farm to an additional four to five acres, pending a separate from the construction, but a separate USDA grant. Mr. Ornellas: The reason I bring it up because, as a (inaudible) by Commissioner Otsuka, originally when the original permits were granted for those buildings, there was a very large guava plantation in operation and a huge processing plant, so I’m just concerned about the agricultural activity taking place, considering the square footage of the buildings involved. Ms. Luck: Right. Our eventual plans are actually to expand agroforestry to be anywhere between ten and twelve acres and that would generate, the yields generated off the tropical agroforestry model are quite significant so that would be enough to not only feed the restaurant, produce enough for the restaurant on site but also if we wanted to come out with a value ad line of products, now in addition, we have other acreage we could actually plant within the campus core if we wanted to pending funding and just availability and staffing and everything. Mr. Jung: So, the property is actually quite constrained because it’s split open in ag so, as you drop in there’s some slope as you drop into the, was it Kilauea Stream… Ms. Luck: Yes. Mr. Jung: Kilauea Stream valley there, but to counter that to allow for more space, I helped Common Ground get a twenty acre license on the adjacent land that is actually flat, but it can expand the actual diversified ag part, not necessarily just the agroforestry side but, diversified ag, so when the restaurant is up and operational it would be able to grow vegetables, lettuce and kale, things like that, that’ll be used in the restaurant there. Mr. Ornellas: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question, I think from the beginning of this project, this project has kind of morphed, it started off as a visitor center and then it goes to tours, and now it’s farm to table, and farm to shelf, and there’s also mention in there about special events, about hosting weddings and stuff. How big of a part is those special events, weddings, do you folks foresee to be a part of your business? Mr. Jung: Well from a standpoint of the conditions, we have limitations set in there where, there can’t be more than four per month, that exceed the, you have to vacate the property by 11 p.m., and that was sort of discussed and worked through with the Commission back in 2013, and 2018, when the dialogue first started about the transition from more of a visitors center to more of this restaurant, farm to table restaurant component. So, the limitation is no more than four, capped at 11 p.m. where everybody has to be off property. And one of the additional limitations was set because there was some concern in the residents, surrounding neighborhood, that the noise level can exceed 55 dba at the property line, so the operations side of the project has been very cognizant of where, during these special events, where it be the lounge nights where they’re featuring locally grown foods and then having music and whatnot, the speakers are intentional set away from the residential side, and the monitoring, do we have monitoring devices? Ms. Luck: We monitor during the event. 11 Mr. Jung: During the event. Okay, so they do have the dba monitor that will check the noise levels, but they’ve been ending it like more 9 o’clock, right. Ms. Luck: 9 o’clock. Mr. Ako: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Chair DeGracia: Any further questions, Commissioners? Ms. Otsuka: Jerry. Mr. Ornellas: I don’t have a question but, although I will be voting in favor of the motion. I’m concerned about the level of agriculture activity presently on the property. (Inaudible) getting into by allowing basically commercial activities on agricultural land and I understand you’re going to increase production and I thought (inaudible) I’m really concerned about that. Even though I will be voting in favor. Mr. Hull: I can just add in off of a multitude of the Commissioners comments is, some back history on this, is back in 88 one of the conditions that stands out is this facility and site had the ability to have special events, like whenever, like, the condition was somewhat referred to as the “Willy Wonka Entitlement of all entitlements”, it could have special events whenever it wanted, just as far as they notified the Planning Department. And the applicant came in in 2013 to say that they wanted to get rid of that condition and just have four special events in place of this farm to table model, and we were kind of like, that’s a pretty sizeable condition you’re willing to give up, in an attempt to get this farm to table operation running, and so ultimately the commission waited and there was considerable conversation, I think to Commissioner Ornellas’ point of, okay, it’s good that were getting rid of this condition cause it can be thoroughly abused, it wasn’t being abused but it could have been insanely abused. In order to help facilitate there was discussion of menu items and what you going to go, it was an ad nauseam debate and discussion about what type of crops they’re going to have and how they’re going to get this farm to table operation up and running, and ultimately the commissioners then granted it in hopes of getting the farm to table program going there, as well as hopefully being a model. So those entitlements today that you folks are viewing, rests very much on what I think Commissioner Ornellas is getting at, is that there is an expectation that the applicant, yes can have these facilities, but that there be bonafide agricultural so, simply feeding into the operation and really, not just paying lip service to farm to table but be it a genuine farm to table thing, so I think depending whether it will go there if there is a motion made that I think for Ian and Jen, they definitely take that to heart as far as the expectations that the body has and the members have for actual agricultural being a primary component of the operation and it’s something that the department, once you guys get this up and running again, we’re required to kind of go through your menu, on somewhat of an annual basis to see what you’re using. Just to help ensure the protection of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Ms. Luck: If I can speak to that really quickly, I think in the minds of the team and the funders of the project and everything else, the regenerative agroforest, we call it agroforest, we’re growing all sorts of produce and food and annuals, and longer term, we have ulu and breadfruit and all these things, I mean, that really for us is a cornerstone, that’s what we start with that’s central to what it is to what we’re doing, the entire model of the project doesn’t work without robust farm, and so as I said, I think you know right now we’re looking to expand another four to five acres, and then additionally beyond that, and then there is as Ian eluded to because the lease with the neighboring property potential to expand even far beyond that which we would love to see, so I just want to assure the Commissioners that for us as the team on the 12 ground that’s really the piko, the center of the project in many, many ways for us, and the cornerstone of it all starts with that genuinely. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Anything further Commissioners? Mr. Hull: I apologize, I forgot to call for in the very beginning, but are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item, we should’ve opened it earlier, but if there are, we don’t have anybody signed up, but if anybody in the public would like to testify, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, also note that we did get three letters of communication that were distributed this morning to the Planning Commissioners. One from a Cody Ledmeier, one from a Marta Witlock, and one from a Jim Hesterly, concerning this petition. Chair DeGracia: Seeing no more testimony. Could I have the recommendation from the department? Mr. Cua: Moving on to the recommendation, based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended the proposed modification to Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-88-28), Use Permit (U- 88-23), and Special Permit (SP-88-3) be approved. Furthermore, Condition 9 of the subject permits shall be amended as follows: Condition No. 9 would read, Completion of the project shall be attained by May 31, 2028. And that concludes the departments recommendation. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. I’ll entertain a motion to approve with modification to Condition No. 9. Ms. Apisa: I move to approve applicants petition to modify Condition No. 9 to Use Permit U-88-23, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-28, and Special Permit SP-88-3, to allow extension of their performance timeline. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor. Any discussion, Commissioners? If none, can I get a roll call, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? 13 Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 7:0. Next on the agenda we have General Business I.2. Applicant's request to amend Condition No. 10 of Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2008-5), Use Permit (U-2008-3), and Special Permit (SP-2008-2) to allow for an additional six (6) years to permit helicopter landings at Manawaiopuna Falls, Hanapepe Valley, Kaua'i = Island Helicopters Kaua'i, Inc. Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Dale in a second for the Director’s Report. We don’t have anybody signed up to testify on this agenda item but is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua: Again, I’d like to summarize the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Dale. If we could hear from the applicant or applicant’s representative. Mr. Walton Hong: Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the Commission. My name is Walton Hong, and let me get one thing real clear from the beginning, I’m not appearing this morning as an attorney for the applicant. I put my license to practice law on a voluntary, how should I put it, inactive basis, since I retired as of ten days ago, however because of my long association with the applicant, he has asked me to appear as a consultant for him, but he’s a little, I guess shy and wants me to make the presentation, if I may? Thank you. First of all, I know all of you were not on the commission when the application first came in for a helicopter landing permit. We got the permit in 2009, some fourteen years ago, since then in the fourteen years, there has not been one complaint against the applicant, as far as his operations at the landings. Part of the reason for this is there has been very, very strict conditions imposed on the applicant by the permits, because of a concern of the ecology, and environment of the area. Those conditions included a limited number of days per week that we can fly, the limited time on the ground allowed, to stay on ground so that it minimizes any kind of strain, it gives the people sufficient time to go up to see the falls on an established pathway and come again, get on the aircraft and takeoff again. We have to keep the landing site cleared but however we cannot use heavy machinery to do so, so everything has been done by hand or we’ve got weed whackers, things of that nature with minimal impact to the environment. We are required to undertake an environmental, ecological and biological assessment every three years, by a qualified person, and this has been done religiously, I think the last report was just turned over to the Planning Department a few weeks ago. Is that right Curt? We fly the same route as other helicopter tour company’s with the only deviation from the established routes being the landing at the waterfall, and the nearest residence as far as we know is more than three miles away, so noise is not a factor to bother anyone. Other items that might be of interest since all of you may not be familiar with this, is that the applicant flies an average of forty-three tours per week, which include landings at the falls. Because of the time constraints, at one time there was only like a twenty minute landing time that you could stay on the ground, we asked that this could be extended because we had a lot of seniors who flew and they had trouble taking a short hike up to the falls and coming back to the helicopter within that time 14 limit, so I think it was extended to about forty minutes on the ground. I’m doing this by memory by the way, he has my files, so I don’t have any of my files, but that’s okay. Unknown Male: The forty minutes was to help handicap people and the elderly people so that we wouldn’t have to rush, but it is very, very few times. Almost every flight is twenty-five minutes on the ground, I don’t even remember the last time we did a forty minute on the ground. Mr. Hong: And the applicant averages five passengers per landing tour. The tours to the falls start at 8:15 in the morning, and the last flight leaves Lihue at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Over the past fourteen years there have been little changes in the protocol, all passengers are still required to put on booties when they get to the falls, this is to avoid any “hitchhikers” or bringing stray seeds or plants into the area that may adversely affect the area. So, we did improve the trail to the falls to make it safer for people to traverse. And the helicopters are cleaned after each tour to make sure there are nothing hanging onto skits bringing from Lihue into the site, put it that way. In summary, Island Helicopters believes it has fulfilled it’s promise of providing a unique opportunity to a limited number of passengers while still respecting the environment and ecology of the area, and for that reason we respectfully request your favorable consideration to this request for the six year extension with the same conditions. If there are any questions, I’ll be glad to respond or Mr. Lofstedt will be glad to respond to any conditions. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I do have a couple questions. Ms. Otsuka: I understand that Island Helicopters is the only company who has permission to land at that site, so I actually commend your company for being able to be the exclusive with this permit. Mr. Lofstedt: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Yes, I have a couple questions on this. The original permits that were done in 2008, you’re right none of us were here at the time, but that was for forty-three tours per week, with no more than five passengers per. Is that how it went? Mr. Lofstedt: We can do ten flights into the waterfall per day… Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Was that what was approved? Mr. Lofstedt: …and only five days per week. Yes. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So that’s fifty per week. Mr. Lofstedt: That would be maximum, yeah five days a week, Sundays we don’t fly in and then we can pick the other day, if we get rained out completely one day then we can make a different day for that. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I just wanted that clarified cause I think that Mr. Hong said it was forty-three tours per week and five per group, which you would have exceeded it in many of these weeks. Mr. Lofstedt: Right, it would be forty-three average per week into the waterfall. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay. 15 Mr. Lofstedt: And the helicopter takes six people at a time, but the average is about five people. We get a lot of people that’ll share the helicopter four or, two, so it’ll average about five, and there’s only one helicopter at a time at the pad. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: And the reason for asking this is because, as you know there are lots of people on the island who are trying to manage how tourism is actually undertaken on Kaua`i, and in 2008 there were, generally when we have these permits there are these limitations on the number of tours, the days of operation, the times of operations, as well as the number of passengers you can have total, so that you can manage it a little bit better, and I just wanted to ensure that this what the 2008… Mr. Lofstedt: Yeah, we haven’t increased it at all. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question. The permits you have only allows for your company to use that landing area there? Mr. Lofstedt: Yes. Mr. Hull: I’ll just correct it real quickly. The land use permits are granted to companies, they run with the land, so the permit was actually granted to G&R to have, technically it’s granted to G&R to have landings on the property, as they are the property owners but G&R leases or has a contract with Island Helicopters, whereby that is an exclusive lease where, Island Helicopters can land at that site but just to be clear, zoning permits aren’t granted to operators, they’re granted to the landowner. Mr. Ako: So, should G&R decide to bring in another contractor, the same conditions of the number of, I guess landings in that area would still apply to, I guess the landing area itself. Mr. Hull: The land use, so, you essentially have to split the quantity between say, this operator with another operator, it’s not like a new operator will get the same amount of landings permissible, the landings permissible are limited to that landing site regardless of the operator. Mr. Ako: And should prohibitions be foot placed in there, which will prohibit, I guess helicopters from landing in that area, while a permit is in existence already. Which would prevail? Mr. Hull: There already exists requirements for any landing site period. So, if you don’t have permits to land on a site, technically that’s prohibited. Mr. Ako: So, if they have a permit and for whatever reason a new law that comes in which prohibits helicopters from landing in that area. Is there one that would, would the permits continue until say, for another six years and then the prohibitions take place or… Mr. Hull: Yeah, so the timeline as it’s set up is, if proposed right now that the, as proposed right say, if the Planning Commission granted an extension of six years, and say, three years from now the County Council passes an ordinance prohibiting landing on all agricultural lands, that is an interesting legal question. At the end of six (inaudible) they would be able to operate for six years because they would definitely be grandfathered in to that six year clause. After the six years is expired, that’s an interesting legal question. Ms. Barzilai: Unlikely that their permits would be (inaudible). 16 Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Wouldn’t that make a difference between the Class IV zoning versus the Use Permit versus the Special Permit, so you could grant some but not all of those? Ms. Barzilai: I would imagine that it would be a state law (inaudible) and that would void all the (inaudible) after they expired. (Inaudible). Mr. Ako: Well, that’s better, hypothetically. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners. If there’s no further questions, if we could hear the recommendation from the department. Mr. Cua: Sure. Ms. Cox: Chair, can I…I don’t have a question, but I want to be like, Commissioner Ornellas and just make a comment. Not about the other one but this one, and that is although I will probably support this application because it sounds like you’re being very responsible. I just want to serve note, that I think there is a general concern on this island of how many helicopter tours are going over places all the time, and so I do think that we do need to be mindful of how many tours, not just of this operator but any operator. That we are making sure that residents are not constantly being buzzed by helicopters and especially when they’re over, when they’re in agricultural or forested lands, or wild lands, so it’s just a comment. Mr. Lofstedt: Can I add something, thank you. When we got this permit originally, we were flying each helicopter eight to nine flights a day, with the landing, we only fly six flights on the helicopter, so we’ve cut that back and we haven’t, in the fifteen years increased any of our fleet or tours, so we’ve kept it down (inaudible). Ms. Cox: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Dale if we can have the departments recommendation. Mr. Cua: Sure. Moving on to the recommendation. Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recommended that the proposed modification to Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2008-5, Use Permit U-2008-3, and Special Permit SP-2008-2 be approved. Furthermore, Condition No. 10 of the subject permits shall be amended to read as follows: Condition No. 10 reads; The use of the subject helicopter landing site shall expire on March 10, 2029. Additional extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission provided adverse impacts are not generated that affect the public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the surrounding environment, and conditions of approval are complied with, and there is no change in public policy regarding helicopter landings of this nature. In the event the applicant applies for an extension, the applicant shall conduct an updated floral and faunal study and present their findings to the Planning Commission after three years, and again at such time as the applicant may seek a further extension of its permits. Furthermore, applicant is advised that all applicable conditions of approval shall remain in effect. That concludes the departments recommendation. Chair DeGracia: Thank you Dale. Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion for the applicants request to amend Condition No. 10. Ms. Apisa: I’ll make a motion to approve applicants request to amend Condition No. 10 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2008-5, Use Permit U-2008-3, and Special Permit SP-2008-2 to allow for an additional six years to permit helicopter landings at Manawaiopuna Falls in Hanapēpē Valley. 17 Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor, it’s been moved and seconded to approve. Any discussion Commissioners? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: If I could. This still means that all of the conditions that were established in 2008, still have effect all the way through this extension. Just to make that clear to everyone, cause we have a lot of concern that, you can sometimes have a creep, and scope, I’m not saying this is has happened on this one but, we’ve seen it before so, we’d like to make sure that, I’d like to make sure that we understand that it is the 2008 conditions that we have in effect. That’s my only comment. Chair DeGracia: I believe that is correct. Any other comments, discussion? If not, can we get a roll call, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 7:0. Mr. Lofstedt: Thank you very much. Chair DeGracia: I’d like to a 10-minute recess. Mr. Hong: Mr. Chairman, before you do so, may I say something personal? Chair DeGracia: Sure. 18 Mr. Hong: First of all, I said I retired last year, and I first started on Kaua`i, practicing law in 1972. Over the past half a century it’s been my privilege and honor to appear before the Planning Commission numerous times, we’ve won some, we’ve lost some, but so be it. But I would like to publicly acknowledge and thank the staff, the Planning Directors, I believe when I first began it was Brian Nishimori, was Planning Director, that’s how long ago, so I think, I’ve been practicing it more than some of you have been on this earth, but at any rate, I’d like to publicly acknowledge and thank you for all of your cooperation and giving us the courtesies that you’ve extended to us over the past fifty years. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thanks Walton. Multiple Commissioners: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Mr. Hong, I would like to say it’s in mutual, you have nothing but high respect that I’ve ever heard in the community. I speak as a realtor, and I rub shoulders with a lot of attorneys, and you’re up there at the top of respect for attorneys. Mr. Hong: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Okay, with that, I’d like to take a 10-minute recess. We’ll reconvene at 10:10 a.m. Commission went into recess at 10 a.m. Commission reconvened from recess at 10:10 a.m. Chair DeGracia: It’s 10:10, I’d like to call the meeting back to order. Mr. Hull: We’re back in session. Next on the agenda we have, Agenda Item I.3. Applicant's petition to modify Condition No. 2 of Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2015-16), Use Permit (U-2015-15), Variance Permit (V-2015-2), and Special Permit (SP-2015-4) to allow continuation of operation involving the asphalt batch plant facility on real property located in Kekaha, District of Waimea, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 1-2-006:009, CPR No. 6 = Maui Asphalt X-IV, LLC. Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Dale in a second, but before I turn it over to Dale, we have nobody signed up, but is there anybody in the audience not part of the applicants group that would like to testify on this agenda item? If any member of the public would like to testify, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua: Again, I’d like to summarize the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Thank you Dale. If we can hear from the applicant, or it’s representative? Mr. Jung: Good morning again, Chair and members of the Commission, Ian Jung on behalf of Maui Asphalt, and by way of our lease through the County of Kaua`i for operations on the property. With me is Erik Rhinelander with Maui Kupono and Maui Asphalt. I do want to start with good news, is we did find a location to relocate too, the unfortunate news is, as you would imagine is the environmental studies, 19 grading permit, NPDS permits, and all that do take time, so, in original request we did request to November 11th, 2024, and I think the Planning Department report is proposing November 11th, 2023. So, with that said, we are working currently on the land use entitlements, we have secured the lease with Grove Farm, where we’re hung up, which as you’ve heard many times before, is the State Historic Preservation Division does take time for the review, and there’s a new procedure, which NPDS permits that adds a layer of another two months sometimes, so everything has been submitted for the grating and NPDS permits, but we’re working through the land use entitlements to resurrect an old permit through a new permit application to go to the new site. So, that’s the good news. The reality of what we’re faced with now is, we do need a little more time at the current site so we can wrap up operations there and then under our lease amendment and just to kind of go back in time here, the property was owned by Mauka Villages, LLC., and then the County of Kaua`i acquired the property from Mauka Villages, LLC. and is proposing their plan (inaudible) there, so the County of Kaua`i is collecting lease rents on our operation and one of the obligations in that lease is that, we have to remediate the site and do Phase 1, or environmental site assessment prior to closing up, so, those are the issues we need additional time to wrap up those operations and then anticipating potential delays, we were hoping for additional time, rather than November 2023, otherwise we’d just be back here again requesting additional time. So, if you have any questions on the operation and the current list of projects, and as you would imagine this operation does help facilitate County and State highway projects, and they provide the material for those projects and are basically engaged with the County of Kaua`i and the State DOT to service and provide the materials for those projects. Originally the application came in based on one project, that’s why there’s that thirty month condition for the highway extension along by the airport, but as it turned out there was a need for an additional competitor on island to provide material and bids and whatnot for the road services, so they ended up setting roots here on Kaua`i, they started with six employees then moved to nine, and now up to fifteen employees, so Eric can touch on that if you folks have any questions about the operations. So, with that we’ll leave it for any questions the Commission may have. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners? Ms. Otsuka: I actually was going to ask you, why 2023? I was thinking I was going to ask you if you felt you needed more time? Mr. Jung: Yeah… Ms. Otsuka: You touched on that. Mr. Jung: Yeah, the reality is, we will because when you balance out coming back before you for the new site, it did have a prior permit at the new site for a batch plan, but it has expired, so we’re coming back in for a new permit. So, the land use entitlements we feel will be within that window, but the problem is you have to go for the grating permits and NPDS permits and then once you get the land use permits, you go to the building permits, and that can take some additional time. Ms. Otsuka: Yeah, I figured you needed a buffer. Mr. Jung: Right. Mr. Hull: (Inaudible) I’ll say speaking to that point, Commissioner Otsuka, the Planning Department (inaudible) review the Planner, Mr. Cua, the request was for a two-year extension so, the calculation (inaudible) was two-years from the 2021 date that was established in the existing permits, so that’s where Mr. Cua got the 2023 date. I don’t think, unless there are concerns from the Commission, I don’t think the department has any objections to going beyond Mr. Jung’s request here though. 20 Ms. Apisa: I hope you get it done by 2024. Mr. Jung: Yes, pressure is on. Ms. Otsuka: So, that’s the date that you would like to request for? Mr. Jung: Yeah Ms. Otsuka: November 2024? Mr. Jung: Yeah, and that should work if we submit our Class IV Use Permit, Special Permit in February, we’ll probably get a hearing, maybe in July-ish, and by that time, hopefully our grading permits will be wrapped up and then we can go in for building permit in the last quarter of 2023, and get construction underway in the first quarter of 2024 to hopefully be operational. The problem with these types of batch plans is you have to get a clean air permit, NPDS permit, and so all these things take an inspection, from what I understand before you can actually start operating. So, we want to avoid the gap for the closure of the existing site and move over and transition into the new site. So, there’s some logistics there that will be very beneficial to have a buffer to accommodate that. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, this is a request essentially for where you are right now, or the location where you are right now, not for the new location that you are going to. Is that correct? Mr. Jung: Correct, yeah. The new location will be a whole slew of new permitting. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Right. Mr. Jung: As the new permit pack is from everything from land use permits to building permits, the grading and NPDS permits. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: And as I recall earlier on there were some comments from Waimea Canyon School, I think, about the, they felt that they were, they had this smell that was coming towards them, and that they were getting sick or something. Mr. Jung: Yeah, and that was…so we worked with, and this wasn’t me at the time, it was another attorney, who has since retired, Lorna Nishimitsu, but she worked with Maui Asphalt to address that situation and one of Planning Commission at the time when they came back for an extension like this imposed a new condition that during Kona wind events, which is the non-prevailing trade wind, it’s when you have a Southwest angle wind, so if the day starts with the southwest angle wind then they have to shut down operations for the day. Since then, we haven’t been aware of any new complaints, and in the Planning Director’s report, they haven’t fielded any complaints, but at the 2018 extension there was some new technology that came in for what’s called the (inaudible) and we attached it in our exhibit package that would minimize the VOC, or the Volator Organic Compound to take away some of that scent that comes in to. So, there’s been technology that’s helped the situation and also another condition that restricted the operations so there’s a minimal amount of VOC that gets out. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, if you had your perfect world, what would be your extension date for this particular project? Mr. Jung: Well, to November 2024 would give us that adequate time with some buffer to get the closure done. I think we’d be compliant with the ceasing of operations in the existing site then we can do the remediation and necessary studies to close out based on our county contract, but moving into the new site 21 there are inspections that need to occur with various federal and state agencies before the site can actually open up. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, would the 2024 date include all of the remediation? Mr. Jung: Well, the remediation would just be the clean-up and bringing the site back to its state. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Right. To be completed by that date? Is that what we’re looking at here? Mr. Jung: I don’t think we need to accommodate that because it would cease operation, so the use permit would not longer be in place, and then the study can be done, the post remediation study could be done to accommodate what’s needed, without actually operating the plant, so if the plant moves at that point then we don’t need an extension beyond the 2024 date. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But the remediation could continue on after that. Mr. Jung: Oh yes. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: And you (inaudible) committed to that regardless of whether the permits (inaudible) or not. Mr. Jung: Correct. We’re contractually obligated. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I’m sorry and I apologize if I missed it or not, but why are we moving, from one site to another site? Mr. Erik Rhinelander: So, I guess because of the issue that we had at Waimea plant and sorry Waimea Middle School there’s was an issue concerning the odor and we’re for a site that’s more central, so the new site that we have is more central, closer to where the majority of the work will be. Mr. Ako: Okay. Mr. Jung: And just by virtue of the timelines in the permit, this permit was intended to be temporary. I know we all get hung up temporarily permanent and all that stuff, but we do recognize that this is suppose to be a temporary permit, it’s just because there’s a need for the material now and because of the road infrastructure that needs to be addressed, they want to set roots here on Kaua`i and that’s kind of why they want to find a more permanent location now, hence the move. Ma`alo Road which is a little more centralized. Mr. Ako: So, as we act on this here and as we extend on the permit date, we are actually acting on behalf of the County of Kaua`i? Mr. Hull: It’s a county…When it was originally permitted this was not County of Kaua`i land, since then the County of Kaua`i has acquired this parcel, but the County of Kaua`i still needs to go through the same permit (inaudible) and to certain an even scrutinous permit reviews and processes then the applicant before us so, if the Commission decides to grant an extension of sorts, whether it’s one-year, two-years, whatever that extension will be granted to the County of Kaua`i to continue to have the site, to the respected (inaudible). Mr. Ako: So, so we need to be in consultation with the County or does the commission just act? 22 Mr. Hull: So, similar to the helicopters you had previously, the landowner was Gay & Robinson, but they’ve authorized the applicant, the tenant to come in and apply for the permit, so the same essentially is true for here is that this is County of Kaua`i land but they authorized the tenant to go for and extension. Dealing, specifically with the tenant and their respected representative with the authorization of the landowner is totally fine, but if you need as a Commissioner or a the Commission want further discussions of the County as a whole that is definitely within your purview. Mr. Ako: No, just don’t want to overstep our bounds. Mr. Jung: I think I can maybe answer some of those questions. We’ve been in contact with Wade Lord, who’s the County’s CIP Manager, and he asked our application to be referred to him so he knows what’s going on, and he was the one who negotiated the lease extension on behalf of the county, so he’s been involved, I guess is what I can say. Ms. Apisa: Just a comment, congratulations on finding another suitable site that is more appropriate because of the school and your needs, less traffic on the road and more efficient. And now, I think you are able to set realistic timelines because without the site it’s really unknown, but congratulations. That’s a major step forward in finding the site. Mr. Jung: Thank you. It hasn’t been easy. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions? Mr. Hull: I have a (inaudible) one last question. Will your inhouse scouting master extraordinaire not be presenting any comments or discussions for the Commission? Mr. Jung: Well, that went right over my head. Our inhouse, oh, it’s the scouts, Boy Scouts. Lyle Tabata is here with us. It took two seconds, only two seconds. Lyle Tabata is our project manager for the new site, and so he’s here to monitor the goings on of how it’s going to work for our relocation. So, if you’d like him to say a few words, he can certainly find them. He can recite the Boy Scouts Badge of Honor. Mr. Hull: I don’t have anything else. Chair DeGracia: If nothing further Commissioners, if we could hear the departments recommendation. Mr. Cua: Sure, moving on to the recommendation with the amended date. It is recommended that the Commission approve the extension of time to allow the operation of the asphalt batch plant facility at it’s current location. Before I finish up with the recommendation, you want to take public testimony? Mr. Hull: We asked. Mr. Cua: Oh, we did? Mr. Hull: We did. Mr. Cua: Oh, okay. Mr. Hull: I’ll just double check again, is there any member of the audience that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none. Mr. Cua: Okay. Furthermore, Condition No. 2 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-16, Use Permit U- 2015-15, Variance Permit V-2015-2, and Special Permit SP-2015-4 would be amended to read as follows: 23 The operation of this facility may continue until May 11, 2024. At the conclusion of this period, the foregoing permits shall be automatically canceled, and the applicant shall restore the project site as it was prior to the occupancy of the site. Any site improvements that were constructed shall be immediately removed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if prior to the expiration date set forth above, the applicant has exhausted its efforts to acquire a lease for property with the necessary size and zoning, the applicant may petition this Commission for either an extension of the said permits or to secure permits without an expiration date subject, however, to the landowners consent. Furthermore, the applicant is advised that all applicable conditions of approval shall remain in effect. That concludes the Director’s Report and recommendation. Ms. Apisa: Question, I believe I heard the recommendation for up May of 2024, and it’s just barely over one year and did you say November 2024? Mr. Jung: Yeah, I think Dale, you might be looking at the, I think Common Ground was May and Maui Asphalt was November. Mr. Cua: Yes. Commission agreed. Mr. Jung: November 2024. Mr. Cua: Yeah, November 11, 2024? Mr. Jung: Yeah. Ms. Apisa: It is November 11, 2024. Mr. Cua: Yes. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Before we…could I ask a question of the planner? When the site has to be brought back to it’s original condition, is there a time limitation on this, can this go on for twenty-years? Mr. Cua: The way it was conditioned, there was no specific date, however, it would the require the department to follow up to ensure that the site is restored. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But, is there a time, can we put a time limit on that or is that something that we do? Mr. Hull: You can put a time limit on that. Ms. Barzilai: You could, Commissioner ask for a time frame on remediation, again it’s dictated by state law, and it would be very hard for the applicant at this time to know because they have to contract separately with a company to test and perform the remediation. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, it’s by state law that the time limitations are? Ms. Barzilai: It’s dictated by state law. I don’t believe state requires and exact 24 months or something, in that time frame because each site is different. Maybe you can ask the applicant if they’ve explored that with a contractor. Mr. Jung: Yeah, it’s in the lease, it doesn’t have a performance timeline but it does say, at the completion in the operation, lessee shall complete a Phase 2 environmental site assessment and provide the report to the successor lessor, which was, is now the county. And then, we’re just obligated to provide 48 hours of 24 entry thereafter. But, it’s something we can work separately with Mr. Lord on because it will be cease operation and then the remediation will come in, but before we can complete the remediation we have to have the Phase 2 environmental site assessment completed. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Is there some kind of legal term that we can use, that says it would be… Ms. Barzilai: Reasonable. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: A reasonable time frame or something like that. Ms. Barzilai: That would be the most appropriate term I would think, and that would be a discussion between the applicant and the Department of Finance. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Would that be something that could be included as an amendment to that you would accept? In other words, it’s not open-ended that you can take twenty-years to get this remediated, not that you would, it just that I think sometimes we need to put something in there for, not just you but for everyone that comes through here that we, just a standardized kind of thing. Mr. Jung: Yeah, the county would sue us for each contract if we didn’t do it anyways, right, but you’re right. Ms. Barzilai: It is enforceable. Mr. Jung: Yeah. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But it isn’t enforceable if there’s no time limit. Ms. Barzilai: Well, I would say that in the environmental world, the standard has to be framed as reasonable as I mentioned because each site is different and you don’t know what you’re going to discover, but as Mr. Jung just mentioned, it would be, it’s an enforceable contract. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But it doesn’t say reasonable, so could we say, the applicant shall restore the project as it was prior to occupancy of the site within a reasonable time frame, or something like that? Mr. Jung: Yeah. Ms. Barzilai: I think that that’s acceptable. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: It’s not specific but it gives us a feeling that it will be done within our lifetime. Mr. Jung: We’re amendable to something like that. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Do we (inaudible) amendment or do I need to put that as an amendment to the amendment? Ms. Apisa: We don’t have a motion yet, do we? Ms. Barzilai: There’s no motion on the floor. Is there anything else? Ms. Apisa: There’s not a motion on the floor. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: It was just a recommendation. 25 Ms. Apisa: So, restoration within what time period? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Within a reasonable time frame. Ms. Barzilai: Maybe the Clerk would like to suggest language. Mr. Hull: I’ll be honest, the reasonable time frame, we have no problems putting it in, but it would be, we wouldn’t be able to implement that. We’ve got a case right now that has temporary permit for six months and it’s going on year thirty-five, and we’re still in the courts with it. So, I think if really, Commissioner you are looking at wanting to set a time frame I can understand that, quite honestly from an implementation stand point, I’d ask for an actual time frame. But you’re talking 24-months, 36-months… Ms. Barzilai: My though on it is that, without even a preliminary study or testing on site, it would be impossible for the applicant to asses that kind, to commit to that kind of a time frame. Ms. Otsuka: I agree. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Unless we were to say, 24-months and then they could come back in. Ms. Cox: Yeah. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: For another extension. Could that be done? I mean, if you’re saying that we have one that was a temporary thing that’s gone on for thirty years. It kinda scares me. Ms. Barzilai: I would a year for testing and another year for remediate at a minimum. Mr. Jung: Quite frankly I think the better approach outside of “land use entitlements” is for us to work with Mr. Lord on an amendment to the lease to impose something like that. Ms. Barzilai: That’s fine. That’s fine. As long as… Mr. Jung: Cause we know it’s obligated, we just don’t know…I get what you’re saying, if there’s not a specified time which it has to happen. If we don’t do it, we’d be in breach, would the problem. And, if we did do it… Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But if there’s no time limit… Mr. Jung: …(inaudible) takes forever. Right. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: But if there is no time limit, there is no breach. Ms. Cox: Right, you just haven’t done it yet. Mr. Jung: So, we could or at least we could commit to talking to wade about it. Ms. Apisa: Mr. Wade has recently entered the meeting and so, I guess to bring it to his attention that this is a concern, the remediation of the existing site is a concern that it be done within a reasonable time frame and not delayed. Mr. Wade Lord: Good morning, Commissioners, Wade Lord for the record. Didn’t know I’d be speaking today, but here I am. So, I do believe that the lease is a good vehicle to address that and cause we can control termination date to the lease and remediation whatever needs to be made with clean up can also be 26 addressed in the lease (inaudible) right now it does have a remediation provision in it, but w€ can tighten that up and certainly we can do whatever needs to be done and make sure that the tenant delivers and returns the property to us in a clean condition. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: For the record, I have no problems with this, any particular contractor or anything like that, it just seems to be good practice to make sure that it gets done within a reasonable time frame. Mr. Lord: I absolutely agree with you. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lord: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: So, the motion does not necessarily have to, should not, I mean...it’s… Ms. Barzilai: Well, we have the representation that it will be dealt with through the lease agreement. Ms. Apisa: It’s on you, Wade. It’s on you, Lord. Mr. Lord: I’m fine with that responsibility. Unknown Male: Thank you Mr. Lord. Mr. Lord: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, at this time I’ll entertain a motion to address the applicants petition to modify Condition No. 2. Ms. Apisa: I’ll make a motion to approve applicant petition to modify Condition No.2 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-2015-16, Use Permit U-2015-15, Variance Permit V-2015-2, and Special Permit SP-2015-4 to allow continuation of operation for up to November 11, 2024, involving asphalt batch plant facility on real property, located in Kekaha, Waimea. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made, motion on the floor has been made to approve the applicants petition to modify Condition 2, with an extension to November 11, 2024. Any further discussion, comments? Hearing none if we could get a roll call vote, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? 27 Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 7:0. With that we have no Subdivision Committee Report for this agenda, no further Unfinished Business, and no New Business. We’ll go into executive session, is there any member of the public that would like to testify on the agendized executive sessions? Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to you, Chair for the executive session. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, looking for a motion to go into executive session. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statues Section 92-5(a)(2 and 4), the purpose of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the annual evaluation of the Planning Director. This session pertains to the evaluation of the Planning Director's work performance where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved. Further, to consult with legal counsel regarding powers, duties, privileges, and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to the evaluation of the Planning Director. Chair DeGracia: May I get a motion? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I so move. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous vote). Opposed? Motion passes. 7:0. Ms. Barzilai: Thank you. The Commission will not enter into executive session and all those with no business before the Commission, if we may kindly ask you to exit the room. Thank you very much. Commission went into Executive Session this portion of the meeting at 10:44 a.m. Commission reconvened from Executive Session at 12:45 p.m. Chair DeGracia: Commission meeting is back in session. I believe there is nothing left on the agenda. If we could get a motion to adjourn. Ms. Otsuka: Motion to adjourn. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion to adjourn, all in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. 7:0. 28 Chair DeGracia adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: _________________________ Lisa Oyama, Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated _______________. ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of __________ meeting. Check One: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STANDARD ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION One (1) original; If providing plans, five (S) sets, including original, required. Fees vary based on permits required and range from $30 to over $1000. Proof of 100% fee ownership rights or authorized agent must be attached. Paper Plans □Electronic Plans DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Zoning Use Variance SMA PDU TOTAL FEE: Associated Permits e. . SSD lnlalte By: Intake Date Acceptance Date/8 This application shall be filled out by all seeking Zoning, Use, Variance, SMA Use or PDU permits pursuant to the Kauai County Code, Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 205A and all relevant rules and regulations of the Planning Commission and Department. Supplemental information may be attached to form. SMA applications may also require additional SMA assessment forms. Permitting fees may be made via cash or check. All checks shall be made out to: "Director of Finance" Applicant Name(s) Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. Property Address n/a Mailing Address P.O. Box 1205 Lihue, HI 96766 Parcel Area 1.001 acres Contact Phone (808)521-9297 Zoning Designation Open Contact Email if a licable mtrask@cades.com Applicant Declarations (incorrect responses may slow your permit review) Please lace an "X" under Yes or No under the followin : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 direction? Is this a conversion of a legally existing single-family dwelling unit into a multi- famil two dwellin unit? Does guest house contain a kitchen? YES NO Staff Verification X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X F.2.a. Feb. 14, 2023 1. What is the proposed construction and/or intended use of the structure or parcel (may attach additional info)? Two-story Single-Family Dwelling Unit, pool, driveway, walkways, lanai, landscaping and associated improvements. 2. If this is not the first dwelling unit on the subject property identified on this application, please state how many dwelling units presently exist: _n_ta _________ _ Submittal Checklist Please INITIAL under "Yes" or not applicable "NIA" regarding each of the statements: YES NA Staff Verification X I have ensured all TMK numbers are visible on all lan sheets. X Any plans I have submitted clearly show all structures and setback X dimensions. 4 M lans rovide lot covera e calculations X 5 I have ensured kitchens are marked with the 8' radii required by the Plannin De artment's Administrative Rules. X 6 Because this application involves a CPR, the plot plan shows all existin structures. X 7 Buildin late does not exceed 20 feet from the finished rade at ent X Acknowledgements -Please INITIAL next to each of the statements: I UNDERSTAND: Initial Here Additional fees and/or the submittal of other application forms may be necessary to complete this application for MT acceptance and processing. Tender offees by the County does not imply acceptance of this application. MT Errors in self-declaration or missing or incomplete information will delay acceptance and processing of your MT annlication. Any purposeful misrepresentations in this application may result in delay, denial, permit revocation, violations, MT fines and even criminal prosecution. The owner and/or authorized representative is hereby made aware that the construction, work, use or activity approved in this permit shall be subject to inspection by Planning Department personnel. The applicant is advised that inspection may occur prior to or during construction and use to ascertain the activity is conducted in compliance with the law. Further, I am a duly authorized ave l00% ownership rights. DATE: 101512022 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY (THIS CONSTITUTES PERMIT IF FILLED OUT BY DEPT.): APPROVED □ DENIED □ BY: DATE: DIRECTOR'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (staff to initial next to applicable conditions): This permit shall expire ifno building is issued within one (1) year after the approval date and/or if construction does not start within one (1) year of building permit issuance. Director's standard conditions for non-residential agricultural structures (attach) Should any archaeological or historic resources be discovered during ground disturbing/construction work, all work in the area of the find shall immediately cease and the Applicant shall contact the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures. Additional Conditions (State): V•\Resoune library\Forms • Applications\Zening Permn Applicat,on_02 02 2l[CURRENT].docx COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT I. Part A Applicant: APPLICANT INFORMATION Makahuena -Preferred A LLC et al. Address: c/o Cades Schutte Phone: (808) 521.9291 P.O. Box 1205, Lihue, HI 96766 Aoolicant's Status: (Check one) B Owner of the Property (Holder of at least 75% of the equitable and legal title) Lessee of the Property Lessee must have an unexpired and recorded lease of five (5) years or more from the date of filing of this application. If not, Owner(s) must [l]Authorized Agent orovide a Letter of Authorization. Attach Letter of Authorization Contact Person: Mauna Kea Trask Address: P.O. Box 1205, Lihue, HI 96766 Phone: (808) 521-9297 Email: mtrask@cades.com PROJECT INFORMATION (attach additional sheets if necessary} Site Address: N/A Tax Map Key: (4)2-8-21-71 Lot Area: 1.001 acres State Land Use District: Urban County Zoning: Open General Plan Designation: Resort Nature of Development: Two-storv Sinale-Familv Dwellina Unit oool drivewav. walkways lanais landscaoina and associated improvements. *NOTE: An Environmental Assessment in accordance with HRS Chapter 343 is required for actions requiring a Shoreline Setback Variance (SSV). Please contact the Planning Department for further information. Valuation of Development: Over $500,000.00 ------------- Date of Application: October 5, 2022 (Estimate Attached) --------------- COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT II. Part B The petitioner shall be responsible for filing the following required information with the department before an application is considered complete: 1. A written description of the proposed project, location and a statement of reasons/justification for project. 2. If property abuts a shoreline, a certified shoreline survey conducted by a registered land surveyor within 6 months of an application shall be submitted, when required by the Planning Agency. 3. A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all proposed and existing structures and other pertinent information. Also, preliminary building sketch plans are to be submitted. 4. Any other plans or information requirements by the Director. 5. Note: An Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement that has been declared adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or under Chapter 343, HRS , may constitute a valid filing under this section . Project Assessment: a. Description of the area and environment involved including flora and fauna, and other features; See attached. b. Description of the existing land uses of the project site and surrounding areas; See attached. c. Description of how the proposed project will affect the area involved and surrounding areas . Specifically the assessment should evaluate if the proposal: YES NO i. Involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction D l ✓I of any natural or cultural resources, including but not limited to, historic sites, Special Treatment Districts as established by the County of Kauai Comprehensive Zoning ordinance, view planes or scenic corridors as outlined in the Community Development Plans, and recreation areas and resources; Discussion: r ee attached. - 2 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUA 'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT ii. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion : I J ee attached. ii i. Conflicts with the County's or the State's long-term environmental policies or goals; Discussion: ISee attached . iv . Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion: ISee attached . V. Substantially affects the economics or socia l welfare and activities or the community, County or State; Discussion: See attached . vi. In itself has no significant adverse effect but cumu latively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; Discussion: ISee attached. vii. Substantially affect a rare threatened, or endangered species of animal or plant, or its habitat; Discussion: !See attached. - 3 - YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES [{] • YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA} PERMIT ASSESSMENT 1. Will the proposed development adversely affect coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas? Discussion : !See attached. 2 . Will the project require replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational value, including but not limited to surfing sites, sandy beaches and fishing areas, when such resources will be unavoidably damaged by the proposed development; or requiring reasonable monetary compensation to the State for recreation when replacement is not feasible or desirable? Discussion: I See attached. 3. Is the project site near a State or County Park? Discussion: !See attached. 4 . Will the proposed development affect an existing public access to or along the shoreline? Discussion: ISee attached. 5. Will the proposed development provide public access to and/or along the shoreline? Discussion : r ee attached . - 5 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] 6. 7. COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Will the proposed development encourage expanded recreational use of County, State, or federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and waters having recreational value? Discussion: I i ee attached. Will the development generate point or non-point sources of pollution that will affect recreation value of coastal area? Discussion: I i ee attached. Objective YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] HISTORICAL RESOURCES: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man-made historic and pre-historic resources in the Special Management Area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question. 1. 2 . 3. Is the project site within a Federal, State and/or County designated historical/cultural district? Discussion: ISee attached. Is the project site listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places? Discussion: r ee attached. Does the project site include land(s) which have not been previously surveyed by an archaeologist? - 6 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] YES NO • [l] 4. 5. 6. 7. COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Discussion: !See attached. If an archeological survey has been conducted for the project site, has the survey been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and recommendations? Discussion: I i ee attached. Has any site survey revealed any information on historic or archaeological resources? (Please provide a copy or reference of survey) Discussion: !See attached . Is the project site within or near a Hawaiian fishpond? Discussion: !See attached. Is the project located within or near a historic settlement area? (Cemeteries, burials, heiaus, etc.) Discussion: !See attached. Objective YES NO [{] • YES NO [{] • YES NO • [{] YES NO • [{] SCENIC & OPEN SPACE RESOURCES: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question. SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 - 7 - 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5 . 6 . COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Does the project site abut or affect a valued scenic resources or landmark within the SMA? Discussion: ISee attached. Does the proposed development affect existing shoreline open space and scenic resources? Discussion: ISee attached. Does the proposed development involve alteration to natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline? Discussion : ISee attached. Is the project compatible with the visual environment? Discussion: I i ee attached. Does the proposed action involve the construction of structures visible between the nearest coastal roadway and the shoreline? Discussion: [See attached. Is the project site within the Shoreline Setback Area (20 or 40 feet inland from the shoreline)? Discussion: !See attached. - 8 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES L] [{] YES NO • [{] YES NO • [{] YES NO [{] • YES NO [{] • YES NO • [{] COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Objective COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS: Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosvstems. Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question. 1. 2 . Is the project site a habitat for endangered species of flora and fauna? Discussion: [See attached. Will the proposed development adversely affect valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance? Discussion: [See attached. YES NO • [{] YES NO • [{] ~ ~✓ 3. Will the proposed involve disruption or degradation of coastal water LJ l{J ecosystems through stream diversions, channelization, and similar land 4. 5. and water uses? Discussion: i ee attached. Will the proposed development include the construction of specia l waste treatment facilities, such as injection wells, discharge pipes, septic tank systems or cesspools? Discussion: I i ee attached . Is there a wetland on the project site? Discussion : S ee attached. - 9 - SMA Assessment Application UPD . 10/2013 YES NO [l] • YES NO • [l] 6. ECONOMIC USES: COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Is the project site situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary? Discussion: YES NO • [l] However, there are nesting sites for wedge-tailed shear waters nearby. See attached. Objective Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question. 1. 2. Does the project involve a harbor or port? Discussion: I iee attached. I Is the proposed development related to or near to an existing major hotel, multi-family, or condominium project? Discussion: YES NO • [l] YES NO [l] • ~he proposed development is bordered by the "Point at Poipu" hotel to the east, r nd the "Makahuena at Poipu" and the "Poipu Palms" developments to the west. YES NO 3. Does the project site include agricultural lands designated for such use? D I ✓ I Discussion: !See attached. 4 . Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion: ISee attached . SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 -10 - YES NO • [l] 5 . COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion : ISee attached. Objective YES NO • [l] COASTAL HAZARDS: Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, and subsidence. Check either "Yes" or "No " for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No " it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question. 1. Is the project site within a potential tsunami inundated area as depicted on the National Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM)? Discussion: ISee attached . YES NO • [Z] YES NO 2. Is the project site within a potential flood inundation area according to a D I ✓ I FIRM? 3 . 4. Discussion: f ee attached. Does the project comply w ith the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program? Discussion: !See attached . Has the project site or nearby shoreline areas experienced shoreline erosion? Discussion: f ee attached. I -11 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO [l] • YES NO • [l] 5. I COUNTY OF l<AUA'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Have any seawalls/revetments/etc. been constructed or exist in the immediate vicinity? Discussion: See attached. I YES NO • [l] I PROJECT ASSESSMENT: e. Evaluation of the impacts which cannot be avoided and mitigating measures proposed to minimize that impact: Discussion: r ee attached. f . Evaluation of the proposed development re lative to Section 4.0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations in accordance with the following aspects: i. Substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects; Discussion: I i ee attached. ii. Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the goals and objectives of Chapter 205A, HRS; and Section 3.0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations; and Discussion: ISee attached. iii. Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the County General Plan, Development Plan, and Zoning Ordinances. Discussion: ISee attached. MALINA KEA TRASK, Authorized Agent [name], [title] 10/5/2022 Date SMA Assessment Application UPO. 10/2013 -12 - CADES SCHUTTE A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUNA KEA TRASK 8418 P.O. Box 1205 Lihu’e, HI 96766 Telephone: (808) 521-9297 Facsimile: (808) 540-5015 Email: mtrask@cades.com Attorneys for Applicants MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - TW, LLC; and MAKAHUENA - DW, LLC. BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I In the Matter of the Application Of MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - TW, LLC; and MAKAHUENA-DW, LLC, for a Special Management Area Use Permit, for Real Property Situated at Weliweli, Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Described as Lot 4 of Makahuena Estates Subdivision, Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021:071. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT SMA(U)-2022-_____________ CLASS III ZONING PERMIT Z-III-_________ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT AND CLASS III ZONING PERMIT; EXHIBIT LIST; EXHIBITS “A” - “T” TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   SECTION 1. APPLICANTS/SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS. ............................................. 1 1.1 Applicants .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Property .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Ownership .............................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. LOCATION & LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ................ 1 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Land Use Designations .......................................................................................... 2 a. SLUC ......................................................................................................... 2 b. Kaua’i General Plan ................................................................................... 2 c. CZO............................................................................................................ 2 d. Development Plan Area ............................................................................. 2 e. Special Management Area ......................................................................... 2 f. Constraint District ...................................................................................... 2 g. Heritage Resources .................................................................................... 2 h. Flood Zone ................................................................................................. 2 i. Shoreline Setback ....................................................................................... 3 j. Violations ................................................................................................... 3 k. Visitor Destination Area ............................................................................ 3 l. Soils............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Prior Land Use Permits .......................................................................................... 3 a. SMA (U) 2015-1 ........................................................................................ 4 b. Z-III-2015-1 ............................................................................................... 4 c. S-2015-14 ................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3. PAST, EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF THE PROPERTY. .................. 4 3.1 Past Uses ................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Existing Uses ......................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Proposed Uses ........................................................................................................ 5 SECTION 4. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS ................................... 6 4.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Surrounding Uses ................................................................................................... 6 SECTION 5. PERMITS REQUESTED AND REQUIRED ....................................................... 6 5.1 Class III Zoning Permit .......................................................................................... 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page   ii 5.2 SMA Use Permit .................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 6. IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................... 7 6.1 Botanical Resources ............................................................................................... 7 6.2 Historical Resources .............................................................................................. 7 6.3 Air Quality/Noise ................................................................................................... 8 6.4 Flooding and Drainage ........................................................................................... 8 6.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 9 a. Potable Water ............................................................................................. 9 b. Electric/Communications ........................................................................... 9 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ..................................................................... 9 6.7 Solid waste Disposal ............................................................................................ 10 6.8 Governmental Services ........................................................................................ 10 a. Fire & Police Services. ............................................................................ 10 b. Schools ..................................................................................................... 10 6.9 Economics ............................................................................................................ 10 a. Jobs .......................................................................................................... 10 b. Housing .................................................................................................... 10 c. Property Values ........................................................................................ 10 6.10 Population ............................................................................................................ 10 6.11 Traffic Circulation ............................................................................................... 11 6.12 Heritage Resources .............................................................................................. 11 SECTION 7. SLUC CONSIDERATIONS. ............................................................................... 11 7.1 SLUC Urban District ........................................................................................... 11 SECTION 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 11 8.1 Kauai General Plan Visions and Goals ................................................................ 11 a. Goal # 1: A Sustainable Island................................................................. 11 b. Goal # 2: A Unique and Beautiful Place .................................................. 12 c. Goal # 3: A Healthy and Resilient People ............................................... 12 d. Goal # 4: An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All ......................... 13 8.2 Kauai General Plan Policies to Guide Growth .................................................... 13 a. Policy # 1: Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character ........................ 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page   iii b. Policy # 3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts ............................................................................................. 14 c. Policy # 4: Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods ..................... 14 d. Policy # 7: Build a Balanced Multimodal Transportation System .......... 14 e. Policy # 8: Protecting Kauai’s Scenic Beauty ......................................... 15 f. Policy # 9: Uphold Kaua’i as a Unique Visitor Destination Area ........... 15 g. Policy # 14: Prepare for Climate Change ................................................ 16 h. Policy # 15: Respect Native Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana ................ 16 i. Policy # 16: Protect Access to Kauai’s Treasured Places ........................ 16 8.3 Kauai General Plan Resort Use Designation ....................................................... 16 8.4 Project Compliance with Kauai General Plan Standards ..................................... 17 SECTION 9. CZO OPEN DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS. .................................................. 17 9.1 CZO Open District ............................................................................................... 17 9.2 Development’s Compliance with CZO Open District Standards ........................ 17 9.3 Shore Constraint District Considerations ............................................................. 18 SECTION 10. SOUTH KAUAI COMMUNITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. ........................ 19 10.1 Community Plan Goals and Objectives ............................................................... 19 10.2 Compliance with Development Plan Standards ................................................... 19 SECTION 11. SMA CONSIDERATIONS. ................................................................................ 19 11.1 Recreational Resources ........................................................................................ 19 11.2 Historic Resources ............................................................................................... 19 11.3 Scenic and Open Space Resources ...................................................................... 20 11.4 Coastal Ecosystems .............................................................................................. 21 a. In consultation with DLNR/DOFAW, CLDC engaged a landscaping firm and established a new shrub land of native naupaka (Scaevola taccada) on the makai western corner of the subdivision creating more nesting habitat for wedge-tailed shearwaters ............................................................................................... 22 b. At DOFAW’s request, the CLDC hired a pest control firm to conduct trapping for feral cats. .............................................................. 22 c. Finally, in order to avoid a potentially dangerous condition for humans, the makai rock wall along the public access way was approved as constructed with ground-level tubes that allow shearwaters to pass through. .................................................................. 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page   iv 11.5 Economic Uses ..................................................................................................... 23 11.6 Coastal Hazards ................................................................................................... 23 11.7 Managing Development/Public Participation ...................................................... 24 11.8 Beach Protection/Marine Resources .................................................................... 24 11.9 Value of Development ......................................................................................... 24 11.10 Compatibility with Surrounding Uses ................................................................. 24 11.11 Significant Adverse Effect to the SMA ............................................................... 25 11.12 Compliance with SMA Guidelines ...................................................................... 25 a. Adequate access, via existing public access easements, is provided to nearby beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves. ....... 25 b. Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves have been reserved ..................................................... 25 c. Provisions have been made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management that will minimize adverse effects on SMA resources. ................................................................................... 25 d. Because the Property is prepared for development, alterations to existing landforms and vegetation will be very minimal, and construction will cause negligible adverse effects to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities ...................................... 25 e. The development is consistent with the objectives and policies of HRS Ch .................................................................................................... 26 f. The development is consistent with the County General Plan and zoning ordinances .................................................................................... 26 g. No dredging, filing or other altering of any coastal resources will occur whatsoever ..................................................................................... 26 h. The development will not reduce the size of the coastal access easement area, nor will the development impose any restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches, or other coastal resources. ............................................................................ 26 i. The development will not substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea or from existing public views to and along the shoreline. ....................................................................... 26 j. The development will not significantly adversely affect water quality, or existing and potential fisheries, wildlife habitats, or estuarine sanctuaries ............................................................................ 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page   v SECTION 12. HRS CH 343 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. .......................................................................................... 26 12.1 HRS Chapter 343 ................................................................................................. 26 SECTION 13. IMPACTS TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES .............................................................................. 26 13.1 Existence of Traditional and Customary Practices .............................................. 27 SECTION 14. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 29     APPLICATION Comes now, MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - TW, LLC; and MAKAHUENA-DW, LLC, by and through their undersigned attorneys, and hereby submits the following Application to construct a single-family residential dwelling unit (“SFR”) and associated improvements as described herein (the “Project”). SECTION 1. APPLICANTS/SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS. 1.1 Applicants. The Applicants are , MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL A, LLC; MAKAHUENA - PREFERRED B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - CAPITAL B, LLC; MAKAHUENA - TW, LLC; and MAKAHUENA-DW, LLC (“Applicants”). Applicants have authorized Mauna Kea Trask of Cades Schutte LLP to file this Application. See, Exhibit “A”. 1.2 Property. This Application concerns that certain parcel of land (being portion(s) of the land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent Grant Number 1416 to Eke Opunui) situate, lying and being at Weliweli, Koloa, Island and County of Kaua’i, State of Hawai’i, being Lot 4 of the Makahuena Estates subdivision, and further identified as Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021:071 (the “Property” or “Lot 4”). A legal description of the Property is contained in the Deed attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 1.3 Ownership. Applicants are the owners of the Property as shown in Exhibit “B”. SECTION 2. LOCATION & LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PROPERTY. 2.1 Location. The Property is located in Weliweli, Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “C-1”.   2 2.2 Land Use Designations. The State Land Use Commission (“SLUC”), Kaua’i General Plan (“General Plan”), County of Kaua’i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”), and other relevant land use designations for the Property are described as follows: a. SLUC. The Property is located in the SLUC Urban District. See, Exhibit “C-2”. b. Kaua’i General Plan. The Property is located in the Kauai General Plan Resort Use Designation. See, Exhibit “C-3”. c. CZO. The Property is within the County of Kauai Open (O) zoning District. See, Exhibit “C-4”. d. Development Plan Area. The Property is located within the South Kauai Planning District. See, Exhibit “C-5”. e. Special Management Area. The Property is located within the County’s Special Management Area (“SMA”). See, Exhibit “C-6”. f. Constraint District. The Property is located within the Shore Constraint District (S-SH). See, Exhibit “C-7”. g. Heritage Resources. As shown in General Plan (2018) Figure 5-11, South Kaua’i Heritage Resource Map, the Property does not contain any important natural, scenic, or historical features. See, Exhibit “C-8”. h. Flood Zone. A majority of the Property, including the project site, is within the Non-Special Flood Hazard Area Zones XS and X, with small makai portions of the Property within SFHA Zones AE and VE. See, Exhibit “C-9”. However, Letters of Map Revision - Coastal High Hazard Area Determination Document (Removal) 16-09-0378A, dated November 12, 2015; 16-09-0391A, dated November 12, 2015; and 19-09-1672A, dated June 26, 2019, removed a significant portion of the makai south-eastern portion of Lot 4 mauka of the rock wall   3 bordering the open space and public access easement from the SFHA Zones AE and VE and placed them within the Non-Special Flood Hazard Area Zone X. Id. i. Shoreline Setback. The Property is a shoreline parcel, and the State previously certified the shoreline in 2014. See, Exhibit “C-10”. The coastline consists of steep rocky cliff faces. The project site is approximately 42 ft. above sea level and will be well mauka of the certified shoreline. Id. Further, according to the Kauai Coastal Erosion study, the coastline fronting the Property is unchanging. Id. Although there are no parcels of real property between the Property and the shoreline, there are dedicated coastal access and opens space easements fronting the Property that create a substantial buffer between the shoreline and the Property, and the proposed development will not impact public beach access. See, Exhibit “C-11”. Thus, the proposed development will not affect beach processes, impact public beach access, or be affected by or contribute to coastal erosion or hazards. j. Violations. There are no known land use and zoning violations on the Property. k. Visitor Destination Area. Pursuant to Ord. PM-2017-410, the Property is within the Visitor Destination Area (“VDA”). See, Exhibit “C-12”. l. Soils. According to the National Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) Web Soil Survey, the Property consists of Koloa stony silty clay (KvD) with 15 to 25 percent slopes. See, Exhibit “C-13”. However, due to the completion of the subdivision improvements the project site itself has been graded and the development will be built on an existing flat building pad. 2.3 Prior Land Use Permits. The Property is subject to the following land use permits and conditions:   4 a. SMA (U) 2015-1. On August 26, 2014, the County of Kaua’i Planning Commission approved SMA Use Permit SMA (U) 2015-1, allowing the consolidation and re- subdivision of the larger Makahuena Estates property from a 25-lot subdivision to a 10-lot subdivision subject to 14 conditions. See, Exhibit “D”. b. Z-III-2015-1. On August 29, 2014, the County of Kauai Planning Department approved Class III Zoning Permit Z-III-2015-1, allowing the consolidation and re-subdivision of the larger Makahuena Estates property from a 25-lot subdivision to a 10-lot subdivision subject to 14 conditions. See, Exhibit “E”. The terms and conditions of the Class III zoning permit were the same as SMA (U) 2015-1. c. S-2015-14. On April 14, 2015, the County of Kauai Planning Commission tentatively approved S-2015-14, allowing the consolidation and re-subdivision of the larger Makahuena Estates property from a 25-lot subdivision to a 10-lot subdivision subject to 6 conditions. See, Exhibit “F”. The County conducted a final inspection of the subdivision on August 8, 2017, and found construction to be complete and acceptable. See, Exhibit “G”. SECTION 3. PAST, EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Past Uses. The prior landowner, CIRI Land development Company (“CLDC”), acquired the entire area now comprising Makahuena Estates subdivision, approximately 13.1 acres, from the United States federal government on or about March 22, 1996. At the time of CLDC’s acquisition, the area consisted of 26 separate lots, which, since 1951, had been used by the Coast Guard as a LORAN-A receiver which used radio waves and provided ships with the ability to triangulate their locations hundreds of miles from a transmitting station. At that time there were five to six buildings in use, along with a 280-foot-high antenna located makai of the structures. The use of the station, known as LORSTA Kauai, ceased in 1979, following which   5 Hale ‘Opio, Inc., a private nonprofit organization that provided youth-oriented social services, used the properties until Hurricane Iwa devastated Kauai in 1982. From 2014 to 2015 CLDC sought and received permission from the County to consolidate and re-subdivide the properties from 26 lots to a ten-lot subdivision. After approval was obtained from the County, CLDC proceeded to develop the subdivision and associated infrastructure as approved. On December 4, 2017, the County Department of Public Works sent a memorandum to Planning Director Michael A. Dahilig certifying the completion of the subdivision. See, Exhibit “G”. Final Subdivision map approval was obtained from the Planning Commission on March 27, 2018. See, Exhibit “G-1”. 3.2 Existing Uses. The Property is currently “fully-developed” as allowed under SMA (U)2015-1, Z-III-2015-1, and S-2015-14, meaning that it has been graded, grassed and all subdivision infrastructure has been installed. However, no structure has been developed on the Property and to that extent the Property is “vacant”. 3.3 Proposed Uses. Applicants are proposing to develop a two-story SFR, pool, and associated driveway, walkways, and lanais. See, Exhibit “H”. Applicants will also landscape the Property. See, Exhibit “I”. Pursuant to CZO § 8-9.2(a)(1), the amount of land coverage created, including pavement, shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the lot or parcel area. Initially, the Planning Commission approved Lot 4 at 1.002 acres/43,647 sf. See, Exhibit “D”. However, the final approved subdivision map indicates Lot 4 is 1.001 acres/43,603.6 sf. See, Exhibit “G-1”. The land coverage of the proposed development is as follows: Structure Size Percentage of Square footage Two-Story House 2,637 sq. ft. 6%   6 Garage 741 sq. ft. 1.7% Pool 559 sq. ft. 1.3% Covered Lanai 423 sq. ft. 0.97% Total 4,360 sq. ft. 9.99% See, Exhibit “H”, at SP01. Applicant notes that according to the plans, a gravel driveway will be used to access the garage area. The gravel driveway will allow for normal precipitation to directly reach the surface of the underlying land, and as such does not count toward “lot coverage” pursuant to CZO § 8- 1.5. SECTION 4. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS. 4.1 Location. The Property is located in Weliweli, Koloa, Kaua’i at Makahuena Point near the intersection of Pe’e Road and Maka Place. The Property is about one-half mile to the east of Po‘ipū Beach Park and one-half mile to the west of Shipwrecks Beach Park. 4.2 Surrounding Uses. To the west of the Property is the Makahuena at Po‘ipū , a 79- unit condominium development (zoned R-20), to the east is the Point at Po‘ipū , a 219-unit hotel development, (zoned RR-10), and mauka of the Property are residential houses (zoned R-4). All surrounding properties are within the VDA. Makai of the project site is a rock wall built pursuant to SMA (U) 2015-1, Z-III-2015-1 and S-2015-14 that delineates the mauka boundary of the County’s public access easements which are located on the makai portion of the Makahuena Estates subdivision lots. SECTION 5. PERMITS REQUESTED AND REQUIRED. 5.1 Class III Zoning Permit. Because the Property is within the County Open (O) zoning district and Shore Constraint district (S-SH), the proposed development must obtain a   7 Class III zoning permit from the County of Kauai Planning Department. See, CZO §§ 8-9.4(b), 8-8.4(c) and 8-12.5(d) (2). 5.2 SMA Use Permit. Applicant is proposing to develop a two-story SFR, a pool, and associated landscaping and improvements. Although this is the first house on the lot and the proposed development is less than 7,500 sq. ft., Act 16 L 2020 amended Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) §205A-22 to exclude the first house exemption from the definition of “Development” within the SMA if the lot is a shoreline parcel. Therefore, the proposed development constitutes “Development” as defined by HRS §205A-22. The total value of the development is estimated to be $3,997,000.00. See, Exhibit “J”. As such, Applicants are requesting the Planning Commission issue a SMA Use Permit as provided in Section 7.3.C (1)&(2) of the SMA Rules. SECTION 6. IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Botanical Resources. The Property is located within a fully developed and prepared subdivision, and currently consist of a vacant lot containing a grass lawn. See, Exhibit “K”. There are no known botanical resources located on the Property and the proposed development will not have any impact on Botanical Resources. . 6.2 Historical Resources. Prior to the County’s approval of the subdivision development, CLDC contracted with Haun & Associates to conduct an Archaeological Inventory Survey (“AIS”) of TMK No. (4) 2-8-021:041, which at the time included the Property. See, Exhibit “L”. The objective of the AIS was to satisfy historic preservation regulatory review requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division (“DLNR-SHPD”), as contained within Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”), Title 13, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Rules. Id. at ii. The AIS identified 18 sites with 128 features, consisting of 98 concrete pads, 7 concrete blocks, 4 artifact scatters, 4 posts, 3 terraces, 3 slabs, 2 paths, 2 walls, and one each of the   8 following: ditch, road, stairs, utility box and walled slab. Id. Subsurface testing was undertaken during the project, consisting of the excavation of twenty test units, and no intact sub surface cultural deposits or burials were encountered during the subsurface testing. Id. According to the AIS, all of the documented remains were the remnants of U.S. federal government navigation- related infrastructure in operation for over 100 years. Id. The 18 sites were assessed as significant solely for their information content. Id. The sites were adequately documented, and no further work or preservation was recommended by Haun & Associates to DLNR-SHPD. Id. DLNR-SHPD concurred with Haun & Associates’ recommendation subject to certain corrections which were subsequently made. See, Exhibit “L”, letter from DLNR-SHPD, dated August 27, 2012, and letter from Haun & Assoc., dated December 2, 2012. Because the subdivision was subsequently developed after the acceptance of the AIS, no historical resources are expected to be encountered during the proposed development and no historical resources will be affected. 6.3 Air Quality/Noise. The development will have little or no impact on the air quality and ambient noise levels in the area. Air quality and ambient noise levels may be affected at a very minimal level during the actual construction activities. All vehicles or equipment used by Applicants for the construction will be properly muffled, housed and maintained to reduce any noise impacts or emission impacts. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and State of Hawaii air quality standards will not be exceeded. 6.4 Flooding and Drainage. The proposed development is within the Non-Special Flood Hazard Area Zones X and XS. See, Exhibit “C-9”. The development will meet all of the requirements of the Flood Plain Management Ordinance of the County of Kauai, as contained in   9 Chapter 15, Article 1, of the Kauai County Code, 1987. All drainage resulting from construction activities and from the increase in land coverage will be retained on site in the existing drainage basin that was constructed by CLDC pursuant to its permits to develop the existing subdivision. No additional drainage is anticipated to significantly or negatively impact the surrounding properties or coastal area. 6.5 Utilities. In 2015 all necessary state and county agencies approved the construction plans for the Makahuena estates Subdivision. See, Exhibit “M”. These plans included the construction of all utilities. On December 4, 2017, the County of Kauai Department of Public Works certified that the Makahuena Estates subdivision was completed and acceptable. See, Exhibit “G”. a. Potable Water. The Property currently obtains water service from the County of Kauai Department of Water. b. Electric/Communications. The Property obtains electric service from Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (“KIUC”), and communication services from Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. Existing electric and communications are presently adequate to provide the demand for such services that will be generated by the proposed development. 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. Applicants will install a private individual wastewater system (septic tank(s) and leach field(s)) consistent with the Individual Waste System (IWS) Report prepared for CLDC by Esaki Surveying & Mapping, Inc. that was prepared for the County and State’s review and approval during the subdivision entitlement process. See, Exhibit “N”.   10 6.7 Solid waste Disposal. Solid waste collection will be provided by private means. Solid waste will be taken to the County’s refuse transfer stations or disposal in the County’s landfill as appropriate. 6.8 Governmental Services. Applicants anticipate the development will have the following impacts on governmental services: a. Fire & Police Services. Fire and Police services are located in Koloa within two to three miles of the Property respectively. The development will not significantly increase the need for existing Fire and Police services. b. Schools. The closest schools are Koloa Elementary School located in Koloa, and Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School and Kaua’i High School, both located in Lihue. The development will not generate any significant additional enrollment. 6.9 Economics. Applicants anticipate the development will have the following economic impacts: a. Jobs. The development will result in the creation of temporary construction jobs during the construction of the project. Thereafter, Applicants anticipate an ongoing need for housekeeping and landscaping and maintenance jobs to maintain the Property. b. Housing. The Project will not result in the need for additional housing. c. Property Values. Because fair market value of real property is based on the value of the land and any physical improvements, the development will increase the value and the real property taxes of the Property thus increasing revenues to the County of Kaua’i. 6.10 Population. The development will not result in a measurable increase in population.   11 6.11 Traffic Circulation. The Property is primarily served by Maka Place, which Applicants understand is a private road built to county standards but not accepted by the County Council. The nearest public road is Pe’e Road, which is about 500 ft. from the Property. The development of the Property will not measurably affect or increase traffic on Pe’e Road. 6.12 Heritage Resources. As stated above in section 2.2.g, according to the General Plan, Figure 5-11 South Kaua’i Heritage Resource Map, the Property does not contain any important natural, scenic, or historical features. See, Exhibit “C-8”. SECTION 7. SLUC CONSIDERATIONS. 7.1 SLUC Urban District. The Property is located within the SLUC Urban District. Residential uses are permitted within the SLUC Urban District. SECTION 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. 8.1 Kauai General Plan Visions and Goals. An evaluation of the Kauai General Plan (“General Plan”) section 1.3 shows that the proposed development is consistent with the Visions and Goals of the General Plan. a. Goal # 1: A Sustainable Island. The Makahuena Estates subdivision was carefully planned and developed in order to fulfill the requirements of Goal # 1 of the General Plan, and the proposed development of Lot 4 is consistent therewith. The subdivision density was reduced from at least 25 dwelling units to ten, only nine of which are within the VDA. A public parking area and an open space and public access easement were dedicated to the County to protect the natural coastal systems that support life, air, water, soil, and living organisms on the makai portion of Lot 4. See, General Plan at 33. The development of the proposed single family dwelling unit on Lot 4 will not negatively affect the sustainability of the island. Rather, the subdivision is the direct result of well-reasoned actions starting in 2014 that ensure this area   12 remains sustainable and meets the needs of current and future generations without depleting important resources. Id. b. Goal # 2: A Unique and Beautiful Place. Applicant’s proposed Development is consistent with Goal # 2 of the General Plan and ensures the care and protection of the treasured resources, traditions, and qualities of the natural, built, and human environment of Makahuena point. Id. at 34. Applicant’s proposed Development maintains the perpetual protection of the natural coastal ecosystem on the makai portion of Lot 4. Id. The Development will not infringe upon the rights of the community to engage in their cultural traditions and practices and provides opportunities for recreation and meditative contemplation along this beautiful coastline. Id. The Development is consistent with the tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine as provided in Article 11, Section 1 of the Hawaii State Constitution to, “conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air minerals and energy sources”, and “promotes the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.” Id. at 34. c. Goal # 3: A Healthy and Resilient People. General Plan Goal # 3 recognizes that health is influenced by the built environment, including the ability to walk or bicycle to key destinations, and to access the recreational areas that support active lifestyles. Id. at 35. The development of a single-family dwelling unit on Lot 4 of Makahuena Estates is consistent with these principles and will not interfere with the community’s use of the coastal access area. This specific development is part of a larger well planned and sustainable subdivision project that increased the resilience and vitality of the community and promoted better health outcomes through improved coastal access opportunities related to the natural, built, and social environment. Id. at 35.   13 d. Goal # 4: An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All. Goal # 4 of the General Plan aims to foster diverse and equitable communities with vibrant economies, access to jobs and housing, and a high quality of life. Id. at 36. Short term and long-term job opportunities will result from the construction and continued maintenance of this specific development as is typical with high-end residential vacation rental properties. However, Goal # 4 is not simply about economic opportunity. Goal # 4 recognizes that reversing Kaua’i’s trending inequity means ensuring Kaua’i residents, regardless of factors such as geographic location, age, race, gender, and economic status, have access to, inter alia, opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of shared spaces; and making sure that planning and land development decisions do not unfairly burden disadvantaged groups. Id at 36. This subdivision and its subsequent development were specifically designed and permitted to ensure equitable opportunities for recreation and shared spaces for all of Kaua’i, not just the landowners in the neighborhood. Anyone on Kaua’i can park in the public parking lot at Makahuena Estates subdivision and access the entire coastline all the way to Mahaulepu. The coastal access area allows for fishing off of the makai portion of Lot 4 in perpetuity and such opportunities benefit, not burden, disadvantaged groups on Kaua’i. Applicant embraces this kuleana and has designed the proposed development to compliment the environment and character of this special place. 8.2 Kauai General Plan Policies to Guide Growth. The General Plan contains nineteen (19) polices to guide growth that articulate the County’s path forward toward meeting the community’s vision and goals of sustainability, unique character, resilience, and equity. An evaluation of Kaua’i General Plan Section 1.4 shows the proposed development is consistent with the following Policies to Guide Growth.   14 a. Policy # 1: Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character. The proposed development is consistent with Policy # 1 because it is contained within an existing neighborhood that has been planned for residential subdivision development since the early 20th century. This ensures that Kauai’s rural character is preserved as the proposed development is within the Po‘ipū growth boundary and is compact and walkable. General Plan at 38. b. Policy # 3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts. The proposed SFR on Lot 4 in consistent with Po‘ipū ’s distinct character. The SFR will be constructed within the pre-approved building envelope mauka of the rock wall that delineates and preserves the open space coastal access easement. The SFR is low massing and designed to blend into and compliment the rocky-shoreline cliffs. The development will not interfere with Po‘ipū ’s many costal access opportunities which provide lateral access along the coast from Mahaulepu to Lawai. c. Policy # 4: Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods. General Plan Policy # 4 seeks to guide growth in a way that combats the recent trend of health problems in Hawaii, attributed in part to increasing levels of sedentary lifestyles. The SFR on Lot 4 will not interfere with the coastal open spaces access easement that was dedicated to the County to specifically allow for safe and convenient walking activities makai of the subdivision and provide residents an opportunity to increase physical activity on a daily basis, thereby reducing health risks. The SFR on Lot 4 is part of a low-density, compact and walkable neighborhood that maintains coastal access opportunities consistent with Policy # 4. d. Policy # 7: Build a Balanced Multimodal Transportation System. Makahuena Estates subdivision was specifically designed and constructed to be consistent with Policy # 7. By reducing the previously permitted subdivision density of at least 25 residential units and   15 voluntarily providing for a public parking area and an open space public access easement, the subdivision is consistent with the County’s Multimodal Land Transportation Plan (2013) and provides the community with pedestrian access opportunities along the entire coastline of the south shore. The proposed SFR on Lot 4 will not interfere with these opportunities and is consistent with Policy #7. e. Policy # 8: Protecting Kauai’s Scenic Beauty. The proposed SFR is consistent with preserving the natural views of Makahuena point. The proposed development is low massing and will be entirely located within the pre-approved building envelope of Lot 4 which was specifically designed to protect and preserve both mauka and makai views along the coastline. The views in this area are not only protected by the reduced subdivision density but also by the open space access easement on the makai portion of Lot 4. And unlike the two neighboring developments to the east and west of Makahuena Estates subdivision, the proposed SFR is specifically designed to complement the rugged coastal cliff area of Makahuena point and incorporates dark earth tones and design features that blend in with the natural environment. f. Policy # 9: Uphold Kaua’i as a Unique Visitor Destination Area. The proposed SFR is consistent with Policy # 9’s purpose of focusing and limiting growth to pre-existing Visitor Destination Areas and reducing visitor impacts on infrastructure. The Makahuena Estates subdivision was specifically designed to ensure that the nine lots within the VDA do not negatively affect the community character of Po‘ipū . Further, the location of the SFR within the pre-approved building envelope will limit the physical footprint of transient accommodation uses and ensure that such uses do not encroach upon the dedicated open space coastal access easement area.   16 g. Policy # 14: Prepare for Climate Change. The proposed SFR is consistent with Policy # 14 and will not contribute to or exacerbate concerns regarding rising sea levels along Makahuena point. By restricting the development of Lot 4 to the pre-approved building envelope, the proposed SFR will not be affected by any coastal hazards. Further, the makai rock wall fronting Lot 4 is a physical delineation of the shoreline setback line and ensures that no development will occur within or affect the shoreline area along Makahuena point. h. Policy # 15: Respect Native Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana. A cultural impact assessment (“CIA”) was prepared during the Makahuena Estates subdivision permitting process. See, Exhibit “T”. Although the CIA did not identify any traditional and customary practices occurring in the area that is now Lot 4, the CIA stated that fisherman continue to gather and catch a variety of fish for subsistence purposes, including moi, ‘o’io and also harvest various marine invertebrates along the shoreline and rocky edges of Makahuena point. Exhibit “T” at 13. In response, the developer dedicated both the public parking lot and coastal open space access easements to the County to ensure these traditional and customary practices may continue in perpetuity. i. Policy # 16: Protect Access to Kauai’s Treasured Places. The proposed SFR is consistent with Policy # 16 by ensuring the continued protection of access to and customary use of the shoreline area, trails, and places along the coast of Makahuena point for religious and cultural observances, fishing, gathering, and recreational activities, such as hiking. 8.3 Kauai General Plan Resort Use Designation. The Property is located in the Kaua’i General Plan Resort Use Designation. See, Exhibit “C-3”. The Property is also within the VDA. See, Exhibit “C-12”. Actions for the Resort Use Designation are found in the Chapter 3, Sector VI. of the General Plan. The General Plan contemplates, in relevant part, strengthening   17 existing town centers and mixed-use environments, revitalizing existing visitor destination areas, and protecting agricultural lands for agricultural production and food self-sufficiency. Because the Property is in the existing VDA and will not take existing agricultural land out of food production, the development complies with the tenets of the General Plan concerning the Resort Use Designation. 8.4 Project Compliance with Kauai General Plan Standards. The proposed Development is a residential use within a completed subdivision development. Therefore, the development itself will have no significant impact on the surrounding environment. The development is consistent with neighboring residential and resort and transient accommodation uses and will not have a significant adverse effect to the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the development complies with the General Plan’s policy for the Resort Use Designation and is consistent with the County’s “use it or lose it” policy concerning resort development. SECTION 9. CZO OPEN DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS. 9.1 CZO Open District. The Open District is established and regulated to create and maintain an adequate and functional amount of predominantly open land to provide for the recreational and aesthetic needs of the community or to provide for the effective functioning of land, air, water, plant and animal systems or communities. CZO § 8-9.1. 9.2 Development’s Compliance with CZO Open District Standards. Single-family detached dwelling units and accessory structures are permitted uses within the Open (O) zoning district pursuant to CZO § 8-2.4(s) (1) & (9). The development will not exceed the 10% land coverage limitation contained in CZO § 8-9.2(a) (1). The development itself will have no significant impact on the surrounding environment and is compatible with existing residential and resort uses in the immediate area surrounding the Property. Further, the coastal portion of the Property, makai of the rock-wall, is encumbered by coastal access and open space easements   18 held by the County of Kaua’i that provide coastal access to recreational users and fishermen in the area. Therefore, the proposed Development complies with CZO § 8-9.1 and allows for the development of the SFR while providing for the recreational and aesthetic needs of the community and the effective functioning of land, air, water, plant and animal systems or communities. 9.3 Shore Constraint District Considerations. The purpose of the Shore Constraint District is to regulate development or alterations to shore and water areas which have unique physical and ecological conditions in order to protect and maintain physical, biologic, and scenic resources of particular value to the public. During the entitlements of the Makahuena Estates subdivision, CLDC prepared and submitted numerous reports that addressed the impact that a 10-lot subdivision would have on the Shore Constraint District. These reports included: Air Quality Assessment (Exhibit “O-1”); Geological Investigation (Exhibit “O-2”); Biological Survey (“O-3”); Visual Analysis of Public Views (Exhibit “O-4”); and Visual Analysis of Private Views (Exhibit “O-5”). All of these studies were accepted and approved thus allowing CLDC to proceed with development of the subdivision improvements. Because there has been no change in the condition of the subdivision properties in general, or to Lot 4 specifically since the completion of the subdivision improvements, Applicants submit that the existing studies establish that the proposed development will not cause significant harm to: (A) the water quality of the ocean, including, but not limited to, its clarity, temperature, color, taste and odor; (B) fish and aquatic habitats; (C) the natural beauty of the area; (D) navigation, safety or health; or (E) would not substantially interfere with public use of the ocean waters or underlying lands; and (F) that other facilities are unavailable to the applicant.   19 SECTION 10. SOUTH KAUAI COMMUNITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. 10.1 Community Plan Goals and Objectives. The goals and objectives of the South Kauai Community Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 990, includes in relevant part, that Kōloa will be a thriving commercial and residential community that maintains its rural feel and historic “old town” charm by preserving, enhancing, and protecting its vast cultural treasures; and that Po‘ipū will be a world-class, sustainable resort destination, serving residents and visitors alike, developed responsibly, with clean, healthy beaches and ocean environments, welcoming parks, and preserved heritage resources, all well-connected and accessible to everyone. 10.2 Compliance with Development Plan Standards. The development is consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the South Kauai Community Plan. The design, layout and outside appearance of the development will utilize architectural design elements that will be compatible with the natural beauty of the area. The development will cover less than 10% of the lot, and the dedicated public access easement and view easement makai of the rock-wall ensures that coastal access and open space along the coastline will be maintained in perpetuity. SECTION 11. SMA CONSIDERATIONS. 11.1 Recreational Resources. An open space public access easement encumbers the portion of the Property makai of the rock-wall. The development will not affect or hinder the continued use of the public access easement in any way. Therefore, the development will not have any significant adverse effect on any public recreational opportunities located on the Property, and the development will not affect any existing public beach or coastal access rights. 11.2 Historic Resources. As stated above in section 6.2, prior to the County’s approval of the subdivision development, CLDC (the previous landowner) contracted with Haun & Associates to conduct an Archaeological Inventory Survey (“AIS”) of TMK No. (4) 2-8- 021:041, which at the time included the Property. See, Exhibit “L”. The AIS identified 18 sites   20 with 128 features, all of which were the remnants of U.S. federal government navigation-related infrastructure in operation on the larger subdivision Property for over 100 years. Id. A comparison of AIS Figure 11 (Site Location Map) and Figure 68 (Distribution of associated Features within Project Area) with the Demolition & Naupaka Preservation/Replanting Plan (Exhibit “S” at 4) indicates that Site 2142 was located in the vicinity of the boundary between Lots 4 and 5, and Site 2143 (including features A-C) was located makai of the rock wall near the boundary of Lots 3 and 4. Site 2142 was recognized as a small roughly oval-shaped concrete pad that was created by pouring concrete into a hole dug into the ground and probably served to anchor wiring. Exhibit “L” at 45 and 49. Site 2143 was recognized as a complex of three features comprised of a concrete slab (Feature A), a stone retaining wall (Feature B), and a concrete pad (Feature C). Exhibit “L” at 49. DLNR-SHPD concurred with Haun & Associates’ recommendation that no further work or preservation was necessary of any of the sites or features discussed in the AIS. See, Exhibit “L”, letter from DLNR-SHPD dated August 27, 2012, and letter from Haun & Assoc. dated December 2, 2012. The subdivision was subsequently developed after the acceptance of the AIS, and currently there are no historic sites or features located on the Property. Thus, the proposed development will not have any significant adverse effect to any Historic Resources. 11.3 Scenic and Open Space Resources. When the County granted CLDC’s request to consolidate and re-subdivide the larger subdivision property from 25 lots to 10 lots, the County found that the 10-lot subdivision would not block the line-of-sight towards the ocean from public view planes as the 10-lot subdivision   21 would be less dense and contain more open space compared to a 25-lot subdivision. See, Exhibits “O-4” and “O-5”.   The proposed development will not have a significant and adverse impact on the scenic and open space resources in the area, and will blend into the existing neighborhood motif and the natural environment. See, Exhibit “O-6”1. Any visual impacts to the coastline will be sufficiently mitigated as the development itself has been designed to blend in with the rugged coastline by using dark earth tones and modern design elements, including Tahitian Brown roofing materials, black fiberglass windows, stained accent cedar siding, stained cedar siding, stained board formed concrete, and Polynesian landscaping motifs. See, Exhibits “H”, “I” and “O-6”. 11.4 Coastal Ecosystems. The Property is a shoreline parcel and abuts the ocean, but the proposed development of Lot 4 will not significantly and adversely affect the coastal ecosystem. Prior to entitlement of the subdivision, CLDC commissioned a Preliminary Engineering Report which addressed the mitigation of any significant adverse effects that the subdivision would have on the coastal ecosystem. See, Exhibit “P”. The Preliminary Engineering Report addressed site grading, drainage plans, storm water management and water quality, erosion control plans, roadways, wastewater, the flood zone and the constraint district. Id. The recommendations in the Preliminary Engineering Report were included in the approved construction plans of the subdivision (Exhibit “M”) which were constructed as approved and certified by the Department of Public Works (Exhibit “”G”). Because all subdivision infrastructure has been constructed and   1 Exhibit “O-6” contains a copy of a survey of the Makahuena Estates subdivision and five (5)) pictures. The survey itself indicates where pictures 1-5 were taken, and pictures 1-5 contain a computer image of the potential visual impact of the proposed development.   22 approved, including the necessary drainage basin, the development will not have any significant adverse effect on the coastal ecosystem, and the development will be constructed and maintained so that any erosion or increased run off will stay within the pre-existing drainage allowances and maintained on site in the existing drainage basin. During the subdivision entitlement process three indigenous Hawaiian bird species were recorded during the Biological Survey of the site: Wedge-tailed Shearwater, White-tailed Tropicbird, and Wandering Tattler. Exhibit “O-3” at 28. Of these three species, only the Wedge-tailed Shearwater was noted to nest along the coast. Id. This species is not listed under either federal or state endangered species programs; however, it is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Id. at 29. The Biological Survey noted that the subject property is not included in any federal Critical Habitat designations, and the development of the site would not impact Critical Habitat. Id. at 34. Nonetheless, the County imposed various permit conditions to mitigate any development impacts to the Wedge-tailed shearwaters located in the area. Exhibit “D” at 2-3. Based upon representations of Jan Tenbruggencate, CLDC and Applicant’s consultant, and an analysis of the public record, Applicant understands that all of these requirements were complied with. For example: a. In consultation with DLNR/DOFAW, CLDC engaged a landscaping firm and established a new shrub land of native naupaka (Scaevola taccada) on the makai western corner of the subdivision creating more nesting habitat for wedge-tailed shearwaters. b. At DOFAW’s request, the CLDC hired a pest control firm to conduct trapping for feral cats. Exhibit “Q”. The Applicant has continued that contract and animal control specialists are on the property daily. Exhibit “Q-1”. Consistent with condition 5 (c) of SMA(U) 2015-1 and Z-III-2015-1, and consistent with condition 1 (i) of S-2015-14, Applicant and DLNR/DOFAW   23 have entered into a revocable Right-of-Entry to allow the State to monitor wedge-tailed shearwaters in the area. Exhibit “R”. c. Finally, in order to avoid a potentially dangerous condition for humans, the makai rock wall along the public access way was approved as constructed with ground-level tubes that allow shearwaters to pass through. Exhibits “S” and “G”. However, according to Mr. Tenbruggencate, there is no evidence the birds actually do cross it on foot, as shearwaters that have been seen inside the wall are adults fully capable of flight. Applicant intends to comply with all existing permitting requirements, including those relating to construction times and any prohibitions against external upward facing and unshielded lighting. Nonetheless, Applicant is aware that predation of Wedge-tailed shearwaters continues along the makai portion of the subdivision largely due to the feeding of feral cats at neighboring properties and in some part unleashed domestic dogs that walk within the open space coastal access easement with their owners. Applicant is working cooperatively with DLNR/DOFAW and the community to find collaborative solutions to further protect the coastal bird population. 11.5 Economic Uses. The Property will be developed for residential purposes and is allowed to be used as a transient vacation rental as it is within the VDA. The proposed development will create short term economic benefits associated with the construction of the improvements and will create more long-lasting employment opportunities associated with the management and upkeep of a vacation rental property if the development is used for such purposes. Therefore, the proposed development will not have any significant adverse effect on the economy. 11.6 Coastal Hazards. The Property is a shoreline parcel but its’ makai boundary consists of rock cliff face and the Property itself is approximately 42 ft. above sea level. See,   24 Exhibit “C-10”. According to the Kauai shoreline change website, developed in partnership with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) and the University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, the coastline of the Property is not experiencing any coastal erosion. Id. All drainage will be maintained on site via an existing drainage basin. As such, no significant risks of coastal hazards are likely. 11.7 Managing Development/Public Participation. The development is consistent with the SMA objectives and policies concerning Managing Development and Public Participation in that the SMA Use Permit process will provide the public with an opportunity to review the proposed development and communicate and participate in the management of coastal resources and hazards. 11.8 Beach Protection/Marine Resources. The development will not have any significant adverse effect on any coastal beach processes because there are no beaches in the vicinity, instead there is a steep, rugged and rocky cliff faced shoreline. Likewise, the development will not significantly adversely affect any open space areas along the shoreline due to the existing county coastal access and open space easements encumbering the Property makai of the rock-wall. There are no existing fishponds, seawalls or revetments in the vicinity of the Property and as such the development will not have any significant adverse effect to Beach Protection or Marine Resources. 11.9 Value of Development. The value of the development is estimated at $3,997,000.00 as shown in the construction estimate attached as Exhibit “J”. 11.10 Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The Property is surrounded by properties located in the SLUC Urban District, County Resort District, and County Residential District and is the VDA. Uses on the surrounding properties include residential, resort and vacation rental   25 activities. The Property is similar in topography, character and nature with adjacent properties and the development is consistent with surrounding land uses. 11.11 Significant Adverse Effect to the SMA. The development will not have any significant adverse environmental or ecological effect to the SMA, including but not limited to the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each of which taken by itself might not have a significant adverse effect, and the elimination of planning options. The development is and will be compatible with existing uses in areas surrounding the Property. Further, the design, siting, and landscaping of the development will ensure that any adverse effects of the development are minimized to the extent practical consistent with the special controls on development within the SMA and the State policy to preserve and protect the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawai’i. 11.12 Compliance with SMA Guidelines. The development is consistent with the SMA Guidelines contained in HRS § 205A-26 and Section 4.0 of the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations of the County of Kaua’i State of Hawai’i (“SMA Rules”) as follows: a. Adequate access, via existing public access easements, is provided to nearby beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves. b. Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves have been reserved. c. Provisions have been made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management that will minimize adverse effects on SMA resources. d. Because the Property is prepared for development, alterations to existing landforms and vegetation will be very minimal, and construction will cause negligible adverse effects to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities. Further, danger of floods, wind   26 damage, storm surge, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake is not expected. e. The development is consistent with the objectives and policies of HRS Ch. 205A and the County SMA Rules. f. The development is consistent with the County General Plan and zoning ordinances. g. No dredging, filing or other altering of any coastal resources will occur whatsoever. h. The development will not reduce the size of the coastal access easement area, nor will the development impose any restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches, or other coastal resources. i. The development will not substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea or from existing public views to and along the shoreline. j. The development will not significantly adversely affect water quality, or existing and potential fisheries, wildlife habitats, or estuarine sanctuaries. SECTION 12. HRS CH 343 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. 12.1 HRS Chapter 343. HRS Ch. 343 requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement for certain activities specified in HRS § 343-5. The development does not constitute an action for which an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared pursuant to HRS § 343-5. SECTION 13. IMPACTS TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES.   27 13.1 Existence of Traditional and Customary Practices. Under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, the State of Hawai’i: [R]eaffirms and 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. For the purpose of practicing [Native Hawaiian] traditional and customary rights, practitioners may gather anywhere that those rights have been traditionally and customarily exercised in that manner – on land that is less than “fully developed.” David M. Forman and Susan K. Serrano, Ho’ohana Aku, a Ho’ola Aku: A Legal Primer for Traditional and Customary Rights in Hawaii, December 2012; citing, Public Access Shoreline Hawaii (“PASH”) v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246. In the landmark decision Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Aina v Land Use Commission, 94 Haw. 31, 7 P.3d 1068 (2000), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court provided an analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional native practices specific to Hawaiian communities. The court decision established the following three-part process relative to evaluating such potential impacts. 1. 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; 2. Identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and 3. 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. However, if property is deemed "fully developed," i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always   28 "inconsistent" to permit the practice of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights on such property. State v. Hanapi, 89 Haw. 177, 970 P.2d 485 (1998). To allow the exercise of such rights on developed lands “would so conflict with understandings of property, and potentially lead to such disruption, that [the court] could not consider it anything short of absurd” and “would conflict with [the court’s] understanding of the traditional Hawaiian way of life in which cooperation and non-interference with the well-being of other residents were integral parts of the culture.” Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (1982). As part of the subdivision entitlement process, CLDC commissioned the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment (“CIA”) by McMahon Consulting. See, Exhibit “T”. The CIA analyzed previous archaeological studies, the historical record and detailed consultation with native Hawaiian practitioners and informants in an effort to identify any ongoing practice of traditional and cultural activities and the presence of any valued cultural, historical or natural resources within the subdivision or its vicinity. The CIA further assessed the potential impacts that the proposed development may have on those resources. In analyzing whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources were present within the applicable area, the CIA found a paucity of data in the written record regarding the presence of pre-contact settlement and historic land tenure for the Property and limited mythological and legendary references. However, in speaking with native Hawaiian practitioners and informants it was determined that the coastline fronting the subdivision has been use for traditional and cultural subsistence fishing practices from pre-historic times to today. Fish caught off of the rock cliffs at Makahuena include: awa (milkfish), ‘o’io (bone fish), he’e (octopus), ula (spiny lobster), akule (big-eye scad), and moi (thread fish). Ha’uke’uke (sea urchin) and ‘opihi (limpet) are also   29 gathered from the rocky cliffs along the coastline. According to cultural informants, at one point in time there were small salt beds in the area, but no salt pans were located during an archaeological inventory by Haun et al in 2011. Exhibit “T” at 12. No further cultural, historical, or natural resources were identified in the area. All traditional and customary practices and all valued cultural, and natural resources in the area involve subsistence fishing and gathering within the open space access easement makai of the subdivision’s rock wall. As this area is protected and preserved in perpetuity, the development of Lot 4 will not affect or impair these continued practices whatsoever. No traditional and customary practices were identified on the Property in the area mauka of the rock wall. The construction plans for the subdivision improvements were approved by all governmental regulatory agencies in 2015. A final inspection of the subdivision improvements was conducted on August 8, 2017, and the County Engineer certified that the construction was complete and acceptable on December 4, 2017. As such, the Property is deemed fully developed. State v. Hanapi, 89 Haw. 177, 970 P.2d 485. Given the tenets of the law regarding practice of Native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights on “fully developed” lands, the development will not affect any Native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights protected under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai’i State Constitution. SECTION 14. CONCLUSION. Applicant respectfully requests the Planning Department and the Planning Commission: 1. Find that the development will not have any substantial environmental or ecological effect, except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. 2. Find that the development is consistent with the objectives, policies, and guidelines set forth in HRS Ch. 205A and Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the SMA Rules. 3. Find that the development is consistent with permitted uses in the SLUC Urban District, the Kauai General Plan, the South Kauai Community Plan, and the CZO. 4. Approve the issuance of a SMA Use Permit and a Class III Zoning Permit for the development on the Property as described herein, subject to such reasonable conditions as the Planning Department and Planning Commission shall impose. DA TED: Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii, October 5, 2022. CADES SCHUTTE LLP < s__.------- MAUNA KEA TRASK Attorneys for Applicants MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED A, LLC; MAKAHUENA -CAPITAL A, LLC; MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED B, LLC; MAKAHUENA -CAPITAL B, LLC; MAKAHUENA -TW, LLC; and MAKAHUENA -DW, LLC 30   EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit Exhibit Description A Applicant Authorization B Deed C-1 Lot 4 Tax Map C-2 Lot 4 State Land Use District Map C-3 Kauai County General Plan Land Use Designation Map C-4 Zoning Map ZM-PO 300 C-5 South Kauai Community Plan Land Use Map C-6 Lot 4 Special Management Area Map C-7 County Constraint District Map C-8 Kauai County General Plan South Kauai Heritage Resource Map C-9 Lot 4 Flood Hazard Assessment Report C-10 Shoreline Certification and Topography map C-11 Grant of Pedestrian Access and Parking Easements C-12 Ordinance No. PM-2017-410 C-13 Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Lot 4 Soil Survey Map D SMA (U) 2015-1 E Z-III-2015-1 F S-2015-14 G Certification of Completion Makahuena Point Subdivision G-1 Final Subdivision Map Approval H Lot 4 House Plans 2 I Lot 4 Landscape Plans J Lot 4 Construction Estimate K Lot 4 Photo Exhibit L Archaeological Inventory Survey M Approved Construction Plans for Makahuena Subdivision N Individual Wastewater System (IWS) Report - Makahuena Subdivision O-1 Air Quality Assessment O-2 Geological Investigation O-3 Biological Survey O-4 Visual Analysis Public Views O-5 Visual Analysis Private Views O-6 View Impact of Lot 4 development P Preliminary Engineering Report Q Previous Kani Wildlife Contract Q-1 Existing Kani Wildlife Contract R Right-of-Entry with DLNR/DOFAW S May 9, 2016 Status Report to Planning Department T Cultural Impact Assessment EXHIBIT A October 3, 2022 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Cades Schutte LLLP is authorized on behalf of: (i) (a) MAKAHUENA-PREFERRED A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; and (b) MAKAHUENA -CAP IT AL A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, both of whose mailing address is 3214 N. University Ave., #104, Provo, Utah 84604; and (ii) (a) MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED B, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, (b) MAKAHUENA-CAPITAL B, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, (c) MAKAHUENA-TW, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, and (d) MAKAHUENA -OW, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; collectively the owners of the property located at Pe'e Rd. and Maka Pl., Koloa, HI 96756, identified as TMK No. (4) 2-8-021:071), in submitting any and all permit assessments, determination requests, and/or permit applications to the various departments and agencies of the State of Hawaii and the County of Kaua' i relative to the above referenced property. MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company By: ak Tanner Weekes Its Manager MAKAHUENA -CAPITAL A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company By: Udl Tanner Weekes Its Manager MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED B, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company By: -=-/2�£(' __ _ EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B ( LAND COURT ,\ STATE OF HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES RECORDED February 05, 2021 8:01 AM Doc No(s) A -77060485 111111111111 /s/ LESLIE T. KOBATA REGISTRAR 1/4 B-33661468 ICL Conveyance Tax: S150,887.70 REGULAR SYSTEM Return By Mail [RJ Pick-Up □ To: TG:20Z0372{)t/-S TGE: 26/SW,Jc./ 177 Z)g7iL§_t2,/-,---c_ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES�=-- TITLE OF DOCUMENT: WARRANTY DEED PARTIES TO DOCUMENT: GRANTOR: GRANTEE: CIRI LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, an Alaska corporation, whose mailing address is 725 E. Fireweed Lane, Suite 800, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (i)(a) MAKAHUENA -PREFERRED A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; and (b) MAKAHUENA-CAPITAL A, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, both of whose mailing address is 3214 N. University Ave., #104, Provo, Utah 84604; and (ii) (a) MAKAHUENA-PREFERRED B, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, (b) MAKAHUENA-CAPITAL B, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, (c) MAKAHUENA-TW, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, and (d) MAKAHUENA-DW, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, all of whose mailing address is 111 E. Broadway, Suite 1100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 TAX MAP KEYS ( 4) 2-8-021 :041 and 069 to 079, inclusive EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C-1 Developed by Parcel ID 280210710000 Acreage 1.001 Class RESIDENTIAL Situs/Physical Address PEE RD Mailing Address MAKAHUENA-PREFERRED A LLC 3214 N UNIVERSITY AVE STE 104 PROVO UT 84604 Total Market Value $3,000,800 Total Assessed Value $3,000,800 Total Exemptions $0 Total Net Taxable Value $3,000,800 Last 2 Sales Date Price Reason n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a Brief Tax Description LOT 4 POR GR 1416 FP 354 MAKAHUENA TRACT 1.001 AC DES (Note: Not to be used on legal documents) The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps and data are made available solely for informational purposes. The GIS data is not the official representation of any of the information included, and do not replace a site survey or legal document descriptions. The County of Kauai (County) makes or extends no claims, representations or warranties of any kind, either express or implied, inluding, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as to the quality, content, accuracy, currency, or completeness of the information, text, maps, graphics, links and other items contained in any of the GIS data. In no event shall the County become liable for any errors or omissions in the GIS, and will not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other loss, injury or damage caused by its use or otherwise arising in connection with its use, even if specifically advised of the possibility of such loss, injury or damage. The data and or functionality on this site may change periodically and without notice. In using the GIS data, users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data. Date created: 9/16/2022 Last Data Uploaded: 9/16/2022 6:16:22 AM 591 ft Overview Legend Parcels CPR Units Roads EXHIBIT C-1 EXHIBIT C-2 +DZDLL6/8'/RFDWRU6RXUFHV (VUL +(5( *DUPLQ 86*6 ,QWHUPDS ,1&5(0(17 3 15&DQ70.3DUFHOV6WDWH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWV&RQVHUYDWLRQ8UEDQ6HSWHPEHUPLNPEXHIBIT C-2 EXHIBIT C-3 5.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAPS| 5.0 POLICY MAPS 235Figure 5-4 South Kaua‘i Land Use Map5.2 FUTURE LAND USEMAPS|5.0 POLICYMYAPS 235KKKƃƃƃoaoloaPoPo॒॒ppppipƻƻKKauummuuali॒॒iHHwwyyKaKalĈĈheoheo॒Q॒Qmama॒॒ooKukui‘ulaKukui‘ulaLLLĈĈĈ‘wawa‘wa‘iWaita ReservoirWaita ReservoirKalawai ParkKalawai ParkPo‘ipPo‘ipƻƻBeachPark Beach ParkMauhia RdMaluhia RdAA la KKKK inn oo ikk i RR dd ॒॒QQQQ mm a॒ooooRRRddddPapPaapPPapĈlina Rdlina RdLLĈĈwwa‘iRRdd0120.5MilesN1 in = 1 milesReservoirsNaturalAgriculturalAgricultural (IAL)Major RoadsPlanning District BoundaryRoadsStreamsSmall TownParks and RecreationHomesteadLarge TownGolf CourseNeighborhood GeneralResidential CommunityNeighborhood CenterResortIndustrialTransportationProvisional AgricultureAgricultureAgriculture (IAL)ONLINE VERSIONONLINEONLINE VERSIONVERSIONEXHIBIT C-3 EXHIBIT C-4 EXHIBIT C-4 EXHIBIT C-5 -EXHIBIT C-5 EXHIBIT C-6 +DZDLL60$/RFDWRU6RXUFHV (VUL +(5( *DUPLQ 86*6 ,QWHUPDS ,1&5(0(17 3 15&DQ70.1HLJKERU,VODQGV6SHFLDO0DQDJHPHQW$UHD 60$ 6HSWHPEHUPLNPEXHIBIT C-6 EXHIBIT C-7 EXHIBIT C-7 EXHIBIT C-8 5.3 HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPS | 5.0 POLICY MAPS 247 Weliweli MĈhĈঘulepƻ LĈwaঘi Kal Ĉheo PĈঘĈ Kƃloa e Halewili RdK a umuali॒iHwyKalĈheo Kalawai Park LĈwa‘i ‘Qma‘o Kƃloa Po‘ipƻ Po‘ipƻ Beach Park Al aKi noi kiRdWaita Reservoir Maluhia RdKukui‘ula PapĈlina RdFigure 5-11 South Kaua‘i Heritage Resource Map Registered Historic Sites State"J National"J State & National"J Cultural Features Priority Public Access Points#* Ahupua॒a Boundaries Wetlands Coral Reefs State & County Parks Preserves Planning District Boundary Fish Ponds$ò Kƃloa Scenic Byway Trails Regulated Fishing Areas Major Roads Streams & Waterbodies Roads Reservoirs Traditional Cultivation Areas Open Space Acquisition Priorities Critical Habitat Threatened & Endangered Species High Density Very High Density Sand Dunes N 01.530.75 Miles 1 in = 2 miles ONLINE VERSIONONLINE VERSION ONLINE VERSION EXHIBIT C-8 EXHIBIT C-9 Flood Hazard Assessment Report Disclaimer: The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) assumes no responsibility arising from the use, accuracy, completeness, and Ɵmeliness of any informaƟon contained in this report. Viewers/Users are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the informaƟon and agree to indemnify the DLNR, its oĸcers, and employ- ees from any liability which may arise from its use of its data or informaƟon. If this map has been idenƟĮed as 'PRELIMINARY', please note that it is being provided for informaƟonal purposes and is not to be used for Ňood insurance raƟng. Contact your county Ňoodplain manager for Ňood zone determina- Ɵons to be used for compliance with local Ňoodplain management regulaƟons. Property InformaƟon COUNTY: FIRM INDEX DATE: THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A TSUNAMI EVACUTION ZONE: FOR MORE INFO, VISIT: hƩp://www.scd.hawaii.gov/ THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A DAM EVACUATION ZONE: FOR MORE INFO, VISIT: http://dlnreng.hawaii.gov/dam/ Flood Hazard InformaƟon SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD - The 1% annual chance Ňood (100- year), also know as the base Ňood, is the Ňood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. SFHAs include Zone A, AE, AH, AO, V, and VE. The Base Flood ElevaƟon (BFE) is the water surface elevaƟon of the 1% annual chance Ňood. Mandatory Ňood insurance purchase applies in these zones: Zone A: No BFE determined. Zone AE: BFE determined. Zone AH: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); BFE determined. Zone AO: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet Ňow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. Zone V: Coastal Ňood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); no BFE determined. Zone VE: Coastal Ňood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); BFE determined. Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE. The Ňoodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent Ňoodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance Ňood can be carried without increasing the BFE. NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - An area in a low-to-moderate risk Ňood zone. No mandatory Ňood insurance purchase requirements apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng communiƟes. Zone XS (X shaded): Areas of 0.2% annual chance Ňood; areas of 1% annual chance Ňood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance Ňood. Zone X: Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance Ňoodplain. OTHER FLOOD AREAS Zone D: Unstudied areas where Ňood hazards are undeter- mined, but Ňooding is possible. No mandatory Ňood insurance purchase apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng commu- niƟes. FLOOD HAZARD ASSESSMENT TOOL LAYER LEGEND (Note: legend does not correspond with NFHL) www.hawaiinfip.org Notes: BASEMAP: FIRM BASEMAP 0 400 800 ft KAUAI TMK NO: (4) 2-8-021:071 WATERSHED: MAHAULEPU PARCEL ADDRESS: ADDRESS NOT DETERMINED KOLOA, HI 96756 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S):16-09-0378A, 16-09-0391A, 19-09-1672A FEMA FIRM PANEL:1500020352F PANEL EFFECTIVE DATE:NOVEMBER 26, 2010 YES NO EXHIBIT C-9 Case No.: 16-09-0378ADate: November 12, 2015 LOMR-VZ Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 1 of 5 COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY AFFECTED MAP PANEL NUMBER: 1500020352F DATE: 11/26/2010 FLOODING SOURCE: PACIFIC OCEAN KAUAI COUNTY, HAWAII (Unincorporated Areas) Lots 45 through 47, 58 through 61 and a portion of Parcel L-3, Makahuena Tract, as described in the Quitclaim Deed recorded as Document No. 96-068054, in the Office of the Bureau of Conveyances, Kauai County, Hawaii The portion of property is more particularly described by the following metes and bounds:COMMUNITY NO.: 150002 DATUM: NAD 83 APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 21.870, -159.443 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: GOOGLE EARTH PRO LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) DETERMINATION STREET FLOOD ZONE LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) BLOCK/ SECTION SUBDIVISIONLOT OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA L-3 10.0 to 24.0 feet --10.0 to 24.0 feet X (shaded) Portion of Property --Makahuena Tract -- Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ZONE V PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the property(ies) is/are not located in a Coastal High Hazard Area or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the Coastal High Hazard Area and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. Case No.: 16-09-0378ADate: November 12, 2015 LOMR-VZ Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 2 of 5 LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Parcel L-3 A portion of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment Document, is located within a Coastal High Hazard Area (Zone V, VE or V1-30). Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. No construction using fill for structural support or that may increase flood damage to other property may take place in these areas. PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) BEGINNING at a ½” pipe located at the northeast corner of Lot L-3, a parcel of land being a portion of Grant 1416 to Eke Opunui, Makahuena Tract at Weliweli, Koloa, Island of Kauai, State of Hawaii, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021: 041, having a latitude of 21.870954 and a longitude of -159.441649, and running in bearings measured clockwise from the point of beginning as shown on the attached Exhibit A; thence S26°01’00’E, 110.36 feet; thence S31°46’09”W, 49.24 feet; thence, S77°27’05”W, 63.70 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 38.00 feet; thence, S65°05’45”W, 39.07 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 30.00 feet; thence, S09°53’44”E, 24.39 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 107.44 feet; thence, N69°52’26”W, 90.18 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 72.35 feet; thence, S87°31’11”W. 12.22 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 15.83 feet; thence, S02°20’20”E, 17.46 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 42.00 feet; thence, S36°56’14”E, 89.47 feet; thence, S28°17’21”W, 113.52 feet; thence, S61°36’32”W, 166.40 feet; thence, S72°15’15”W, 42.12 feet; thence, S34°24’32”W, 17.02 feet; thence, S61°36’32W, 20.00 feet; thence, S48°47’18”E, 31.84 feet; thence, S42°14’17”W, 110.80 feet; thence, N31°01’00”W, 167.34 feet; thence, N64°12’18”E, 62.11 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 299.60 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 75.00 feet; thence, N18°59’00”E, 35.36 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 100.00 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 299.60 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 100.00 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 244.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING ZONE V (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Case No.: 16-09-0378ADate: November 12, 2015 LOMR-VZ Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 3 of 5 COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY AFFECTED MAP PANEL NUMBER: 1500020352F DATE: 11/26/2010 FLOODING SOURCE: PACIFIC OCEAN KAUAI COUNTY, HAWAII (Unincorporated Areas) Lots 45 through 47, 58 through 61 and a portion of Parcel L-3, Makahuena Tract, as described in the Quitclaim Deed recorded as Document No. 96-068054, in the Office of the Bureau of Conveyances, Kauai County, Hawaii The portion of property is more particularly described by the following metes and bounds:COMMUNITY NO.: 150002 DATUM: NAD 83 APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 21.870, -159.443 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: GOOGLE EARTH PRO DETERMINATION STREET FLOOD ZONE LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) BLOCK/ SECTION SUBDIVISIONLOT OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA 45 18.0 feet--10.0 feetX (shaded) Property--Makahuena Tract -- Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the property(ies) is/are not located in a Coastal High Hazard Area or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the Coastal High Hazard Area and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) Case No.: 16-09-0378ADate: November 12, 2015 LOMR-VZ Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 4 of 5 LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Parcel L-3 DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) FLOOD ZONE SUBDIVISION STREETBLOCK/ SECTIONLOT WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA OUTCOME 46 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) 10.0 feet --20.0 feet 47 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --20.5 feet 58 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --26.5 feet 59 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --20.5 feet This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) BEGINNING at a ½” pipe located at the northeast corner of Lot L-3, a parcel of land being a portion of Grant 1416 to Eke Opunui, Makahuena Tract at Weliweli, Koloa, Island of Kauai, State of Hawaii, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021: 041, having a latitude of 21.870954 and a longitude of -159.441649, and running in bearings measured clockwise from the point of beginning as shown on the attached Exhibit A; thence S26°01’00’E, 110.36 feet; thence S31°46’09”W, 49.24 feet; thence, S77°27’05”W, 63.70 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 38.00 feet; thence, S65°05’45”W, 39.07 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 30.00 feet; thence, S09°53’44”E, 24.39 feet; thence, S37°39’37”W, 107.44 feet; thence, N69°52’26”W, 90.18 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 72.35 feet; thence, S87°31’11”W. 12.22 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 15.83 feet; thence, S02°20’20”E, 17.46 feet; thence, S32°36’10”W, 42.00 feet; thence, S36°56’14”E, 89.47 feet; thence, S28°17’21”W, 113.52 feet; thence, S61°36’32”W, 166.40 feet; thence, S72°15’15”W, 42.12 feet; thence, S34°24’32”W, 17.02 feet; thence, S61°36’32W, 20.00 feet; thence, S48°47’18”E, 31.84 feet; thence, S42°14’17”W, 110.80 feet; thence, N31°01’00”W, 167.34 feet; thence, N64°12’18”E, 62.11 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 299.60 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 75.00 feet; thence, N18°59’00”E, 35.36 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 100.00 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 299.60 feet; thence, N26°01’00”W, 100.00 feet; thence, N63°59’00”E, 244.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING 10.0 feet 10.0 feet 10.0 feet Case No.: 16-09-0378ADate: November 12, 2015 LOMR-VZ Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 5 of 5 LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) FLOOD ZONE SUBDIVISION STREETBLOCK/ SECTIONLOT WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA OUTCOME 60 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --23.0 feet 61 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --33.0 feet This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) 10.0 feet 10.0 feet Case No.: 16-09-0391ADate: LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 1 of 2 November 12, 2015 COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY AFFECTED MAP PANEL NUMBER: 1500020352F DATE: 11/26/2010 FLOODING SOURCE: PACIFIC OCEAN KAUAI COUNTY, HAWAII (Unincorporated Areas) Lots 48, 49 and 50, Makahuena Tract, as described in the Quitclaim Deed recorded as Document No. 96-068054, in the Office of the Bureau of Conveyances, Kauai County, Hawaii COMMUNITY NO.: 150002 DATUM: NAD 83 APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 21.870, -159.443 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: GOOGLE EARTH PRO DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION STREET FLOOD ZONE LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) BLOCK/ SECTION SUBDIVISIONLOT OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA 48 23.0 feet--10.0 feetX (shaded) Property--Makahuena Tract -- Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.) DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Amendment for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the property(ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document amends the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Case No.: 16-09-0391ADate: LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 2 of 2 November 12, 2015 LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) FLOOD ZONE SUBDIVISION STREETBLOCK/ SECTIONLOT WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA OUTCOME 49 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) 10.0 feet --26.5 feet 50 --Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) --33.0 feet This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 10.0 feet Page 1 of 2 Date: June 26, 2019 Case No.: 19-09-1672A LOMR-VZ LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY KAUAI COUNTY, HAWAII (Unincorporated Areas) A portion of Makahuena Tract described as Ehukai Road, in the Quitclaim Deed recorded as Document No. 96‐068054, in the Office of the Bureau of Conveyances, Kauai County, Hawaii COMMUNITY NO: 150002 AFFECTED MAP PANEL NUMBER: 1500020352F DATE: 11/26/2010 FLOODING SOURCE: PACIFIC OCEAN APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 21.869624; -159.443202 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: GOOGLE EARTH PRO DATUM: NAD 83 DETERMINATION LOT BLOCK/ SECTION SUBDIVISION STREET OUTCOME WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA FLOOD ZONE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (LTD) LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (LTD) Ehukai Road -- Makahuena Tract --Property X (shaded) ------ Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) – The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below) ZONE V This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we determined that the structure(s) on the property is/are not located in a Coastal High Hazard Area or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the Coastal High Hazard Area and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Page 2 of 2 Date: June 26, 2019 Case No.: 19-09-1672A LOMR-VZ LETTER OF MAP REVISION – COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration ZONE V (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding property(ies)) A portion of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment Document, is located within a Coastal High Hazard Area (Zone V, VE or V1-30). Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. No construction using fill for structural support or that may increase flood damage to other property may take place in these areas. EXHIBIT C-10 EXHIBIT C-10 Page 45 11-09-17 12/09/201412/09/201412/09/ 2 0 1 4 12/09/201403/31/197219261927Poʻipū.DXD LVKRUHOLQHFKDQJH5HVRXUFH0DSSLQJ+DZDLL0D[DU.DXD LWUDQVHFWVKLVWRULFDOVKRUHOLQHFKDQJHUDWHV IW\U !.DXD LORZZDWHUPDUNV /:0 -XO\PLNP EXHIBIT C-11 EXHIBIT C-11 EXHIBIT C-12 ORDINANCE NO. PM-2017-410 BILL NO. 2647, Draft 1 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING MAP ZM-PO 300 CIRI Land Development Company, Applicant) (ZA-2017-2) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. The Visitor Destination Area map established in Chapter 8, Article 17, Kaua`i County 1987, as amended, is hereby amended to include the properties shown on Zoning Map ZM-PO 300 (Po`ipu), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, and identified by Tax Map Key Nos. (4) 2-8-21:041 and 2-8-21:044-068, subject to the following conditions: a. The issuance of final approval of Subdivision S-2015-14 for a ten-lot subdivision; b. The exclusion of one (1) lot from the Visitor Destination Area designation as shown on the zoning map attached to the ordinance that amends the zoning district boundary of the subject property; c.The restriction on each of the ten (10) lots included in Subdivision S-2015-14 to one dwelling per lot. The Applicant shall be required to enter into a Workforce Housing Agreement with the Kauai County Housing Agency agreeing to execute a Deed Restriction that will create a restrictive covenant which will run with the land in perpetuity, unless modified per the terms found in the Deed Restriction; d. Within sixty (60) days of the adoption of this ordinance, a deed restriction that prohibits owners, their heirs, successors, and assigns from causing the development of more than ten (10) dwelling units on the entirety of the subject property must be recorded with the Ilureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii. e. Within sixty (60) days of the adoption of the subject ordinance, this ordinance authorizing the zoning amendment to designate nine (9) of the lots in Subdivision S-2015-14 to the Visitor Destination Area must be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii. SECTION 2. The Director of Planning is directed to note the boundary change on official Zoning Map ZM-PO 300 on file with the Department of Planning. All applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance shall apply to the area demarcated by the new boundary. 1 EXHIBIT C-12 SECTION 3. Severability. The invalidity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sentence, part or portion of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other part of this ordinance that can be given effect without such invalid part or parts. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Introduced by: /s/ MASON K. CHOCK By Request) DATE OF INTRODUCTION: April 12, 2017 Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawaii V:\BILLS\2016-2018 TERM\Bill No. 2647 Dl AMK_dmc.doc 2 4a nq' a/ / 9 vA0 rT., A' ' i a 0 f oet S 6441' a 4 t" • d 1 ,I', OP OP III LOT 1 i µ9 1 Ac µy ' µ ` deer Grant '-1418 , nr `' " t ay ', Ble O pv I t i Fq fit A.for a I re' s'A Jr ay Sw fI \ w w' I.*a 4 N. ' 0 W : ar a w a.... 1t 4ci 7 LOT s 1 Iss5 Ac o.'9 COa Ai 11 W.A.. 4_.. It i a1w. o ` i i dif i It w I# I too... tJoel t3/ 4 IP ow I 422P21C ALE Y 1 - . • L ...AA MFUV911EK0Mi0A KAUAI. h1N Al0 II ml MAK: (4)2-8-2{:41.end 44 to 11e.NOW.0.w OM toed 0ndop ant Co.Date Jewry CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY CLERK I hereby certify that heretofore attached is a true and correct copy of Bill No. 2647, Draft 1, which was adopted on second and final reading by the Council of the County of Kaua`i at its meeting held on May 31, 2017 by the following vote: FOR ADOPTION: Brun, Chock, Kaneshiro, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL — 5*, AGAINST ADOPTION: Yukimura TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kagawa TOTAL— 1 RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0. Pursuant to Rule No. 5( b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kaua`i, Councilmember Chock was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative vote for the motion. Lihu`e, Hawaii feat May 31, 2017 Jad-lw ountain-Tanigawa County Clerk, County of Kaua`i ATTEST: illim° Mel Rapozo Chairman & Presiding Officer DATE OF TRANSMITTAL TO MAYOR: June 1, 2017 Approved this 1k) day of 2017. Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., Mayor County of Kauai 1* 17 JUN -8 A 9 :22 OFFlCEE Cif OUN1Y CLERK COUNTY OF KA,Uki EXHIBIT C-13 Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/16/2022 Page 1 of 3241838024183902418400241841024184202418430241844024184502418460241847024184802418490241850024185102418520241838024183902418400241841024184202418430241844024184502418460241847024184802418490241850024185102418520454150454160454170454180454190454200454210454220454230454240454250 454150 454160 454170 454180 454190 454200 454210 454220 454230 454240 454250 21° 52' 12'' N 159° 26' 37'' W21° 52' 12'' N159° 26' 33'' W21° 52' 7'' N 159° 26' 37'' W21° 52' 7'' N 159° 26' 33'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 4N WGS84 0 30 60 120 180Feet 0 10 20 40 60Meters Map Scale: 1:712 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. EXHIBIT C-13 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Island of Kauai, Hawaii Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 15, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 29, 2017—Oct 11, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/16/2022 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI KvD Koloa stony silty clay, 15 to 25 percent slopes 1.3 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.3 100.0% Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/16/2022 Page 3 of 3 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Island of Kauai, Hawaii Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 15, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 29, 2017—Oct 11, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2022 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI KvD Koloa stony silty clay, 15 to 25 percent slopes 0.6 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 0.6 100.0% Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/19/2022 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G MEMORANDUM TO: Michael A. Dahilig, Planning Director FROM: Michael Moule, P.E., Chief of Engineering VIA: Lyle Tabata, Acting County Engineer SUBJECT: Certification of Completion of Makahuena Point Subdivision DATE: December 4, 2017 A final inspection conducted on August 8, 2017 found construction to be complete and acceptable for the subject subdivision. Grassing establishment has been approved and the grading permit closed. All infrastructure within this subdivision is private. The County of Kauai did not inspect all details of the installation of the infrastructure, such as monitoring concrete pours and checking placement and grades of the infrastructure. Should you have any questions, please contact Devin Quinn at (808) 241 -4995 or Donald Fujimoto at (808) 241 -4882. W cc: Construction Inspection Road Maintenance Public Works Fiscal EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT G-1 EXHIBIT G-1 EXHIBIT H DNUPSIDE YARDSIDE YARDR E A R Y A R DVIEW EASEMENTVIEW EASEMENTGRAVELDRIVEGRAVELDRIVEENTRYCOVERAGE:HOUSE2637 SFGARAGE 741 SFPOOL 559 SFCOVERED LANAI 423 SFTOTAL COVERAGE4360 SFLOT AREA: 43603 SFBPCOMMWWSSSSSEPTIC SYSTEMEXISTING DETENTIONSPAPOOLGREAT ROOMBEDROOMCOVEREDLANAIMASTERLAUNDRYKITCHENGARDENSHOWERGARAGEFRONT YARDEXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTINGBACKFLOWPREVENTER153 DEG 59'00" 339.64'333 DEG 59'00" 315.43'243 DEG 59'00" 36.07273 DEG 00'02"LC = 38.81'R = 40.00'50' - 0"10' - 0" 10' - 0"20' - 0"OPEN WOOD DECKING ONLANAIFLOOR AREA:MAIN LEVEL2637 SFMAIN COVERED LANAI 423 SFUPPER1217 SF 39%UPPER COVERED LANAI 423 SF14%TOTAL 4700 SFGARAGE 741 SFGUESTHOUSE 480 SF 65%TOTAL UPPER IS LESS THAN 75% OF MAINNORTHScaleProject numberDate1" = 10'-0"9/19/2022 5:10:46 PMSP01SITE PLAN00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1" = 10'-0"1SITE PLAN ScaleProject numberDate1 : 14409/9/2022 2:04:00 PMSP02VICINITYVIEWS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HI1 : 14401VICINITY VIEWSNo.DescriptionDate RangeWasherDryerRefrigeratorFreezerUPUP4' - 2"4' - 1"6' - 0"3' - 6"3' - 7"17' - 10"6' - 4"13' - 0"4' - 0"11' - 6"26' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"12' - 0"BBQCOVERED LANAISITTINGSPAPOOLGUEST 1PANTRY/LAUNDRY3-CAR GARAGEENTRY:OPEN TO LANAI16' - 8"14' - 3"9' - 0"12' - 4"14' - 6"43' - 5"25' - 2"9' - 6"3A81A82A84A85A8NORTHR 8' - 0"R 8' - 0"10' SIDEYARD SETBACK10' SIDEYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACKR E A R Y A R D S E T B A C K VIEW EASEMENTVIEW EASEMENTScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:00:46 PMA1MAIN LEVEL00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HI3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVELNo.DescriptionDate DNDNCOVEREDUPPERLANAIGUEST 210' - 1"GUESTHOUSE480 SF12' - 0"14' - 6"12' - 4"15' - 4"8' - 7"9' - 2"17' - 1"16' - 10"7' - 3"12' - 11"9' - 8"3A81A82A84A88' - 8"12' - 9"----NORTHBEDROOMBATHROOMBEDROOMCLOSETBATHCLOSETOPEN LANAIENTRYBELOWOPENLANAIBATHCLOSETGRAVELDRIVEBELOWPOOLBELOWGREATROOMBELOW10' SIDEYARD SETBACK10' SIDEYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACKR E A R Y A R D S E T B A C K VIEW EASEMENTVIEW EASEMENTScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:01:34 PMA2UPPERLEVEL00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HI3/16" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVELNo.DescriptionDate MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"MAX ROOF75' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"20' - 0"30' - 0"ScaleProject numberDate1/4" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:02:08 PMA4EXTERIORELEVATIONS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDateSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOF:MIDNIGHT BRONZEFLAT ROOF BALLASTALUMINUM WINDOWS:PELLA 'BLACK'SOFFITS STEEL AND WOOD RAILINGS12'H x 4'W HARDIE STUCCO PANELSWOOD SIDING -STAINED VERTICAL T&G1/4" = 1'-0"1FRONT ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"ScaleProject numberDate1/4" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:02:19 PMA5EXTERIORELEVATIONS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"MAIN LEVEL45' -0"MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"4A8MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"4A8MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"ROOF UPPER64' -6"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"1A8MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"ScaleProject numberDate1/4" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:02:31 PMA6EXTERIORELEVATIONS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2GREAT RM SOUTH1/4" = 1'-0"3GREAT RM WEST1/4" = 1'-0"4GREAT RM EAST1/4" = 1'-0"5ENTRY NORTH1/4" = 1'-0"6ENTRY EAST1/4" = 1'-0"7ENTRY WEST ROOF PLAN56' -0"GARAGE43' -0"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"MAX ROOF75' -6"GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"GARAGE43' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"MAX ROOF75' -6"3A8GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"GARAGE43' -0"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"MAX ROOF75' -6"GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"GARAGE43' -0"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"MAX ROOF75' -6"3A8GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"ScaleProject numberDate1/4" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:02:42 PMA7GARAGEELEVATIONS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1GARAGE SOUTH1/4" = 1'-0"2GARAGE WEST1/4" = 1'-0"3GARAGE NORTH1/4" = 1'-0"4GARAGE EAST MAIN LEVEL45' -0"GARAGE43' -0"ROOF UPPER64' -6"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"MAX ROOF75' -6"GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"30' - 0"20' - 0"GRADE @ ENTRYMAIN LEVEL45' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"MAX ROOF75' -6"GREAT ROOMDININGLAUNDRYUPPER LANAIUPPER BRGARAGE43' -0"GUESTHOUSE53' -0"GUEST ROOF62' -0"GARAGE 20' WALL63' -0"GARAGEGUESTHOUSEMAIN LEVEL45' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"MAIN LEVEL45' -0"ROOF PLAN56' -0"UPPER LEVEL56' -0"20' WALL65' -6"BEDROOMBEDROOMSPAPOOL LANAIGREAT ROOMUPPER LANAIScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"9/9/2022 2:02:56 PMA8SECTIONS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1SECTION AA3/16" = 1'-0"2SECTION C3/16" = 1'-0"3SECETION B3/16" = 1'-0"4SECTION DGARAGEENTRYCOVEREDLANAISPAPOOLUPPERLANAI ScaleProject numberDate9/9/2022 2:03:36 PMA9EXTERIORVIEWS00MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846048-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1FRONT2REAR 13REAR 2 EXHIBIT I Cm Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Av Pn Cm Cm Cm Cm Pn Pn Pn Pn Pn Pn Pn Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri RiRi Ri Ri RiAvAv AvAvAvAvAvAvAvAv Cr Cr Cr Cr Ri Ri Ri Cr Cr Cr8P ....                                       %%4C29(R('/A1A,6,77,1**8(67PA17R</A81'R<CAR*ARA*((17R<2P(172/A1A,*R(A7R2200A67(RR2C.:A//'(7(17,21%A6,1'R,9(0272RC28R7:A//0272RC28R7:A//9,(:(A6(0(17 127+,1*29(R 9 , (:  ( A 6 (0 ( 1 7  12 7+ , 1* 2 9 (R               Ri Cr Cr Cr Cm Cm7R((6%27A1,CA/C200211A0(12R21+,A(0AR*,1A7A0A'A*A6CAR2/,9(P/80(R,A2%786AC6,1*AP2R(C6,1*AP2R(P/80(R,A0A78R(6,=(+C;: P/80(R,A2%786A ':AR)6,1*AP2R(P,1. ':AR)6,1*AP2R(P,1.P/80(R,A+ ;: 9,7(;7R,)2/,AARA%,A1/,/ACPA/07R((6%27A1,CA/C200211A0(C2C2618C,)(RAC2C2187PA/00A78R(6,=(+C;:C',C7<26P(R0AA/%80PR,1C(66PA/00A78R(6,=(+C;:C/A1'6CAP(=21(6,'(R(AR/,C8A/A*RA1',6/,C8A/APA/0+ ;: P+2(1,;R2(%(/(1,,P<*0<'A7(PA/06A%A/PA/0(772CA%%A*(PA/0(772P/A176C+('8/(6+R8%6%27A1,CA/C200211A0(A//A0A1'ACA7+AR7,CA*2/'(17R80P(7A/2(9(RA0(',C,1A/A/2(%28*A,19,//(A;%877,A1A 0,660A1,/A 0,660A1,/A%28*A,19,//(ACAR,66A0ACR2CARPA PR267RA7A PR267RA7(1A7A/P/80C+R<62%A/A186,CAC2 R('7,P R('7,PC2C2P/80CR,180A6,A7,C80CR,180/,/<CR,180A8*86780 48((1(00A 48((1(00ACR,180/,/<'RACA(1AR()/(;A 621*2)-A0A,CA 621*2)-A0A,CA*AR'(1,A7A,7(16,6 '28%/( '28%/(7A+,7,A1*AR'(1,A1(2R(*(/,A; 6+2C.,1*P,1. 6+2C.,1*P,1.%R20(/,A'P,7726P2R8072%,RA 1A180 ':AR)-APA1(6(P,7726P2R80P/80%A*2CAP(16,6CAP(P/80%A*2R+AP+,2/(P,6,1',CA,1',A1+A:7+2R1AvCmCrPnRi6CA(92/A)R87(6C(16%(AC+1A8PA.A:,.67R2(0,A89A8R6,A.,A*R281'C29(R6%27A1,CA/C200211A0(%AC2PA0211,(R,+(R%2)*RAC(),C860,CR2CARPA9ARCRA66,)2/,A:A;),C860,CR262R806C2/2P(1'R,A:AR7)(R16,'A)A//A; PAPA C,/,0APAPA:('(/,A7R,/2%A7ACR((P,1*:('(/,A=2<6,A-AP21,CAC(/72R2C.2R(A1*RA66R2C.08/C+%27A1,CA/C200211A0('(P7+0(;,CA1%(AC+P(%%/(29(RA///A1'6CAP(P/A1n0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"/P'rDZinJnXmEHr1'(6CR,P7,21'HViJnHG%\\\mmGD\R(9,6,216'rDZn%\'DWHCKHFNHG%\C/,(17'rDZinJ7iWOHPrRMHFW1REOXOinHGHViJnVSODnninJODnGVFDSHDrFKiWHFWXrHGHViJn66DnG\PDrNZD\6DnG\87S6WDmSR'%PC6MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 .2/2A.A8A,+,/A1'6CAP('(6,*1127(7+,6/A1'6CAP(:A6'(6,*1('%<2R81'(R7+(',R(C7,212)C2R<6+8P(A/,C(16('/A1'6CAP(ARC+,7(C7,17+(67A7(2)87A+7+(67A0P,681'(R.(9,1'+2R1A/,C(16('ARC+,7(C7,17+(67A7(2)+A:A,, UP34' 35' 35'35' 36'36' 36' 37'37'37'38'39'40'34' 35' 35'35' 36' 36'36' 37'37'37'38'39'40' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 40' 40'46' - 0"45' - 0"BBQCOVEREDLANAISITTINGGUEST 1PANTRY/LAUNDRY3-CAR GARAGEENTRY:OPEN TO LANAIGREAT ROOMMASTER48" ROCK WALLDETENTIONBASINDRIVE24" MOTOR COURT WALL24" MOTOR COURT WALL VIEW EASEMENT (NOTHING OVER 48")VI E W E A S E M E N T ( N O T H I N G O V E R 4 8 " )43' - 0"43' - 9"45' - 4"42' - 6"45' - 0"45' - 0"45' - 0"42' - 6"42' - 6"42' - 6"LANDSCAPEGRADINGPLANn0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"LP201Drawing numberN0.DESCRIPTIONDesigned By:yy/mm/dayREVISIONSDrawn By:Date:Checked By:CLIENT Drawing TitleProject No:blu line designs planning landscape architecture design8719 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070p 801.913.7994StampRDBP09.09.2022CS22-213MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LANDSCAPE DRAIN PIPE,DAYLIGHT TO DETENTION, TYP.LANDSCAPE DRAININLET, TYP.LANDSCAPE BERMAROUND DECK, GRADE SODECK IS MAXIMUM 30"ABOVE TOP OF BERM, TYP.DETENTION BASINDETENTION BASIN TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALNORONHIA EMARGINATA / MADAGASCAR OLIVE25 GAL.8-12` HTPLUMERIA OBTUSA `SINGAPORE` / SINGAPORE PLUMERIA25 GAL.6-8` HTMATURE SIZEH:15` X W:15'PLUMERIA OBTUSA 'DWARF SINGAPORE PINK' / DWARF SINGAPORE PINK PLUMERIA25 GAL.6-8` HTH:8' X W:8'VITEX TRIFOLIA / ARABIAN LILAC25 GAL.8-12` HTPALM TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALCOCOS NUCIFERA / COCONUT PALM50 GAL.20-25` HTMATURE SIZEH:50` X W:25`DICTYOSPERMA ALBUM / PRINCESS PALM50 GAL.8-12` HTMATURE SIZEH:33` X W:14`LANDSCAPE ZONE: SIDE, REARLICUALA GRANDIS / LICUALA PALM10 GAL.H: 8' X W: 5'PHOENIX ROEBELENII / PYGMY DATE PALM10 GAL.6` HT MIN.SABAL PALMETTO / CABBAGE PALMETTO25 GAL.12-15` HTPLANT SCHEDULESHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTALLAMANDA CATHARTICA / GOLDEN TRUMPET5 GAL3ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE5 GAL30BOUGAINVILLEA X BUTTIANA 'MISS MANILA' / MISS MANILA BOUGAINVILLEA5 GAL12CARISSA MACROCARPA 'PROSTRATA' / PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM5 GAL7CHRYSOBALANUS ICACO 'RED TIP' / RED TIP COCOPLUM5 GAL10CRINUM ASIATICUM / CRINUM LILY5 GAL6CRINUM AUGUSTUM 'QUEEN EMMA' / QUEEN EMMA CRINUM LILY5 GAL19DRACAENA REFLEXA 'SONG OF JAMAICA' / SONG OF JAMAICA5 GAL12GARDENIA TAITENSIS 'DOUBLE' / DOUBLE TAHITIAN GARDENIA5 GAL26NEOREGELIA X 'SHOCKING PINK' / SHOCKING PINK BROMELIAD5 GAL12PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'NANUM' / DWARF JAPANESE PITTOSPORUM5 GAL8PLUMBAGO CAPENSIS / CAPE PLUMBAGO5 GAL11RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA / INDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL25SCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS / BEACH NAUPAKA5 GAL32WIKSTROEMIA UVA-URSI / AKIA5 GAL8GROUND COVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTSPACINGBACOPA MONNIERI / HERB OF GRACE1 GAL215 SFFICUS MICROCARPA VAR. CRASSIFOLIA / WAX FICUS1 GAL36" o.c.52MICROSORUM SCOLOPENDRIA / WART FERN1 GAL24" o.c.116SIDA FALLAX 'PAPA' / `ILIMA PAPA1 GAL48" o.c.10WEDELIA TRILOBATA / CREEPING WEDELIA1 GAL24" o.c.253ZOYSIA JAPONICA `EL TORO` / KOREAN GRASSSOD9,944 SFROCK MULCHBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTSPACING3" DEPTH MEXICAN BEACH PEBBLE3" DEPTH326 SFAYCmCrPnRiSCHEDULE,NOTES &DETAILSLP501Drawing numberN0.DESCRIPTIONDesigned By:yy/mm/dayREVISIONSDrawn By:Date:Checked By:CLIENT Drawing TitleProject No:blu line designs planning landscape architecture design8719 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070p 801.913.7994StampRDBP09.09.2022CS22-213MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....TREE PLANTINGNOT TO SCALE4' ABOVE GRADE DIAMETER SHALL BE2 TIMES SIZE OF ROOTBALLJAIN FLEXSTRAP TREE TIE OR APPROVEDEQUALSTAKE DECIDUOUS TREES WITH 2 - 2" DIA.LODGE POLE PINE STAKES AT 180 DEGREES.FOR TREES LARGER THAN 2" CALIPER OR INWINDY CONDITIONS, STAKE WITH 3 - 2" DIA.LODGE POLE PINE STAKES AT 120 DEGREES.EMBED MIN. 3' INTO GROUND. DRIVE FIRMLYINTO SUBGRADE. REMOVE STAKES AFTER ONEYEAR.FINISH GRADESOIL - SUBGRADEPROVIDE MIN. 1'-6" RADIUS MULCH (4"DEPTH) COLLAR WHEN TREES AREPLANTED IN SOD. DO NOT PLACEMULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.PREPARED BACKFILL MIX - 30% EXISTINGSOIL, 50% LOAMY TOPSOIL, AND 20%CLEAN SAND. WATER AND TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETS. BRING LEVEL TOFINISH GRADE. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.ROOTBALL- PLANT ON UNEXCAVATEDOR TAMPED SOIL. REMOVE ALL WIRE,ENTIRE BASKET, NYLON TIES, TWINE,ROPE, AND 2/3 BURLAP.NATIVE SOILPLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOTBALL IS 2"ABOVE FINISHED GRADE SUCH THATTHE TRUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THETOP OF THE ROOTBALL. DO NOTCOVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALLWITH SOIL.FORM SAUCER (NATIVE AREAS ONLY)1TYPICAL TREE STAKING WITH STRAPSTREES IN WINDY CONDITIONS OR LARGER THAN 2" CAL.TREE STAKING - FLEX STRAPSNOT TO SCALEFLEXIBLE STRAP TREE TIESTREE TRUNKTREE TRUNKFLEXIBLE STRAP TREE TIE -ONE CONTINUOUS STRAP.2" DIA.LODGEPOLESTAKE PINESTAKES, TYP.2" DIA. LODGEPOLE STAKE PINESTAKES, TYP.ROOFING NAILROOFING NAIL2NOTE:PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2"ABOVE FINISHED GRADESHRUB DETAILNOT TO SCALEMULCH (3" DEPTH)FORM SAUCER -NATIVE AREAS ONLYSCARIFY SIDES OFPLANTING PITUNEXCAVATED ORCOMPACTED BACKFILLBELOW ROOTBALL TOBE 1/2 DEPTH OFROOTBALL (6" MIN).EXISTING SOILBACKFILL MIX - 30%EXISTING SOIL, 50%LOAMY TOPSOIL, AND20% CLEAN SAND.WATER AND TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETS.BRING LEVEL TOFINISH GRADE.REMOVE STRING &BURLAP FROM TOP 2/3OF BALL WHEN B&B.MIN. 2X BALL DIA.3LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST CITY AND STATE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ANDSHALL ADHERE TO THE MAKAHU'ENA ESTATES DESIGN GUIDELINES.2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GROWN IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE LOCALITY OF THIS WORK ANDSHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI Z60.1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDE TREES OFNORMAL GROWTH AND UNIFORM HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO SPECIES, WITH STRAIGHT TRUNKS AND WELL DEVELOPED LEADERS,LATERALS, AND ROOTS.3. EXISTING UTILITIES, EASEMENTS, AND STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AVAILABLE RECORDS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE, TYPE, AND STRUCTURES TO BE ENCOUNTERED ON THE PROJECTPRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE VICINITY OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES.4. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED TOLEGALLY AND RESPONSIBLY COMPLETE THE WORK.5. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL, DISPOSAL, OR RELOCATION OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS AND DEBRIS WITHINTHE DELINEATED CONSTRUCTION AREA PRIOR TO STARTING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FORTHE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ANY DEBRIS RESULTING FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION.6. DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS OR TO ANY PORTION OF THE PROJECT'S SURROUNDING AREA DURINGCONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.7. ALL COMPACTED AREAS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE SCARIFIED ANDLOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION WORK BEGINNING.8. NO PLANT SPECIES SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF OWNER.9. ALL PLANT LAYOUT SHALL BE VERIFIED AND APPROVED IN FIELD BY OWNER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FAILURE TO RECEIVE APPROVALMAY RESULT IN RE-WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.10.ALL AREAS WITHIN AND AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDEDTO DIRECT STORMWATER AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES.11. ALL CLARIFICATIONS OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE SITE SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OFTHE OWNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK.12. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM (SEE IRRIGATION PLAN).13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 2" TOP DRESSING OF GRAVEL MULCH AS APPROVED BY OWNER. TREES WITHIN LAWN AREASSHALL RECEIVE A MIN. 5' DIA. ORGANIC MULCH RING.14.ALL LAWN AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A MIN. 4" DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE A MIN. 6" DEPTH OFTOPSOIL. CONTRACTOR MAY USE AVAILABLE EXISTING TOPSOIL ON SITE IF SUITABLE. IF NOT SUITABLE OR SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDETHE NECESSARY QUANTITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPORT ADDITIONAL TOPSOIL.15. LANDSCAPE EDGER: BENDA BOARD (BROWN COLOR) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. UPBBQCOVEREDLANAISITTINGGUEST 1PANTRY/LAUNDRY3-CAR GARAGEENTRY:OPEN TO LANAIGREAT ROOMMASTER48" ROCK WALLDETENTIONBASINDRIVE24" MOTOR COURT WALL24" MOTOR COURT WALL VIEW EASEMENT (NOTHING OVER 48")VI E W E A S E M E N T ( N O T H I N G O V E R 4 8 " )POCBFSYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONPSIRAIN BIRD 1804-U-SAM-PRS U8 SERIESTURF SPRAY 4.0" POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDEDWIPER SEAL. 1/2" NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. WITHSEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE. PRESSURE REGULATING.30RAIN BIRD 1804-U-SAM-PRS U10 SERIESTURF SPRAY 4.0" POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDEDWIPER SEAL. 1/2" NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. WITHSEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE. PRESSURE REGULATING.30RAIN BIRD 1804-U-SAM-PRS U12 SERIESTURF SPRAY 4.0" POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDEDWIPER SEAL. 1/2" NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. WITHSEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE. PRESSURE REGULATING.30RAIN BIRD 1804-U-SAM-PRS U15 SERIESTURF SPRAY 4.0" POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDEDWIPER SEAL. 1/2" NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. WITHSEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE. PRESSURE REGULATING.30RAIN BIRD 1804-U-SAM-PRS ADJTURF SPRAY 4.0" POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDEDWIPER SEAL. 1/2" NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. WITHSEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE. PRESSURE REGULATING.30SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONRAIN BIRD XCZ-100-PRB-COMWIDE FLOW DRIP CONTROL KIT FOR COMMERCIALAPPLICATIONS. 1" BALL VALVE WITH 1" PESB VALVE AND 1"PRESSURE REGULATING 40PSI QUICK-CHECK BASKETFILTER. 0.3GPM TO 20GPM.AREA TO RECEIVE DRIP EMITTERSRAIN BIRD XB-PCSINGLE OUTLET, PRESSURE COMPENSATING DRIPEMITTERS. FLOW RATES OF 0.5GPH=BLUE, 1.0GPH=BLACK,AND 2.0GPH=RED. COMES WITH A SELF-PIERCING BARBINLET X BARB OUTLET.Emitter Notes:1.0 GPH emitters (1 assigned to each 1 Gal plant)2.0 GPH emitters (2 assigned to each 5 Gal plant)2.0 GPH emitters (4 assigned to each B&B, 2" Cal plant)2.0 GPH emitters (4 assigned to each B&B, 6` HT MIN. plant)AREA TO RECEIVE DRIPLINENETAFIM TLCV-04-18TECHLINE PRESSURE COMPENSATING LANDSCAPEDRIPLINE WITH CHECK VALVE. 0.4 GPH EMITTERS AT 18"O.C. DRIPLINE LATERALS SPACED AT 18" APART, WITHEMITTERS OFFSET FOR TRIANGULAR PATTERN. 17MM.SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONRAIN BIRD PEB1", 1-1/2", 2" PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL VALVES. LOW FLOWOPERATING CAPABILITY, GLOBE CONFIGURATION.RAIN BIRD 33-DRC3/4" BRASS QUICK-COUPLING VALVE, WITHCORROSION-RESISTANT STAINLESS STEEL SPRING,THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COVER, DOUBLE TRACK KEYLUG, AND 2-PIECE BODY.BACKFLOW PREVENTER - ZURN 375XLVSR 1"INSTALL IN INSULATED VIT STRONGBOX ALUMINUMENCLOSURE - SIZE TOFITRAIN BIRD ESP4ME3 WITH (3) ESP-SM313 STATION, HYBRID MODULAR OUTDOOR CONTROLLER.FOR RESIDENTIAL OR LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE. LNK WIFIMODULE AND FLOW SENSOR READY.RAIN BIRD WR2-RFCWIRELESS RAIN AND FREEZE SENSOR COMBO, INCLUDES 1RECEIVER AND 1 RAIN/FREEZE SENSOR TRANSMITTER.IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC SCHEDULE 40IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC SCHEDULE 40PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40SIZE: TWICE (2X) DIAMETER OF PIPE WITHIN, MIN. 4". LIMITONE PIPE PER SLEEVEFHTQ8888QTHF01010101QTHTTTQF212121212121QTHTTTQF51515151515108HE-VAN12HE-VAN10HE-VAN15HE-VAN8012151BFCRValYe NumberValYe FlowValYe Si]eValYe Callout###"IRRIGATION SCHEDULEOVERALLIRRIGATIONPLANn0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"LI101Drawing numberN0.DESCRIPTIONDesigned By:yy/mm/dayREVISIONSDrawn By:Date:Checked By:CLIENT Drawing TitleProject No:blu line designs planning landscape architecture design8719 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070p 801.913.7994StampRDBP09.09.2022CS22-213MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....POP UP SPRAY IRRIGATION, TYP.DRIP IRRIGATION, TYP. Drawing numberN0.DESCRIPTIONDesigned By:yy/mm/dayREVISIONSDrawn By:Date:Checked By:CLIENT Drawing TitleProject No:blu line designs planning landscape architecture design8719 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070p 801.913.7994StampRDBP09.09.2022CS22-213MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....1. THIS DRAWING IS DIAGRAMMATIC AND IS INTENDED TO CONVEY THEGENERAL LAYOUT OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS. ALLIRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN PLANTING AREASWHEREVER POSSIBLE. LOCATE MAINLINE AND VALVES NEAR WALKSWHERE FEASIBLE.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE AVAILABLE WATER PRESSUREAT THE SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIESBETWEEN THE WATER PRESSURE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ANDACTUAL PRESSURE READINGS AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION TO THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WATER PRESSURE AT THE POINT OFCONNECTION IS EXPECTED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50-55 PSI. IN THE EVENTTHAT PRESSURE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT REPORTED PRIOR TO THESTART OF CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULLRESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY.3. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZEHIMSELF WITH ALL STRUCTURES, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WALKS,UTILITIES, AND GRADE CHANGES. COORDINATE LAYOUT OF THEIRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH OTHER TRADES SO THAT CONSTRUCTION CANCONTINUE IN A NORMAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. ADJUSTMENTS MAY BENECESSARY TO MAINTAIN FULL COVERAGE DEPENDING ON ACTUAL SITECONDITIONS. ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WILL REQUIRE WRITTENAPPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.ALL MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE RECORDED ON 'AS-BUILT' DRAWINGS.4. DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WHEN IT ISAPPARENT IN THE FIELD THAT UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONS OR GRADINGDIFFERENCES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENGINEERING.SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OR DIFFERENCES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THEATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. IN THE EVENT THAT THISNOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULLRESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECTSITE CONDITIONS AND EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM (IF ANY). IN THEEVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR DAMAGES, DISPLACES OR OTHERWISECAUSES OTHER TRADES WORK TO BE REINSTALLED, THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING TO ORIGINAL CONDITION ATHIS OWN EXPENSE.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH AND ADJUST ALL SPRINKLER HEADSAND VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE. INSTALL HEADS WITH THEAPPROPRIATE ARC AND RADIUS FOR THE AREA TO BE COVERED. ADJUSTNOZZLES TO ELIMINATE OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS, BUILDINGS, ETC.7. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE GROUNDED PER ESTABLISHEDASIC GUIDELINES. MOUNT CONTROLLER BEHIND REAR WALLENCLOSURE.8. IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE COLOR CODED WIRE FORDIRECT BURIAL. COMMON, HOT, & SPARE WIRES SHALL BE 14 AWG(WHITE, RED & YELLOW RESPECTIVELY). FOR CONTROL WIRE RUNSEXCEEDING 3000 FEET OR COMMON WIRE RUNS EXCEEDING 1500 FEET,USE 12 AWG WIRE. CONTRACTOR SHALL RUN 1 DEDICATED SPARE WIRE'HOMERUN' FROM CONTROLLER TO TERMINUS OF EACH WIRE LEG. ALLWIRE SPLICES TO BE LOCATED IN VALVE BOX. ALL WIRE CONNECTIONSSHALL BE 3M DBRY.9. ALL MAINLINES, LATERAL LINES, AND CONTROL WIRES UNDER PAVINGSHALL BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE SLEEVES.10. ALL MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINE PIPE SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC.ALL LATERAL LINE FITTINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED. ALL MAINLINE FITTINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 80PVC.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WELD-ON P-70 PRIMER AND 711 LOW VOCCEMENT FOR ALL SOLVENT WELDED JOINTS.12. ALL LINES SHALL SLOPE TO DRAIN. ADD MANUAL DRAINS AT ALLMAINLINE LOW POINTS AS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE DRAINAGE OFTHE ENTIRE SYSTEM. INDICATE ALL DRAIN LOCATIONS ON 'AS-BUILT'DRAWINGS.13. ALL VALVE BOXES AND LIDS TO MATCH COLOR OF SURROUNDINGAREA. VALVE BOXES AND LIDS IN LAWN AREAS ARE TO BE STANDARDGREEN. ALIGN VALVE BOXES PARALLEL WITH EDGE OFPAVEMENT/PLANTING BEDS. WHERE FEASIBLE, LOCATE THE EDGE OFVALVE BOX 12"-18" FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT. ALL VALVE BOXES TO BELOCATED WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE BUILDING.14. ALL SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE SET PERPENDICULAR TO FINISHGRADE. HEADS SHALL BE LOCATED 6" AWAY FROM AND 1/4" BELOWADJACENT CURBS, WALLS, AND WALKS. ALL HEADS LOCATED ADJACENTTO MOWSTRIPS SHALL BE LOCATED 1" AWAY AND 1/4" BELOW.15. DRIP DISTRIBUTION TUBING TO BE BURIED BELOW MULCH ANDSTAKED AT MIN. 6' O.C. DRIP FITTINGS SHALL BE BARBED INSERT TYPEFITTINGS, COMPRESSION TYPE FITTINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.EMITTERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON UPHILL SIDE OF PLANTS. INSTALL DRIPFLUSH VALVE AT LOW POINT OF EACH DRIP ZONE AND AT THE END DRIPLINES.16. GUARANTEE: ALL WORK SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE YEARFROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE AGAINST ALL DEFECTS IN MATERIAL,EQUIPMENT, AND WORKMANSHIP. GUARANTEE SHALL COVER REPAIR OFDAMAGE TO ANY PART OF THE PREMISES RESULTING FROM LEAKS OROTHER DEFECTS IN MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP TO THESATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. REPAIRS, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE DONEPROMPTLY AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.17. SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ALL IRRIGATIONEQUIPMENT NOT OTHERWISE DETAILED SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PERMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.IRRIGATION NOTESSCALE: NOT TO SCALEQUICK COUPLERSCALE: NOT TO SCALEIRRIGATION CONTROL VALVESCALE: NOT TO SCALEPOP-UP SPRAY/ROTARYSCALE: NOT TO SCALEPIPE TRENCHSCALE: NOT TO SCALEPIPE SLEEVESCALE: NOT TO SCALEIRRIGATION CONTROLLER - WALL MOUNT132654IRRIGATIONNOTES, &DETAILSLI501 Drawing numberN0.DESCRIPTIONDesigned By:yy/mm/dayREVISIONSDrawn By:Date:Checked By:CLIENT Drawing TitleProject No:blu line designs planning landscape architecture design8719 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070p 801.913.7994StampRDBP09.09.2022CS22-213MAKAHUENA LOT 4 TMK (4) 2-8-021:071 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....IRRIGATIONDETAILSLI502DFDFSCALE: NOT TO SCALECENTER FEED INLINE DRIPSCALE: NOT TO SCALEPVC TO DRIP TUBING CONNECTIONSCALE: NOT TO SCALEDRIP FLUSH VALVESCALE: NOT TO SCALEDRIP CONTROL ZONE KITSCALE: NOT TO SCALEDRIP EMITTER41523 EXHIBIT J Lot 4 1645 Pee rd Koloa, HI 96756 TOTAL:485,860.00         Item Description Total Soft Costs 33,150.00           Plans and Engineering 8,450.00              Permits and Fees 3,250.00              Overhead Office work and management.16,250.00            Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.5,200.00              Hard Costs 452,710.00         SEPTIC & PERCULATION 13,000.00            FRAMING MAT'LS 35,750.00            FRAMING LABOR 29,900.00            PLUMBING 13,650.00            PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 4,160.00              ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 14,560.00            ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 4,160.00              HVAC 12,350.00            ROOFING Standing seam and membrane 16,250.00            SIDING MAT'LS 7,800.00              EXTERIOR DOORS multi‐slides and hinged doors 24,050.00            INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 3,380.00              WINDOWS 12,480.00            GARAGE DOORS 15,000.00            INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 11,960.00            RAILING 5,850.00              FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 11,570.00            FINISH CARPENTRY 28,600.00            CABINETS kitchenette & bathrooms 10,400.00            COUNTERTOPS Quartzite 5,850.00              PAINT 123,500.00         GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.4,550.00              WINDOW COVERINGS 3,900.00              GUTTERS 3,900.00              APPLIANCES Stainless Steel 7,800.00              Ohana Garage 741 SF/ Guest House 480 SF EXHIBIT J LANDSCAPE 14,950.00            FENCE & STONEWORK 5,200.00              DUMPSTER 1,300.00              CONSTRUCTION TOILET 520.00                 SITE CLEANUP 1,300.00              UTILITIES 520.00                 MISC SHIPPING 3,900.00              MAT'L STORAGE 650.00                 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  Lot 4 1645 Pee rd Koloa, HI 96756 TOTAL:3,511,140.00   Item Description Total Soft Costs 221,850.00       Plans and Engineering 56,550.00         Permits and Fees 21,750.00         Overhead Office work and management.108,750.00       Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.34,800.00         Hard Costs 3,289,290.00   GRADING & BACKFILL Post & Beam 90,000.00         SEPTIC & PERCULATION 87,000.00         CONCRETE WORK Foundation, retaining walls, flatwork 140,000.00       FRAMING MAT'LS 239,250.00       FRAMING LABOR 200,100.00       PLUMBING 91,350.00         PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 27,840.00         ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 97,440.00         ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 27,840.00         HVAC 82,650.00         ROOFING Standing seam and membrane 108,750.00       SIDING MAT'LS 52,200.00         EXTERIOR DOORS Multi‐slides, and hinged doors 160,950.00       INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 22,620.00         WINDOWS 83,520.00         INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 80,040.00         RAILING 39,150.00         FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 77,430.00         FINISH CARPENTRY 191,400.00       CABINETS Kitchen, laundry, bathrooms 69,600.00         COUNTERTOPS Quartzite 39,150.00         PAINT 826,500.00       GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.30,450.00         WINDOW COVERINGS 26,100.00         Main Residence Floor Areas: Living Space 3,854 SF/ Walks & Lanais 846 SF/ Pool 565 SF Coverage: Living Space 2,637 SF/ Walks & Lanais 423 SF/ Pool 565 SF GUTTERS 26,100.00         APPLIANCES Stainless Steel 52,200.00         LANDSCAPE 100,050.00       POOL Infinity Edge and spa 130,000.00       FENCE & STONEWORK 34,800.00         DUMPSTER 8,700.00           CONSTRUCTION TOILET 3,480.00           SITE CLEANUP 8,700.00           UTILITIES 3,480.00           MISC SHIPPING 26,100.00         MAT'L STORAGE 4,350.00           ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT L Report 81 0.1 11 31 2 FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY TMK: (4) 2-8-021 :041 MAKAHUENA POINT, WELlWELl AHUPUA'A KOLOA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF KAUA'I Haun & Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services 73-1 168 Kahuna A'o Road, Kailua-Kona Hawai'i 96740 Phone: (808) 325-2402 Fax: 325-1520 FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY TMK: (4) 2-8-021 :041 MAKAHUENA POINT, WELlWELl AHUPUA'A KOLOA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF KAUA'I By: Alan E. Haun, Ph.D. Dave Henry, B.S. and Solomon H. Kailihiwa, 111, B.A. Prepared for: CIRI Land Development Company 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 June 201 1 (Revised November 20 12) Haun & Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services 73-1 168 Kahuna A'o Road, Kailua-Kona Hawai'i 96740 Phone: (808) 325-2402 Fax: 325-1520 At the request of CIRI Land Development Company, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the 13.6-acre TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041 located in Weliweli Ahupua'a, Kbloa District, Island of Kaua'i. The objective of the survey was to satisfy historic preservation regulatory review requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD), as contained within Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, DLNR, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Rules. The archaeological survey identified 18 sites with 128 features. The 128 features consist of 98 concrete pads, 7 concrete blocks, 4 artifact scatters, 4 posts, 3 terraces, 3 slabs, 2 paths, 2 walls, and one each of the following; ditch, road, stairs, utility box and walled slab. Feature function includes utility (n=79), foundation (31), marker (5), transportation (4), boundary (I), disposal (I), recreation (I), soil retention (I), water diversion (1) and indeterminate (4). Subsurface testing was undertaken during the project, consisting of the excavation of twenty test units. No intact subsurface cultural deposits were encountered during the subsurface testing. All of the documented remains are the remnants of U.S. federal government navigation-related infrastructure in operation for over 100 years. A navigation aid was established at Makahuena Point in 1908 and continues to function today. The majority of the remains are associated with the former U.S. Coast Guard Long Range Navigation (LORAN) station that was in operation from 195 1 until 1979. The 18 sites present within the parcel are assessed as significant solely for their information content. These sites have been adequately documented and no further work or preservation is recommended. Although extensive subsurface testing did not identify subsurface cultural deposits or burials, it is recommended that any future development-related land disturbance be archaeologically monitored during the initial site work because significant deposits and burials were found on the adjacent property. The monitoring would be guided by a monitoring plan prepared for DLNR-SHPD review and approval. CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 1 Project Area Description ........................................................................................... 1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 4 Archaeological and Historical Background ................................................................................. 6 Historical Documentary Research ................................................................................. 6 Previous Archaeological Work .................................................................................... 13 Project Expectations .......................................................................................................... 18 Findings ......................................................................................................................... 19 Site Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 19 Subsurface Testing ................................................................................................... 57 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 64 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 64 Significance Assessments .......................................................................................... 68 Recommended Treatments ........................................................................................ 69 References .................................................................................................................... 70 ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................... Figure 1 . Portion of 1996 USGS Koloa Quadrangle showing Project Area 2 Figure 2 . Tax Map Key 2-8-2 1 showing Project Area .................................................................. 3 Figure 3 . Project Area Overview ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 . Project Area Overview ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 5 . 1935 Map of Kdoa Plantation ................................................................................ 10 Figure 6 . 1961 Photograph of LORAN Station Facility ............................................................... 12 ....................................... Figure 7 . 1966 Photograph of LORAN Station Staff and Adjacent Property 12 Figure 8 . Previous Archaeological Work ............................................................................... 14 Figure 9 . The Basic Schematic of the Kdoa Field System .......................................................... 16 Figure 10 . Raised 'auwai in the Kdoa Field System ................................................................. 16 Figure 11 . Site Location Map ............................................................................................ 20 Figure 12 . Plan Map of Site 2130 Complex ............................................................................. 22 Figure 13 . Plan Map of Site 2130, Features A-F ....................................................................... 23 Figure 14 . Site 2130, Feature G Staircase ............................................................................... 24 ........................................................... Figure 15 . Site2130, FeatureHRoadandFeatureIDitch 25 Figure 16 . Site 2130, Feature J Path ..................................................................................... 25 ILLUSTRATIONS (cont.) Figure 17 . Site 2130. Feature K Wall ................................................................................. 26 Figure 18 . Site 2 130. Feature L Path ................................................................................. 27 Figure 19 . Site 2130, Feature M Concrete Pad with Vertical Poles .............................................. 27 Figure 20 . Site 2130. Feature N Concrete Box ...................................................................... 28 Figure 21 . Site 2130, Feature 0 Walled Concrete Slab ............................................................ 28 ................................. Figure 22 . 196 1 Photograph of LORAN Station Showing Identified Features 30 Figure 23 . Site 213 1, Feature A Concrete and Stone Block ....................................................... 31 Figure 24 . Site 2 13 1. Feature B Concrete Blocks ................................................................... 32 Figure 25 . Site 2 13 1, Feature C Terrace .............................................................................. 32 Figure 26 . Site 213 1, Feature D Terrace ............................................................................... 33 ................................... Figure 27 . Site 213 1, Feature E Concrete Pad and Feature F Artifact Scatter 33 Figure 28 . Site 2132, Feature B Concrete and Stone Block ........................................................ 35 Figure 29 . Site 2133, Feature A and B Concrete Pads .............................................................. 35 Figure 30 . Site 2133, Feature C Concrete Pad ........................................................................ 36 Figure 3 1 . Site 2 134 Concrete Post .................................................................................... 36 Figure 32 . Site 2135. Feature A Concrete Block ..................................................................... 38 Figure 33 . Site 2135, Feature B Concrete Pad with Inscription ................................................... 38 Figure 34 . Site 2135, Feature C Artifact Scatter ..................................................................... 39 Figure 35 . Site 2135, Feature D Concrete Pad with Inscription .................................................... 39 Figure 36 . Site 2136, Feature A Concrete Pad ........................................................................ 40 Figure 37 . Site 2136, Feature B Artifact Scatter ..................................................................... 40 Figure 38 . Site 2 136. Feature B Engine ............................................................................... 41 Figure 39 . Site 2137, Feature A Concrete Block .................................................................... 41 . ................................................... Figure 40 Site 2137, Feature B Concrete Pad with Inscription 43 Figure 4 1 . Site 2 138 Jumbled Concrete Blocks ..................................................................... 43 Figure 42 . Site 2 139, Feature A Concrete Post ...................................................................... 44 Figure 43 . Site 2139, Feature B Concrete Block ..................................................................... 44 Figure 44 . Site 2 139, Feature C Concrete Pad ....................................................................... 46 Figure 45 . Site 2139, Feature D Concrete and Metal Post ......................................................... 46 Figure 46 . Site 2140 Concrete Block .................................................................................. 47 Figure 47 . Site 2 141 Concrete Pad .................................................................................... 47 . Figure 48 Site 2142 Concrete Pad .................................................................................... 48 Figure 49 . Site 2143, Feature A Concrete Slab ...................................................................... 48 Figure 50 . Site 2143. Feature B Retaining Wall ...................................................................... 50 ILLUSTRATIONS (cont.) Figure 5 1 . Site 2 143. Feature C Concrete Pad ....................................................................... 50 Figure 52 . Site 2 144. Feature A Concrete Block .................................................................... 51 Figure 53 . Site 2144, Feature B Concrete Pad ....................................................................... 51 Figure 54 . Site 2144. Features C, D and E Concrete Pads ......................................................... 52 Figure 55 . Site 2144, Feature D Concrete Pad with Inscription .................................................... 52 Figure 56 . Site 2145. Feature A and B Concrete Pads ............................................................. 54 Figure 57 . Site 2146, Feature A Concrete Block .................................................................... 54 Figure 58 . Site 2146. Feature B Concrete Pad ....................................................................... 55 Figure 59 . Site 2147 Concrete Pads ................................................................................... 55 Figure 60 . Concrete Pad at Site 2 147 ................................................................................. 56 Figure 6 1 . Concrete Pad at Site 2 147 ................................................................................. 56 Figure 62 . West Face Profiles of TUs 1-5 ............................................................................ 59 Figure 63 . West Face Profiles of TUs 6-10 ......................................................................... A0 Figure 64 . West Face Profiles of TUs 1 1 - 15 ........................................................................ 61 Figure 65 . West Face Profiles of TUs 16-20 ......................................................................... 62 Figure 66 . Post-excavation of TU-3 ................................................................................... 63 Figure 67 . Post-excavation of TU-6 ................................................................................... 63 Figure 68 . Distribution of Associates Features within Project Area .............................................. 67 TABLES Table 1 . Summary of Previous Archaeological Research ............................................................ 15 Table 2 . Summary of Identified Sites ................................................................................... 21 Table 3 . Summary of Test Unit Stratigraphy .......................................................................... 58 Table 4 . Summary of Concrete Objects ............................................................................... .65 INTRODUCTION At the request of CIRI Land Development Company, Haun & Associates has prepared an archaeological inventory survey of the 13.6-acre TMK: (4) 2-8-02 1 :O4l located in Weliweli Ahupua'a, Kdoa District, Island of Kaua'i (Figures 1 and 2). The objective of the survey was to satisfy historic preservation regulatory review requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD), as contained within Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, DLNR, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Rules (2003). The survey fieldwork was conducted April 3-7, 20 1 1 by Project Supervisors Solomon and Juliana Kailihiwa, B.A., under the direction of Dr. Alan Haun. The fieldwork required 160 person hours to complete. Described in this final report are the project scope of work, field methods, background information, survey findings, and significance assessments of the sites with recommended further treatments. Scope of Work Based on DLNR-SHPD rules for inventory surveys, the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an appropriate scope of work for the project: 1. Conduct background review and research of existing archaeological and historical documentary literature relating to the project area and its immediate vicinity--including examination of Land Commission Awards, ahupua'a records, historic maps, archival materials, archaeological reports, and other historical sources; 2. Conduct a high intensity, 100% pedestrian survey coverage of the project area; 3. Conduct detailed recording of all potentially significant sites including scale plan drawings, written descriptions, and photographs, as appropriate; 4. Conduct subsurface testing (manual excavation) at selected sites as necessary to determine site function and elsewhere to test for buried cultural deposits; 5. Analyze background research and field data; and 6. Prepare and submit Final Report. Project Area Description The project area is an irregularly-shaped 13.6-acre parcel located in coastal Weliweli Ahupua'a at Makahuena Point. It is bordered by the coastline along the south and by resort developments to the west (Makahuena at Po'ipii) and northeast (The Point at Po'ipii). Pe'e Road parallels the north project boundary in the western portion. The project area varies in elevation from c. 10 to 45 ft above sea level. Rainfall in the project area vicinity ranges from 30 to 40 inches per year (Juvik and Juvik 1998:56). There is a large oval-shaped depression present in the western portion of the project area. This depression is 138.0 m long (north-northwest by south-southeast), 82.0 m wide and c. 10.0 m depth below the surrounding ground surface. This depression occupies c. 1.99-acres or 14.6% of the total project area. This depression appears to represent a collapsed volcanic crater. A modem navigational aid consisting of an automated light is located in the southwestern coastal portion of the project area within a separate tax map key parcel (2-8-02 1 :43 - see Figure 2). The vegetation within the depression portion of the project area is comprised of koa haole (Leucaena glauca), bougainvillea (Boerhavia spectabilis Willd.), panini cactus (Opuntia fmmindica), plumera (Plumeria acuminata Ait.), lantana (Lantana camara L.) and grasses and vines. There is a line of ironwood trees (Casuarine equisetifolia L.) present along the northern project boundary paralleling Pe'e Road. The vegetation throughout the remainder of the parcel primarily consists of beach naupaka (naupaka-kahakai - Scaevola sericea Vahl). The soil through the inland portion of the parcel is comprised of Koloa stony silty clay on 15-25% slopes. This soil has a medium runoff potential and a moderate to severe erosion hazard. It developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock with multiple layers of silty clay to depths of 20 inches over pahoehoe bedrock (Foote et al. 1972:74). It is classified as suitable for irrigated sugarcane, pasture, woodland and wildlife habitat. The coastal portions of the parcel are classified as Rock land, which is defined by Foote et al. as, "areas where exposed bedrock covers more than 90 percent of surface (1972:119). Project area overviews are presented in Figures 3 and 4. Field Methods The project area was subjected to a 100% surface examination with surveyors spaced at 10 meter intervals. Ground surface visibility was fair within the more vegetated depression portion of the project area, although was excellent throughout the remainder of the parcel. The identified sites and features were subjected to varying levels of documentation. The length, width, height and orientation of the majority of the concrete features within the parcel were obtained using hand tapes and compasses. The large complex in the northwestern portion of the project area was subjected to detailed recording consisting of the completion of a scaled plan map and standardized sitelfeature forms. All sites and features were photographed. The location of the sites and features within the project area were plotted on a scaled project area map with the aid of hand-held Garmin Global Positioning System (GPS) Model 60 devices using the NAD 83 datum. The accuracy of these GPS devices for a single point is +I- 3-5 m. This accuracy is increased to less than c. 2-3 meters by taking multiple points including property comers and overlying the plotted points on a scaled map using AutoCAD software. The sites, as defmed for this study, consist of features situated less than 15 m apart. Features located more than 15 m apart were assigned separate site designations. The only exception to the 15 m distance threshold was a site designation applied to a series of widely scattered, nearly identical small concrete pads that were poured directly onto the exposed, coastal bedrock surface. Subsurface testing consisted of the excavation of twenty 0.5 m by 0.5 m test units in the inland portions of the project area, inland of coastal lava areas. The units were excavated in arbitrary levels within stratigraphic layers and were terminated on bedrock or within an overlying, culturally sterile saprolitic clay deposit. Standardized excavation records were prepared after the completion of each stratigraphic layer. The soil removed during excavation was screened through % "mesh. Portable remains collected were placed in paper bags labeled with the appropriate provenience information. Following the excavation, a section drawing depicting the stratigraphy was prepared and post-excavation photographs were taken. Cultural remains recovered during testing were transported to Haun & Associates' office for analysis. Figure 3. Projcct Area Overview, view to southeast Figure 4. Project Area Overview, view to northeast ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Historical Documentary Research Weliweli Ahupua'a is situated in Kdoa District on Kaua'i's southern coast. It is bordered by Kbloa Ahupua'a to the east and Pg'B Ahupua'a to the west. The word weliweli is a reduplication of weli that means "violent, dreadful, horrible, fearful, ferocious; revered; respectful, as of the chief; [or] full of fear" depending upon the context (Pukui and Elbert 1986:384). Relatively little legendary and historical information about Weliweli Ahupua'a is available. One specific mention of Weliweli concerns the legendary gourd of La'amaomao, a calabash that the winds of Hawai'i were stored in. This calabash belonged to Paka'a, a servant of Keawenuiaumi, the son of 'Umi and a ruling chief of Hawai'i Island. The gourd was named after Paka'a's mother, La'amaomao, who had the ability to control the winds because the winds listened to her (Fornander 1918:72). Kuapaka'a, son of Paka'a, called to all of the winds from all of the islands when he first meets his father's master, Keawenuiaumi, to discredit the advisers that have replaced Paka'a at the king's side. In his chant to the winds, Kuapaka'a named the wind that blows through Weliweli, Kuiamanini (Fornander 1918:96). Additional information relating to Weliweli is derived from the history of Kbloa District, formerly known as Kona District, and the adjoining ahupua'a of Kbloa and Pg'g. Kbloa is the closest part of Kaua'i to O'ahu and was a desirable canoe landing to mount an invasion of Kaua'i. Westervelt (1917) records the story of a late 13" Century Hawai'i Island chief (ali'i) named Kalauniuohua, who sought to unite all of the islands under his rule. Before undertakirig his conquest of the islands, he attempted to sacrifice a prophetess by the name of Waahia (ibid.). Waahia came to the chief and told him how to kill her so that her sacrifice would insure success in his campaign. You may try everywhere to kill me and I shall not die. There is only one place. This is the temple of Keeku. Burn that temple in the fire then I shall die. When you burn that place you stay quietly in your house from morning till night. Do not go outside. If you hear the outcry of the people seeing strange signs in the sky, do not go out to see. Do not open the doors of your house. If you do these things you shall not live. Wait patiently in your house until night comes, then open the door. If you obey perfectly you shall have all the islands even to Kauai. If not, the gods shall leave you. The name of my god is Kane-opepe-nui-o-Alakai [The great bundled-up man of Alakai]. He is willing that I should die (Westervelt 19 17). Kalauniuohua followed Waahia's instructions and stayed inside his house after she was thrown into the temple of Keeku and burned. The people that witnessed Waahia's death saw various signs rise up out of her funeral pyre: two roosters fighting, a pig, scintillating thunder clouds that changed color and finally two large black clouds that turned into giant alae birds [Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis] fighting each other. The chief wanted to see what has happening outside of his house. Lightning was striking wherever the buds' feet touched the ground and the people were shouting loudly at this spectacle. It was near sundown when Kalauniuohua could no longer help himself and made a hole in the wall of his house with his right hand. The buds flew away as the chief heard a voice say to him, "You have kept from sunrise to near sundown. Then you lost the time until night. You shall win for a time and then lose" (Westervelt 1917). Kalauniuohua went on to conquer Maui, Molokai, and O'ahu. He took the rulers of these islands as prisoners and took them with him to conquer Kaua'i. They landed at Kiiloa and were defeated by the Kaua'i ruler, Kukona in the battle named Ka-wele-wele or "the battle after refusing to fulfill the command of the gods" (ibid.). Kukona freed the chiefs from Maui, Molokai and O'ahu, and took Kalauniuohua as a prisoner. Kalauniuohua was eventually freed. Kukona gifted the islands of Hawai'i, Maui, Molokai, and O'ahu to the chief of Maui and kept the other three rulers on Kaua'i, where, Westervelt says, "they were lost or mixed with the people, their followers from the other islands changing even the language of old Kauai so that it became more like the speech of the other islands" (ibid.). According to a story told to Augustus Knudsen (1913) by a man named Puako, Kamehameha I was also defeated at the same site as Kalauniuohua by the forces of Kaumuali'i. Knudsen recounts that in 1893 he met with two or three of men from Kaua'i that were alive during this battle between Kamehameha's forces and the people of Kaua'i. But in 1893 I had two or three of the old men gathered around telling stories of ancient Hawaii, and again they told me the story so that I got it direct from the lips of men who, while not participating in the battle, had participated in the excitement of the day and the thousands giving offerings in the temples when next day the victory was celebrated (Knudsen 191 3: 137). Puako describes that upon hearing of Kamehameha's conquest of O'ahu the people of Kaua'i were worried about an impending attack from Kamehameha. Warriors were posted to keep watch for Kamehameha's invasion force which they expected to land "on the Kona coast, where there was smooth sea for the landing and where, in case of defeat, the canoes putting to sea would not have to battle with wind and wave" (ibid:137-138). Kamehameha's invasion force was observed in the early hours of the morning before dawn and the word was spread around the Island of Kaua'i. The warriors of Kaua'i were then assembled to meet Kamehameha's forces before the sun came up. But in the gloom of the darkness before dawn, the chiefs, gathered at Koloa, decided that they had a sufficient force, for the warriors of Weliweli had reconnoitered and again reported that there were probably not more than six thousand warriors on the beach. And so the march was started and before dawn the attack made on the resting warriors, who had dragged the their canoes above the reach of the high surf (ibid: 138). The forces of Kaua'i enveloped the invading force and handily routed the forces of Kamehameha. Puako even states that the forces of Kaua'i came very close to capturing Kamehameha's feathered image of his war god, which Puako named as Kalaipilhoa. "Kalaipahoa, the war god that carried the standards of Kamehameha triumphantly through the battles of his conquest of the whole archipelago, was for the first time in danger. To lose that was to lose the kingdom; and probably the dynast was then in peril" (ibid: 139). Kamehameha's casualties for this battle included one half of his canoe fleet either destroyed or captured, 4000 men dead on the field and 543 men taken as prisoners of war (ibid : 139, 140). Stokes (1946) questions the veracity Puako's story recorded by Knudsen. He asserts that Kaumuali'i would not have been in charge of Kaua'i when Kamehameha's aborted attempt on the island occurred. According to Joesting (1987) Keawe and Kaumuali'i were battling over control for the island at the time of Kamehameha's first attempt to land on Kaua'i. Strife-tom Kauai could have offered little resistance to the invasion armada of Kamehameha. Keawe had declared to Captain Bishop that he would join the forces of Kamehameha if he had not defeated Kaumualii by the time the invasion came, and in April 1796 the two were still battling for control of Kauai. If it had not been for the winds and currents of the wild Kaieie Waho Channel, Kauai would certainly have fallen to the forces of Kamehameha (Joesting 198759-60). The second point that Stokes makes is that Puako incorrectly names Kamehameha's war god as KBlaipilhoa (Stokes 1946). Kamehameha's war god was an akua huh (feathered god) named Kukailimoku that was bequeathed to him by his uncle, Kalaniopu'u, the mo'i (ruling chief) of Hawai'i Island, on Kalaniopu'u's death bed. KBlaipZhoa was Kamehameha's poison god cut from a kdaip6hoa tree (Alphitonia ponderosa) on Molokai (Westervelt 1916:74). KBlaipilhoa was a carved wooden image that "had an elliptical cavity in its back, extending from neck to buttocks, to hold poison" (Krauss 1993: 114). Stokes also argues that Puako was most likely relating the story of Kalauniuohua's defeat rather than Kamehameha's defeat (Stokes 1946:43). Stokes adds: Nevertheless the improbability or impossibility of the affair is clearly shown by the journal entries of foreigners recorded at Kauai immediately before and after the time of the alleged event. Information gathered by reliable authorities more than a century ago proves that the raconteur was ignorant of the name of the chief, and of the current history and native customs of the time in which he claimed to have lived, and implies that then he was not even born" (Stokes1946:45). According to the dates and ages given by Knudsen for his informant, Puako, he would have been well over 100 years of age. Kamehameha's first attempt at invading Kaua'i took place in the spring of 1796. Puako claimed to have been 12 years of age at that time when he witnessed the events described. Knudsen recorded the story told to him by Puako in 1893, which means that Puako had to be the unlikely age of 109 when he told Knudsen his story. According to Kamakau (1 992), Kamehameha's invading forces never reached Kaua'i, thwarted by rough seas in the channel between the island and 'Oahu that swamped many canoes forcing them to retreat. In the summer of 1867, Sanford B. Dole wrote a letter to Jeffiies Wyman, Hersey Professor of Anatomy at Harvard College detailing the large number human remains that could be found at Keoneloa (Wyman 1868). Dole mentions that the remains could be the result of a large battle that took place at this location and describes events similar to that of Puako's story. He has no specifics such as where the invading army was from or who was its leader because the people from the area did not know. Dole also states that due to the large number of infant burials associated with the area that these remains could be from a plague that swept through the islands after initial contact. Dear Sir: On the Southern shore of the Island of Kauai, for about four miles, there is a series of low, volcanic hills facing the sea, with precipices varying in height from twenty to sixty feet. Between these hills are several low sand beaches, from which the sand is ever carried inland by the trades. The windward slopes of these hills are covered with white sand of varying depth. Over this whole extent of sand beaches and hills, human bones are thickly scattered, and here it was that I collected the skulls. Ten years ago they were much more numerous than now. The wind is constantly uncovering the skeletons, and, when exposed, they are quickly destroyed by the weather and the feet of cattle. At the time I speak of, it was easy to find perfect skeletons in the exact position in which they were buried. This is now impossible, and even perfect crania are becoming more scarce with every year. In olden times the natives often made use of the soft sand-banks for sepulture, but the immense number that was buried here forbids the idea that it was any common burying place. The present generations of natives know nothing definite on the subject. One of their traditions, as near as I can remember, is, that a fight between two large fleets of canoes took place off the coast, and that the defeated party was driven ashore at this place, and many of them killed. A second tradition is this; a tribe passing along the coast in canoes, and having landed in a secluded little cove which is now pointed out, to bathe and refresh themselves, a rival tribe charged down from the hills around and cut off almost the whole party. Those who have studied the subject, I think, give to the great pestilence, Mai Ahulau, which raged through the islands soon after their discovery, the credit of peopling this and other similar graveyards. Infant skulls are sometimes found, and also skulls that appear as if they had been pierced by spears, or fractured with clubs. The skulls which I collected for you were some of them above, and some below, the surface of the sand. Yours Truly, S.B. Dole. (ibid 447,450) Wyman analyzed the crania that he received from Dole. He concluded that there was no evidence of death from violent trauma and that some of the crania showed signs of periosteal inflammation giving credence to the cause of death being from disease. The collection is the more valuable, from the fact that the crania were all obtained from the same place, and from an island not commonly mentioned in the catalogues. Dr. J. Barnard Davis, in his Thesaurus Craniorum, out of one hundred and thirty-nine Kanaka skulls, does not mention one from Kauai. They are nearly all adult, No. 13 being the only one belonging to a child. As far as they go, they do not afford evidence of having been killed in battle, as they bear no marks of injuries inflicted by weapons. A few show signs of disease, as if they had been the seat of periosteal inflammation (ibid 450). The first historical documentation of the Island of Kaua'i was by Captain James Cook during his voyage to the Pacific Ocean to determine the practicability of a northern passage between Europe and Asia (Cook 1784). Cook anchored and went ashore at the southern end of Kaua'i and describes his admiration for the fields of taro, sweet potato, sugar and banana. Cook also notes that while there is an abundance of food being grown, the area is capable of sustaining a much larger population. What we saw of their agriculture, furnished sufficient proofs that they are not novices in that art. The vale ground has already been mentioned as one continued plantation of taro, and a few other things, which have all the appearance of being well attended to. The potatoe fields, and spots of sugar-cane, or plantains, on the higher grounds, are planted with the same regularity; and always in some determinate figure; generally as a square or oblong; but neither these nor the others, are inclosed with any kind of fence, unless we reckon the ditches in the low grounds such; which, it is more probable, are intended to convey water to the taro. The great quantity and goodness of these articles may also, perhaps, be as much attributed to skillfid culture, as to natural fertility of soil, which seems better adapted to them than to bread-hit and cocoa-nut trees; the few of which we saw of those latter not being in a thriving state, which will sufficiently account for the preference given to the culture of the other article, though more labour be required to produce them. But notwithstanding this skill in agriculture, the general appearance of the island shewed [showed], that it was capable of much more extensive improvement, and of maintaining, at least, three times the number of inhabitants that are at present upon it; for the far greater part of it, that now lies quite waste, seemed to be as good a soil as those parts of it that are in cultivation. We must therefore conclude, that these people, from some cause, which we were not long enough amongst them to be able to trace, do not increase in that proportion, which it would make necessary to avail themselves of the extent of their island, toward raising a greater quantity of its vegetable productions for their subsistence (Cook 1784:244-245). In 1839, John K. Townsend visited the Kbloa region of Kaua'i. He describes it as being well maintained agriculturally much like the Island of O'ahu, which he visited before Kaua'i. This part of the island of Kauai exhibits no particularly interesting features: from the beach to the mission station there is a good road made by the natives over a gentle ascent of about two miles, on each side of which taro patches, yam, and maize fields abound. Back from the ocean at right angles with it, are seen several ranges of long, high hills, with narrow valleys between; the hills are covered with low trees of Tu-tui and Pandanus, and the valleys with dense bushes, tall ferns, and broad leaved bananas (Townsend 1839:206). Organized sugar plantations began in the 1830s in the Kbloa District when local Chinese built a mill in Miihii'ulepii to grind sugar grown in the area. This operation went out of business once Ladd & Co. began operations a few years later in 1835 (Yorck et al. 2005: 10). Kbloa became a center of commerce, initially provisioning whaling ships and later, the California gold rush in the 1850s. In 1857, sweet potato production reached 10,000 barrels annually at Koloa. The crop furnished nearly all the potatoes sent to California from Hawaii (Judd 1935:326). Ladd & Co. negotiated a lease with Kamehameha I11 and Kaikioewa, governor of Kaua'i, for almost 1,000 acres at KBloa in 1835. The lease was a 50 year lease at $300 a month (Ching 1985). After 10 years Dr. Robert W. Wood became the sole owner of Ladd & Co. and renamed it Koloa Plantation (ibid.; Figure 5). In 1855 Royal Patent1754 was issued to Dr. Wood giving him clear title to the entirety of PB'B Ahupua'a, which he bought from Pi'ikoi, who was awarded the majority of the PB'B as LCA 10605, and upland portions of Weliweli Ahupua'a (Alexander 198554). Figure 5. 1935 Map of Kdoa Plantation. Sugar production diverted water away from the traditional crops and caused most of the other plantations to become dry and brown. Weliweli suffered from the loss of water and is described as follows: Weliweli is about like Pa'a (very dry, bananas, yams, and bananas were planted in the gulches). Both of these narrow land sections lie on a slight seaward promontory, Makahuena Point. W. C. Bennett (1 93 1, p. 1 18) found an irrigation ditch and terraces, indicating that there used to be some wet taro grown in an area which is now dry. Desiccation may have been partly caused by clearing the woodland when the first sugar plantation on Kauai was established (Handy et al. 1991 :427-428). One Land Commission Award (LCA) was granted in Weliweli in the 'ili of Kahoana to Punipu. It consisted of dry lo 'i (taro paddies), a kula (field) and house lot. The rest of Weliweli was reserved as government land (Harnmatt and Toenjes 1991). Testimony in support of Punipu's land claim for LCA 5219 was provided by Pohina: Pohina, sworn, says, I know the land of [the] Clmt [claimant]. It is in the ahupuaa of Weliweli, and ili of "Kahoana" lua. It consists of several dry loi, a kula and house lot. [Hala] is planted in some places (Papakilo Database). In 1870, Eliza Sinclair bought most of Kbloa Ahupu'a and gave it as a dowry to his daughter Anne and her husband Valdemar Knudsen. After Vlademar's death the land was leased initially to Grove Farm and later the McBryde Sugar Company (Mitchell et al. 2005). The McBryde Sugar Company was created by Benjamin Dillingham in the 1890s from lands previously controlled by the Kbloa Agricultural Company, 'Ele'ele Plantation and Waiawa Ranch (ibid.). The company was able to expand lands under cultivation through development of railroad transportation system in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Kbloa Plantation was sold to Grove Farm Co. in 1948 (Smith 1991 in Walker and Goodfellow 1991). In 1908 a lighthouse was established in the seaward portion of project area by the Lighthouse Service, which at that time was part of the U.S Commerce and Labor Department (www.us1hs.org). In 1914, the facility is described in lighthouse records as a white house with a 40 ft high lead-colored mast and a red fixed light. Between 1930 and 1951 the facility is described as a 20 ft high white pyramidal concrete tower with a white light flashing every 6 seconds. In 1984, it is characterized as an "NR on pole" and in 1988 and 2004 as a "NB on a post". Both were 20 ft high with white lights flashing every 2.5 seconds. During World War I1 a Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system was developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of the National Defense Research Council. LORAN used radio waves and gave ships the ability to triangulate their locations hundreds of miles from a transmitting station (USCG 1946). In the spring of 1944, Construction Detachment C began construction of a LORAN monitoring station, Unit 207, at near Port Allen, Kaua'i. Once testing of the LORAN station was completed it was turned over to the District Coast Guard Officer of the 14' Naval District on November 8, 1944 (ibid: 65). The Port Allen LORAN facility was disestablished in 1948. In 1951, following an initial site survey in 1950, a new station for a LORAN-A receiver was established by the Coast Guard at Makahuena Point in the project area (loran-history.info). The first commanding officer was Lt. Harley E. Dilcher. The facility was "on air" as a "dual rate low power" station in December 1951 and was operational as a "dual rate high power" facility on October 25, 1952 (ibid.). Figure 6 depicts the facility in 1961. The photograph shows 5-6 buildings including a two story structure that was built in the inland portion of the large depression on the property. The large, 280 ft high antenna is situated seaward of the buildings. A website for Coast Guard veterans (fkedsplace.org) includes a reference to the construction of a barbeque facility in 1974 that is still present today. The barbeque was constructed in the vicinity of the sign and flagpole shown in a 1966 photograph (Figure 7). The station, known as LORSTA Kaua'i was disestablished in 1979 (ibid.). After the LORAN station was closed, the former Coast Guard facility was utilized by Hale 'Opio, Inc., a private nonprofit organization, that provides youth-oriented social services. The organization relocated following Hurricane Iwa that devastated the Island of Kaua'i in 1982 (Burgess, pers. communication). Since Hurricane Iwa, the project area has been vacant. Archival research and interviews conducted for a cultural impact assessment of the property (Kailihiwa et al. 201 1) documented traditional cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. The area is known as a place of bountiful fish. Local fishermen continue to gather hcl 'uke 'uke (sea urchin) and 'opihi (limpet), and to catch awa (milkfish), akule (big-eyed scad fish), moi (thread fish), '6 'io (bonefish), he'e (octopus), and ula (spiny lobster). Formerly, depressions were made from clay soil in the vicinity to evaporate seawater and obtain salt. Community members continue to conduct cultural protocols at KZne'aukai Heiau, every October during the makahiki season, and at a large sand dune burial site. Both sites are situated mauka (inland) of the project area within the grounds of The Point at Po'ipti. Figure 6. 1961 Photograph of LORAN Station Facility (fi-om www.lo~a~~-histoy.info), view to south Figure 7. 1966 Photograph or LUKAIV >ration Starr ana ~ctjacent Property (mom www.lordn-mstory.inro) view to north-northeast Previous Archaeological Research A search of DLNR-SHPD archaeological report database and other sources identified more than 30 archaeological studies for the Kbloa District. Figure 5 shows the locations of the projects and Table I summarizes the projects. Not included in the table are the studies by Thrum (1906), Bennett (1931), Kikuchi (1963) and Ching et al. (1974). Thrum (1906) compiled a list of heiau on the islands of Kauai and Oahu. He identified two ceremonial sites in the project area vicinity. Weliweli Heiau is situated in the Land of Weliweli and Waiopili Heiau is in MBhB'ulepii. According to Thnim, Waiopili Heiau measures 60 by 40 ft and Weliweli Heiau is a "...paved heiau of large size, pookanaka class; walls 4 feet high; portions of same said to be still standing" (1906:36). Thrum reported that Weliweli Heiau was covered with stones cleared from an adjacent sugarcane field. Bennett (1931) conducted a survey of archeological sites on Kaua'i for the Bishop Museum in 1928-1929. He recorded several sites in the general vicinity of the project area, including Weliweli Heiau, which he designated as Site 83. Additional sites documented by Bennett consisted of sand dune burials (Site 82) and a petroglyph complex (Site 84) at Keoneloa Beach. In 1963, Kikuchi conducted an archaeological survey of the coastal lands in Kbloa District. He noted several sites in the project vicinity consisting of the Keoneloa Dune Burials, which he assigned State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) site number 97, the Keoneloa Beach Petroglyphs (Site 98) and Weliweli Heiau (Site 99). He also identified a series of walls designated as Site 100. These sites were also examined by Ching et al. (1974) during a survey of the coastal lands of MBhB'ulepii, PB'B and Weliweli. The surveys in Table I cover over 3,100 acres identifying 154 sites with 457 features. To aid in reconstructing settlement patterns, features were quantified by probable age and function. Traditional Hawaiian features were categorized as habitation, agricultural, ritual and burial. Density per acre values are given for the sites and features. Overall, the studies have identified 253 habitation features, 293 agricultural features, 43 burials and possible burials and 15 ritual features. Historic features were not segregated by function. Miscellaneous features are comprised of petroglyphs, salt pans and bait cups. The historic features are generally associated with the sugarcane industry or ranching activity. One of the most notable sites in the region is the Kbloa Field System, a modem term used to describe the large system of agricultural fields that formerly extended from LBwa'i to Weliweli and served as the main food source for the people of the Kdoa district (Mitchell et al. 2005). The Kbloa Field System is atypical for Hawai'i because it is an irrigated system that is not topographically restricted to the confines of a valley. It is spread out over the broad plain of Kbloa District that is broken up by ridges formed by lava channels (ibid). The irrigation ditches ('auwai) that watered the fields were constructed along the crests of the ridges, extending from Waikomo Stream for distances of nearly 2,400 m (ibid). In its simplest form, the Kbloa Field System was a series of parallel 'auwai with a network of feeder ditches branching off the main 'auwai to irrigate the agricultural fields (Figure 9). Aqueducts were constructed within the system to convey water over low-lying ground (Figure 10). The field system is estimated to have covered at least 700 acres. It is likely that the acreage is much higher, but evidence of the system has been destroyed by commercial sugarcane cultivation (ibid). Several projects conducted in the vicinity of the project area were surveys of large parcels that ranged in area fkom 210 acres to more than 1,400 acres in extent. Walker and Rosendahl(1990) conducted an inventory survey of approximately 210 acres for the Hyatt Regency Kauai in the adjacent Land of PB'B. This survey identified 12 sites with 14 component features consisting of two habitation sites, four ceremonial sites, three walls assigned a boundary function and two indeterminate mounds. Table 1. Summary of Previous Archaeological Work - Sites pr acre - 0.18 - 0.75 acre T Total sites Hab Feu Ritua Feu Author Pention bd (*ANsL) Comment Found subsurface deposit during exavation and auger coring. - Subnilled 3 radiocarbon samples with dates ranging from AD 1282-1414 to 1678-1940. Coastal Coastal i Hamnatt el a1 (1993b) I Koloa IAS,EXMO~ 1 0-10 Kikuchi (1980,1988). NeUcr (1981). Walkeret a1 (1992) Paa RN.EXDR 0-10 Identiifed Kconeloa Sand Dune Burials, Kaneauhi (Weliweli) Heiau and Keoneloa Beach Petroglyphs Walker and Rosendahl(l990). Firor and Rosendahl(1992) IS 0-70 Coastal I Hyatt Regency Kauai Cmve Farm Coastal, Lower slopes Dockall el a1 (2005) Koloa IS 5-10 0% et al. (2003) Koloa IS 5-20 Hamnatt (1989a. b, 19%. b) Weliweli, Paa IS 20-30 Identitied fishpond and agricultural features Identified coastal sah pans and bait cups potentially Coastal Lowerslopes representing knnetts (1931) Site 76 havatrions wuhin dune deposits contammg nultrple bunals Survey along Poipu Road Subsurface testing at 2 sites with no cuhual remms Creed et al. 199 Yorck el al 004 Koloa Hamtlatt (1992). Hanrmatt el aL 1993a Koloa RN. IS Palam (1973). Landrum(l984). Koloa, Lawai Hanrmatt el al. (1988) 20-300 Large pottions bulldozed Coastal, Hamnatt et aL (1988) survey encompasses previous studies fanmatt el a1 (1978,1991). Van Ryzin and Hamnatt @OW), Tukbin and Koloa IS 40-160 Hamnan (2005). Yorcket aL (2005) Coastal Lower slopes Viage at Poi'pu Project Area Overlapping Project Areas -Identified a total of5 sites ncluding a flum, two water diversion walk, a habitation ~ite and a habitation burialsite - Walker and Goodfellow WaO.randC.odfdow(l99l). I Mahau*u I IS 1 Wigglesworh and Ciaves (1992) Ida et aL (1996) Weliweli, Koloa AS 180-240 Hill et a1 (2005) Koloa IS 180-205 Lowerslo es Lower slopes I? ' -IS- Inventory Survey, RN- Rcconnaissancc SYNCY, AS =Assessment, EX - Excavation, Mod Figure 10. Raised 'auwai in the Kaloa Field System (from Mitchell et al., 2005:21). Further data collection was subsequently undertaken within the Walker and Rosendahl (1990) project area by Firor (1992). This additional work consisted of plane table mapping, surface collection, photography and excavations. Charcoal collected from these excavations was submitted for radiometric age determination. One sample yielded a modem date, with the 19 additional samples producing dated age ranges spanning the period between AD 650 and 1954 with most ranges falling between AD 1170 and 1818. In 1990, Firor et al. (1991) conducted an inventory survey of a c. 1,430-acre parcel situated in the Lands of PB'B and M&BCulepii. This study identified 31 sites with 38 component features. Feature functions consisted of habitation (n=34), agriculture (3), ceremonial (I), burial (2), petroglyph (20) and historic (6). The historic features consisted of an erosion control wall and five boundary walls. A survey of a 196-acre parcel within the Land of Koloa was conducted by Cultural Surveys Hawaii (Hammatt 1991). This project was preceded by a Hammatt (1978) reconnaissance survey of the parcel. This survey identified 91 sites with 216 features. The features included 76 habitation features, 121 agricultural features, 1 burial feature and 18 historic features. A survey of the c. 1,000-acre Kukui'ula Bay Planned Community in Kbloa and LBwa'i was undertaken by Cultural Surveys Hawaii (Hammatt et al. 1988). This project included areas that were previously surveyed by Palama (1973) and Landrum (1984). Fifty-seven sites with 235 features were documented in this area. Feature functions consist of 135 habitation, 89 agricultural, 4 ceremonial, 1 burial and 11 historic features. Ladd (198 1) conducted archaeological surveys of four lighthouse sites for the U.S. Coast Guard in 1981. Makahuena Point was one of the four sites surveyed. Ladd noted that the project area had been heavily impacted by bulldozer clearing activities, jeep trails, and construction activities (ibidl). Ladd noted a midden scatter, various concrete pads, and a series of rocks that had been painted white outlining a jeep trail (ibid7). According to Ladd, none of the identified remains met the significance criteria for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility (ibid 2). In 1991, Nancy McMahon (1991) conducted a synthesis of archaeological and historical literature relating to the location of KBne'aukai Heiau. McMahon utilized 26 archaeological reports and historical texts attempting to pin point the location of the heiau. The first mention of KBne'aukai in literature is in a report written by a student attending Lahainaluna School in Maui in 1885; however, there is no detailed description in the report. Archaeological studies of the area have assigned KZne'aukai three different numbers, Site 83, Site 3089, and Site 477. Weliweli Heiau, Kauakahai'a fishing altar and Hali'i fishing altar are all names that have been used in the area with KZne'aukai in various locations. McMahon concluded that there is no empirical evidence that KZne'aukai is extant, and that it is only preserved in the present through oral histories. In April of 20 1 1, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the current project area. The survey identified 18 sites with 128 features. The features consist of 98 concrete pads, 7 concrete blocks, 4 artifact scatters, 4 posts, 3 terraces, 3 slabs, 2 paths, 2 walls, and one each of the following; ditch, road, stairs, utility box and walled slab. Most of these features are remnants of the U.S. Coast Guard LORAN station that was in operation from 195 1 until 1979. Subsurface testing consisted of twenty test units that were excavated throughout the inland portion of the project area. These excavations ranged in depth from 0.08 to 0.4 m. Cultural remains recovered from the excavations were limited to relatively recent (1900s) historic materials (glass, metal, wire). No prehistoric sites or deposits were identified during the study. PROJECT EXPECTATIONS Based on background research prehistoric use of the project area is potentially evidenced by coastal habitation sites dating to as early as the 1200s. Habitation sites would consist of platforms, enclosures, caves and small walled shelters. Trails and petroglyphs may also be present. Unlike adjacent parcels, no sand dunes are present within the project area, reducing the potential for subsurface burial features. Sites dating to the mid- to late 1800s would primarily consist of ranching and agriculture-related features such as walls, corrals, and clearing piles of stone associated with agriculture and pasture improvement. Later historic utilization of the parcel would likely be evidenced by the remnants of U.S. federal government navigation-related infrastructure. These remains could consist of concrete foundations, roads, utilities and associated materials. FINDINGS The archaeological survey identified 18 sites with 128 features. The 128 features consist of 98 concrete pads, 7 concrete blocks, 4 artifact scatters, 4 posts, 3 terraces, 3 slabs, 2 paths, 2 walls, and one each of the following; ditch, road, stairs, utility box and walled slab. Feature function consists of utility (n=79), foundation (31), marker (3, transportation (4), boundary (I), disposal (I), recreation (I), soil retention (I), water diversion (1) and indeterminate (4). The location of the sites is presented in Figure 11 and the sites are summarized in Table 2 and are described below. Subsurface testing was undertaken during the project, consisting of the excavation of twenty 0.5 by 0.5 m test units. The results of these test excavations are discussed below in a following section. Standard measurements are used in the following descriptions, in addition to metric values, for featureslsites likely built using that measurement system. Slabs are defined as formed concrete surfaces that are usually rectangular and exceed 10 ft in maximum dimension. In most instances, slabs are structural foundations that also sewed as interior floors. Pads are formed concrete surfaces that are smaller than slabs in maximum dimension, less than 8 ft (most are less than 6 ft), and likely sewed a variety of functions as foundations for small structures, footings for larger structures, and supports for equipment or utilities. Pads that are greater than 2 ft in height are termed blocks. Site Descriptions Site 2130 is a complex of 15 features located in the northwestern portion of the project area, seaward of Pe'e Road. The features consist of two concrete slabs (Features A and B), five concrete pads (Features C-E and M), a set of concrete stairs (Feature G), an asphalt road (Feature H), a concrete ditch (Feature I), two boulder and concrete paths (Features J and L), a mortared stone wall (Feature K) a buried utility box (Feature N) and a walled slab (Feature 0). The overall site encompasses an overall area 125 m long (northeast by southwest) and 72 m wide, an area of approximately 2.2 acres (Figure 12). The Feature A and B concrete slabs are located on a level bench just below the rim of the large depression (Figure 13). The main portion of Feature A is rectangular in shape and is 13' 7 W (4.16 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast) by 7' 11 72' (2.41 m) wide. The sides of the feature range in height from 9 W (0.25 m) to 2' 5 %" (0.75 m). There is a rectangular projection at the southeast comer of the main slab that is 4' 11 %" (1.51 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast) and 1' 10" (0.56 m) wide. A step is located below the projection to the southeast, measuring 3' 4 %" (1.21 m), 2' 7 %: (0.8 m) wide and 1' 8 %" (0.53 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface A second step is situated at the southeast end of the main slab, measuring 8' (2.44 m) long (east-northeast by west-southwest) and 2' 2 3/4" (0.68 m) wide. The step is 1' 5 %" (0.44 m) high and 8 %" (0.22 m) below the surface of the main slab. Electrical wires are present on the surface of the slab. A linear projection extends 9' 4 %" (2.85 m) to the north-northwest from the northeast comer of Feature A. This projection is 9 %" (0.25 m) in height on the west side and is level with the ground surface on the east. Features D and F are located adjacent to this projection to the east. The Feature B concrete slab is located 16' 1 W" (4.91 m) to the northeast of Feature B. The area between the two slabs is level soil with concrete rubble. The main portion of Feature B is rectangular in shape and is 14' 3 %" (4.36 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast) by 7' 11 W (2.42 m) wide. The sides range in height from 7 W (0.2 m) to 1' 7 %" (0.49 m) above the surrounding ground surface. A rectangular projection is present along the east side of the slab, measuring 8 %" (0.22 m) long north-northwest by south-southeast) and 4' 9 W (1.46 m) wide. A step extends across the southeast end of the main slab that is 7 ' 11 '/4" (2.42 m) long and 2' 2 M" (0.68 m) wide. The step is 11" (0.28 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface and is 8 %" (0.22 m) below the surface of the main slab. The Feature C concrete pad is located 2' 8 X" (0.83 m) to the north of the northeast comer of Feature B, along the northern edge of the large depression. This pad is roughly rectangular in shape and is 3' %" (0.93 m) long (east-northeast by west-southwest) and 2' 8 %" (0.83 m) wide. The sides of the pad are /- North 2 -3 9 W (0.25 m) in height. There is a circular metal manhole cover located on top of the pad that is 2' 3 %" (0.71 m) in diameter. The Feature D concrete pad is located adjacent to Feature C to the north-northwest, above the edge of the large depression. This pad was originally rectangular in shape although the northwestern comer is missing. The pad is 3' %" (0.93 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast), 2' 8 %" (0.83 m) wide and 7 %" (0.2 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. Feature E is a square concrete pad located adjacent to the northern projection at Feature A. This pad is similar to Feature C and is 2' 9 %" (0.86 m) square by 9 %" (0.2 m) in height. There is a 2' 3 %" (0.71 m) diameter metal manhole cover in the center of the pad. No cultural remains are present. The Feature F pad is located adjacent to Feature E to the north. This pad is rectangular in shape and the northwest comer is broken. It is 2' 10 %" (0.87 m) long (northeast by southwest), 2' 3 !P (0.7 m) wide and 1' 1 %" (0.35 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. Feature G is a concrete stairway located 8.5 m to the northeast of Feature D. The stairs lead down the slope from the Feature H asphalt road to the Feature A-F vicinity. It measures 22' 7 %" (6.9 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast) and 3' 1 %" (0.96 m) wide with 3 7/s" (0.1 m) high risers (Figure 14). There are 19 steps, all with yellow reflective safety paint. No cultural remains are present. Figure 14. Sitc 2 130, Feature G Staircase, view to north Feature H is a U-shaped asphalt road that parallels the project area boundary (see Figure 12). The road has an overall length of 545' 7 '/z" (166.3 m) and ranges in width from 20' (6.1 m) to 37' 8 W (11.5 m; Figure 15). From the southeastern end the road extends 149' 7 %" (45.6) m to the north-northwest, then turns 90 degrees to the west- southwest. It extends in this direction past the Feature A-F complex and the Feature G stairs a distance of 231' 7 %" (70.6 m). It then angles to the south-southwest for 164' 4 '/2" (50.1 m), following the edge of the large depression where it terminates at the Feature L path. There are two projections that extend off the main road; one to the east and one to the south. The eastern projection is 36' 10 %" (1 1.25 m) long (northeast by southwest) and 36' 8 %" (11.2 m) wide. The southern projection is 29' 6 W' (9.0 m) long (north-northwest by south-southeast) and 21' 3 %" (6.5 m) to 32' 1 7/s" (9.8 m) wide. No cultural remains are present at the feature. Feature I is a concrete-lined ditch situated between the northern project area boundary and the north side of the Feature H road (see Figure 12). The ditch originates at the west side of the Feature J path and extends 173' 2 3/4" (52.8 m) to the east-northeast where it terminates. The ditch is 2' 11 %" (0.9 m) wide at the top, 2' 3 W (0.7 m) wide at the base, with an average depth of 1' 5 %" (0.45 m - see Figure 15). No cultural remains are present. Figure 15. Site 2130, Feature H Road and Feature I Ditch, view to west-southwest Figive 16. Site 2 130, Feature J Path, view to southeast Feature J is a path located in the northwest comer of the site. The path originates along the northern project area boundary and extends 34' 5 %" (10.5 m) to the southeast, terminating at the south side of the Feature H road. The path is 1' 7 %" (0.5 m) wide and is comprised of a level linear surface bordered on the east side by a concrete and basalt stone curb, 10 %" (0.27 m) in height (Figure 16). No cultural remains are present at the feature. Feature K is a mortared stone wall located to the south of the Feature J path and to the west of the Feature H road. The wall has an overall length of 48' 6 5/s" (14.8 m). From the north end the wall extends 5' 6 %" (1.68 m) to the southeast, then turns to the southwest for 7' 6 '/s" (2.29 m -Figure 17). It then angles to the south-southeast for 35' 9 W (10.9 m) where it terminates. The wall is 11 %" (0.3 m) wide and 1' 5 %" (0.45 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. Feature L is a path situated at the southern end of the western portion of the Feature H wall. The path originates outside of the project area to the west. From the western project boundary it extends 3 1' 2" (9.5 m) to the east-northeast, where it terminates at the western edge of the large depression. The path is 3' 1 1 %" (1.2 m) wide and is comprised of mortared stones (Figure 18). No cultural remains are present. Feature M is a formed concrete pad situated along the northern portion of the site complex, north of the Feature H road and west of the Feature I ditch. The pad is rectangular in shape and is 4' 11'' (1.5 m) long (north-south), 4' 1 %" (1.25 m) wide and 3 W (0.08 m) in height (Figure 19). There are two 3" (0.075 m) diameter poles set vertically in the pad, spaced 1' 3 %" (0.4 m) apart. The poles were once painted red and are 4' W (1.24 m) in height above the surface of the pad. No cultural remains are present. Feature N is a concrete box set into the ground, located adjacent to the Feature H road to the south. The box is 2' 11 %" (0.9 m) long (east-west) and 1' 7 %" (0.5 m) wide (Figure 20). The sides of the Figure, 18. Sitc 2 130, Feature L Path, view to north Figure 19. Site 2 130, Feature M Concrete Pad with Vertical Poles, view to north box are level with the surrounding ground surface. There is a concrete lid sealing the box, with two metal handles set into the lid. The sides and lid of the box are cracked. No cultural remains are present. Feature 0 is a walled concrete slab located in the northeastern comer of the site complex, bordering the project boundary (Figure 21). The feature is roughly rectangular in shape and is 29' 2 W' (8.9 m) long (northeast by southwest) and 22' 11 %" (7.0 m) to 27' 6 W (8.4 m) wide. A mortared stone wall extends along the northeast, northwest and southwest sides of the feature, measuring 1' 4 7/s" (0.43 m) wide and 3' 11 %" (1.2 m) to 4' 1 %" (1.25 m) in height above the slab. There is a barbeque grill located in the northwest comer of the structure that is 6' 2" (1.88 m) long (northwest by southeast), 2' 11 K" (0.9 m) wide and 3 1 %" (0.95 m) in height. A copper pipe is present within the grill indicating that it was fueled with propane. No cultural remains are present. As discussed in the preceding Background section, the project area was once the site of the US. Coast Guard LORAN station that was in operation from 1951 until 1979. The station was known as LORSTA Kaua'i. Several of the features described above are shown in a 1961 photograph of the station (Figure 22). The Feature A and B slabs, located within the large depression in northwest portion of the project area, appear to have functioned as the foundation for the large, two-story structure in the right-hand comer of the photograph. The apparent size of this structure suggests that the two slabs and the level soil area with concrete rubble that separates them, served as the foundation for this building (see Figure 13). The Feature H asphalt road is clearly visible in the Figure 22 photograph. This road provided access to the buildings within the complex. Feature M, a concrete pad with two vertical metal pipes (see Figure 19) is present in the location of the sign located at the entrance to the facility. The Feature G stairs functioned to access the two-story structure within the depression, represented by the Feature A and B slabs. The Feature C and E pads with manhole covers and the Feature N box functioned as associated utility features. It is possible that the manhole covers were used to access a subterranean sewer system and the concrete box potentially served as a junction box for the electrical or water lines. The Feature K wall likely served as a boundary marker for the complex and the Feature D and E pads served as foundations of undetermined specific function. The Feature 0 walled slab is a recreational area based on the presence of the barbeque grill. The remnants of the other LORAN facility structures depicted in Figure 22 are no longer present within the project area. These structures were likely destroyed with the materials removed fiom the property, following the abandonment of the facility after Hurricane Iwa in 1982. The tower present seaward of the facility has also been removed. The remaining remnants of the LORAN facility, designated as Features A through 0 of Site 2130 are assessed as significant for their information content. The site is altered and in poor to fair condition. Site 2131 is a complex of six features located along the western side of the project area, on the western rim and upper slope of the large depression. The features consist of three terraces (Features A, B and C), a block (Feature D), a concrete pad (Feature E) and a scatter of historic debris, located in an area 33.0 m long (northwest by southeast) and 9.0 m wide. Features A, B, C and D are recently constructed features built fiom a combination of local stone and concrete objects that were probably collected from the immediate area. These features were likely built by occupants of the adjacent parcel as landscaping features and although the features are modem constructions, the use of older historic materials led to their inclusion within Site 2 13 1. A fifth modem planting feature is located 12.0 m north of Feature A, although no historic debris was noted in this location (see Figure 11). Feature A is a mortared concrete and stone block capped with a cement veneer, located at the northwestern end of the site. The block measures 3' 3 %" (1.0 m) long, 2' 4 3/4" (0.73 m) wide and 2' 3 %" (0.7 m) in height (Figure 23). The block has been positioned at the base of a slope with ornamental plants placed above it. A wooden crate is located upslope of the feature to the southwest. Figure 23. Site 21 3 1, Feature A Concrete and Stone Block, view to west Feature B is a pair of concrete blocks that form a rough terrace located 7.5 m southeast of Feature A. Soil has been placed between the blocks planted with ornamental plants in the soil fill and below the feature to the north (Figure 24). The feature measures 4' 3 'A'' (1.3 m) long, 3' 3 %" (1.0 m) wide and 2' 11 %" (0.9 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. Feature C is a stone terrace located 4.7 m south (upslope) from Feature B. This feature is roughly oval in shape and is 3' 3 '/z" (1.0 m) long, 2' 7 '/2" (0.8 m) wide and 1' 7 %" (0.5 m) in height, built of stacked and piled basalt cobbles (Figure 25). Several broken fragments of formed concrete are incorporated into the structure. No cultural remains are present. Feature D is terrace similar in construction to Feature C, located 4.5 m to the northeast. This terrace is 2' 3 %" (0.7 m) long, 1' 11 W (0.6 m) wide and 2' 7 '/z" (0.8 m) in height (Figure 26). Concrete fragments are also incorporated into Feature D. Feature E is a formed concrete pad located 4.5 m to the east of Feature D. The pad is nearly square measuring 2' 11 %" (0.91 m) long, 2' 11" (0.89) m wide and 5 %" (0.15 m) in height (Figure 27). There is a triangular configuration of bolts present on the surface. No cultural remains are located on the feature, though elements of the Feature F artifact scattered surround it. Feature F is a scatter of historic materials that extend to the southeast from the Feature E pad. These material include metal and concrete fragments and are located in an area 11.6 m long (northwest by southeast) and 4.3 m wide (see Figure 27). As stated, Features A-D are modem features that incorporated pieces of concrete that are likely the remnants of the LORAN station structures. The Feature E pad is a probable tower base based on the Figure 24. Site2 13 1, Fcature. B Concrcte Blocks, view to southcast presence of the bolts on the surface. The Feature F scatter potentially represents the rusted remnants of a structure or piece of equipment. Site 2132 is a complex of two features located near the western project area boundary, south of the large depression. The features consist of a concrete pad (Feature A) and a concrete and stone post (Feature B). The Feature A pad is formed concrete and is situated at the east end of the site. It is rectangular in shape and is 1' 3 %" (0.4 m) long (east-west), 1' 1 K" wide and 2 %" (0.07 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface. No cultural remains are present. Feature B is located 14.5 m to the west of Feature A adjacent to the western project area boundary. It consists of a post or block made of basalt stones and concrete (Figure 28). The feature is lying on its side and is 3' 7 %" (1.1 m) long, 1' 5 !4" (0.75 m) wide and 1' 7 W (0.5 m) thick. No cultural remains are present. The two features at the site are probable foundations based on their formal type and appearance. The site is assessed as significant for its information content. It is altered and in poor to fair condition. Site 2133 is a complex of three concrete pads situated in the southwestern portion of the project area in an area of shallow soil. The pads are located in an area 14.3 m long (east-west) and 5.1 m wide. Feature A is situated at the western end of the site and is comprised of a rectangular formed concrete pad that measures 2' 9 %" (0.86 m) long (northwest by southeast), 2' 5 !4" (0.74 m) wide and 3 %" (0.1 m) in height (Figure 29). There is a rectangular configuration of four bolts that appear to have been sheared off level with the surface of the pad. These bolts are 1 W (0.045 m) diameter and are in an area 1' 5 %" (0.44 m) long (east-west) and 9" '/s" (0.235 m) wide. There is a metal plate present within the configuration of bolts that is 6 %" (0.175 m) long (north-south), 1 %" (0.035m) and K" (0.01m) in height. No cultural remains are present. The Feature B pad is situated 3.75 m to the southeast of Feature A (see Figure 29). This feature is irregular in shape and appears to have been created by pouring concrete into a hole dug into the ground and troweling the surface level. It measures 5' 10 3/4" (1.8 m) in length (northwest by southeast) and 5' 6 %" (1 -7 m) wide and is level with the surrounding terrain. No cultural remains are present. The Feature C pad is located 9.0 m to the southwest of Feature A. This feature is similar to the Feature B pad in that it appears to have been created by pouring concrete into a hole dug into the ground and leveling the surface (Figure 30). It is roughly rectangular in shape and measures 4' 3 %" (1.3 m) long (northwest by southeast) by 2' 3 !4" (0.7 m) wide. The surface is level with the surrounding terrain. No cultural remains are present. The site is a complex of foundations that are likely associated based on the features' proximity, formal type, similar orientation and appearance. The presence of the aligned bolts and metal plate at Feature A suggest it likely served as a mount for a tower or piece of equipment. The specific hction of the Feature B and C pads is unclear. The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2134 is a concrete post located in the western portion of the project area, south of the large depression and 19.5 m east-northeast of the Site 2133 complex. The post is made of formed concrete and measures 1' (0.305 m) square by 2' 7 !h" (0.8 m) in height (Figure 31). It is embedded in the ground and is leaning to the west. A large diameter (5" or 0.13 m) cable is extending out of the top of the block attached to it by a series of 1" (0.027m) threaded bolts. A metal turnbuckle is attached to the cable base by a hinged metal plate. The turnbuckle is 1' 11 %" (0.6 m) m long with threaded bolts extending out of it on both sides. The cable is coated in a woven mesh material and the connecting bolts and cable base are wrapped in a stiff cloth. No associated cultural remains are present at the site. The site probably is an anchor for a tower based on its formal type and appearance. The cable probably served as a guy wire for a large tower, likely the one shown in the 196 1 photograph of LORSTA Kaua'i (see Figure 22). The turnbuckle probably was attached to a secondary guy wire that stabilized the anchor based on its attachment to the base of the large cable attachment bracket (see Figure 31). The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Figurc 28. Sitc 2 132, Feature B Concrete and Stone Block, view to west m .e 29. Sitc 2 133, Fcature A and B Concretc Pads, view to east Figurc 3 1. Sitc 2 134 Concrctc Post, vicw to south-southcast Site 2135 is a complex of four features located along the coastal escarpment in the southwestern portion of the project area. A modem navigational aid is located adjacent to the site to the northwest. The features are comprised of a concrete block (Feature A), two concrete pads (Features B and D) and a scatter of rusted metal fragments (Feature C) located in an area 25.0 m long (northeast by southwest) and 8.5 m wide (see Figure I I). The Feature A block is located at the north end of the site. It is made of formed concrete and is 4' 11 %" (1.52 m) square and 1' 11 %" (0.6 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 32). Forms marks are visible on the sides of the feature. No cultural remains are present. The Feature B concrete pad is located in an area of bare lava 11.0 m to the south of Feature A. This feature is roughly oval in shape and is comprised of concrete that has been poured into a cavity in the surface lava. It measures 1' 9 %" (0.54 m) long (north-south) and 1' 6 %" (0.47 m) wide (Figure 33). The surface of the pad is level with the surrounding ground surface and no cultural remains are present. An inscription has been imprinted into the surface of the pad reading: Feb 16 1922 The Feature C scatter of rusted metal fragments is located 5.0 m to the west of Feature B. These fragments are present in an area 28' 6 W (8.7 m) long (north-south) and 26' 10 W (8.2 m) wide (Figure 34). No additional cultural remains, other than the metal are present. The Feature D formed concrete pad that has been poured directly onto bedrock, 4.0 m to the west of the Feature C scatter. This pad is roughly square and is 11 72' (0.3 m) long, 9 %" (0.25 m) wide and 3 %" (0.1 m) in height (Figure 35). No cultural remains are present as the feature. A metal pipe is positioned vertically in the center (0.04 m) in height. The initials "US" and "LHS" are imprinted in the surface of the pad above and below the pipe. As discussed in the Background section of this report, "LHS" denotes the Lighthouse Service, a U.S. federal government agency that originally was part of the Department of Commerce that was transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard in 1939. The Feature A block is interpreted as a foundation based on its formal type and appearance, although its specific function is undetermined. The Feature B pad served as a marker dating to 1922. The Feature D pad potentially is a mount for a sign or piece of equipment. Alternatively, it could be a survey marker. The Feature C metal scatter potentially represents the rusted remnants of an a tower or piece of equipment. The site is unaltered and in poor to good condition. It is assessed as significant for its information content. Site 2136 is a complex of two features located along the coastal escarpment to the east of Site 2135. The features consist of a formed concrete pad (Feature A) and a scatter of historic debris (Feature B) located in an area 52.0 m long (east-west) and 13.0 m wide. The Feature A pad is located at the eastern end of the site. It is rectangular in shape and is 7' 7 !4" .3 m) long (northwest by southeast) and 6' 10 518'' (2.1 m) wide (Figure 36). The pad is 10 W (0.27 m) height above the surrounding lava flow surface. There is a raised pad on top of the feature along the northeast side. This pad is 2' 4 %" (0.72 m) long (northwest by southeast), 2' 3 '/2" (0.7 m wide) and 8 %" (0.21 m) in height. A rectangular configuration of four bolts is present on top of this pad. A rusted metal projection is present within this bolt pattern. There are five short plastic pipes that extend vertically out of the ground, adjacent to the pad to the southeast. Feature B consists of a large scatter of historic debris located 13.0 m west of Feature A. The feature is covers an area 34.0 m long (east-west) and 13.6 m wide. The majority of the debris consists of small rusted metal pieces (Figure 37). A rusted engine is also present, located at the western end of the metal scatter (Figure 38). Figure 34. Site 2 135, Feature C Artifact Scatter, view to south-southeast I Figure 35. Site 2 135, Feature D Concrete Pad with Inscription, view to east Figure 36. Site 2 136, Feature A Concrete Pad, view to northeast Figure 38. Site 2136, Feature B Engine, view to west-southwest Figure 39 Site 2137, Feature A Concrete Block, view to south-southwest The Feature A pad potentially supported a tower or served as a mount for a piece of equipment that required electrical and monitoringlcommunication connections. This is based on the presence of the vertical pipes adjacent to the pad that likely served as wire conduits. The Feature B artifact consists of rusting metal fragments and machinery parts, possibly remnants of a metal tower and associated equipment.. The site is unaltered and in fair condition. It is assessed as significant for its information content. Site 2137 is a complex of two concrete features located in the southwestern portion of the project area, 17.0 m northeast of Site 2135 and 16.0 m northwest of Site 2136. The features are comprised of a concrete block (Feature A) and a concrete pad (Feature B). The Feature A block is located at the east end of the site. It is constructed of formed concrete and is 5' 6 %" (1.7 m) square at the base, 4' 7 7/8" (1.42 m) square at the top and 3' 8 %" (1.13 m) in height (Figure 39). There is a recessed area on top of the block that is 2' 1 %" (0.64 m) square by 1' 3 %" (0.4 m) deep. Horizontal form marks are visible on the sides of the block. No cultural remains are present. The Feature B pad is situated 9.7 m west-southwest of Feature A. The pad is rectangular and is comprised of formed concrete. It measures 2' 8 %" (0.82 m) long (east-west), 1' 11 %" (0.6 m) wide and 10 %" (0.27 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 40). Several fragments of rusted metal and a coil of old rope are present on the pad. The remnants of two rusted metal bolts are located in the approximate center and "U.S.C.G." (United States Coast Guard) has been stamped into the pad above the bolts. There is an inscription that has been carved into the top of the pad, above the "U.S.C.G" that reads: 7- 16-74 MKl BLACHOWSKI The Feature A block probably supported a large "telephone" pole-sized post based on its similarity to an identical block at Site 2140 (see below) that still supports an intact post base. Its location roughly correlates with a pole situated immediately to the left of the flagpole shown in the 1961 photograph of LORSTA Kaua'i (see Figure 22). The inscription on Feature B indicates it was constructed by the Coast Guard in 1974 and probably served as a tower foundation or equipment mount based on the presence of bolts. The site is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2138 is a scatter of concrete blocks and fragments located in a jumbled pile on the coastal escarpment, 19.5 m to the northeast of Site 2136. The site encompasses an area 5.5 m long (northeast by southwest), 4.0 m wide and 1.2 m in height, though the majority of the materials are located in a pile that is 4.0 m in diameter (Figure 41). The majority of the concrete objects consist of rectangular blocks that range in length from 1' 7 %" (0.5 m) to 3' 3 W' (1.0 m) and 9 %" (0.25 m) to 2' 11 %" (0.9 m) in width. The remainder of the material consists of irregularly shaped concrete fragments. The materials appear to have been impacted by wave activity. No additional cultural remains are present. The site is interpreted as the disturbed remnant of a foundation based on the appearance of the concrete blocks. The original size and shape of the foundation is undermined as is its specific function. The site is assessed as significant for information content, is altered and in poor condition. Site 2139 is a complex of four features located in the west-central portion of the project area to the southeast of the large depression. The features consist of two concrete posts (Features A and D), a concrete block (Feature B) and a concrete pad (Feature C) located in an area 33.5 m long (north-south) by 12.0 m wide. Feature A consists of a formed concrete post located at the northern end of the site. It is set in the ground and is leaning slightly to the south (Figure 42). The post is 11 %" (0.3 m) square and 1' 7 % (0.5 m) in height. A metal anchor is present on top of the post. No cultural remains are present. Feature B consists of a formed concrete block situated 14.5 m to the southwest of Feature A. It measures 5' 7 %" (1.72 m) square at the base, 4' 8 %" (1.43 m) square at the top and 3' 5 % " (1.05 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 43). There is a square recessed area on top of the Fieurc 42. Site 2 139. Featurc A Concrctc Post. view to south Figure 43. Site 2 139, Feature B Concrctc Block, view to wcst block that is 2' 3 1/81' (0.69 m) on each side and 2' 2 %" (0.68 m) in depth below the top of the block. A jumble of white and red wires is located within the recessed area. No cultural remains are present. Feature C is a formed concrete pad located 14.0 m southeast of Feature B. It is 4' 11 %" (1.52 m) square and 1 !4" (0.04) m in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 44). No cultural remains are present. Feature D is a formed concrete post located 13.5 m southwest of Feature C. The post is set vertically in the ground and is 1' 7 %" (0.5 m) square and 4' 3 'A" (1.3 m) in height (Figure 45). Reinforcing metal rebar is visible on the broken sides of the post and a metal strap extends out of the side. A metal bracket is bolted to the post, extending 5 %" (0.15 m) above the top. No cultural remains are present. The Feature A and D posts potentially functioned a guy wire anchors like Site 2134. The more substantial Feature D post has a metal bracket that potentially sewed to attach a large cable like the one attached to the Site 2140 concrete post. The Feature D post lacks a metal bracket, but otherwise closely resembles the Site 2140 concrete post in form and size. The Feature B block probably supported a large post based on its similarity to an identical block at Site 2140 (see below) that still supports an intact post base. Its location roughly correlates with a pole situated immediately to the left of the main metal tower shown in the 1961 photograph of LORSTA Kaua'i (see Figure 22). Feature C is a concrete pad that likely functioned as a foundation for a small structure or piece of equipment. The site is unaltered and in fair to good condition. It is assessed as significant for its information content. Site 2140 is a formed concrete block located in the base of the large depression in the northwestern portion of the project area. The pier is 4' 7 %" (1.42 m) by 4' 7 %" (1.24 m) at the top, 5' 6 %" (1.7 m) by 5' 7 %" (1.72 m) at the base and 3' 8 W (1.13 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 46). Form marks from 6'' (15 cm) planks are visible on the sides of the block. A wooden pole is set vertically into the top of the block, within a recessed area that is 1 ' 11 %" (0.6 m square) by 7 K" (0.2 m) deep). The pole has been cut off above the top of the block, within the remaining portion measuring 1' %" (0.32 m) in diameter and 1' 1 %" (0.35 m) in height. Tar is smeared on top of the block and within the recessed area. No cultural remains are present at the site. The block functioned as a support for a large post, the base of which is still present. Its location roughly correlates with a pole situated behind the possible shop building (right bay door) in the central portion of the LORSTA Kaua'i facility shown a 1961 photograph (see Figure 22). The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2141 is a small, rectangular formed concrete pad located in the central portion of the project area. The pad measures 2' 9 %" (0.86 m) long (east-west), 2' 4 1/4" (0.75 m) wide and 2 %" (0.06 m) high (Figure 47). There is a rectangular configuration of four bolts that appear to have been sheared off flush with the surface of the pad. These bolts are 1 %" (0.045 m) diameter and are in an area 1' 5 W (0.44 m) long (east-west) and 9" 'A" (0.235 m) wide. There is a metal plate present within the configuration of bolts that is 6 %" (0.175 m) long (north-south), 1 %'' (0.035m) wide and %" (0.01m) in height. No cultural remains are present at the site. The site is interpreted as a foundation for a tower or piece of equipment based on its formal type and presence of bolts and metal plate. The site is assessed as significant for information content, is unaltered and is in good condition. Site 2142 is a small roughly oval-shaped concrete pad located in an area of shallow soil, 41.0 m to the east of Site 2141. The pad is 1' 3 %" (0.4 m) long (east-west), 8 W (0.21 m) wide and 1 W (0.04 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 48). The pad is irregular and appears to have been created by pouring concrete into a hole dug into the ground. Stone aggregate within the concrete is visible indicating the pad was not trowel finished. No cultural remains are present. 'igure 45. Site 2 139, Featurc D Concretc and Metal Post, view to cast The site probably served to anchor wiring similar to the unformed pads at Site 2147. The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2143 is a complex of three features located central seaward portion of the project area on the coastal escarpment. The features are comprised of a concrete slab (Feature A), a stone retaining wall (Feature B), and a concrete pad (Feature C) located in an area 16.5 m long (northwest by southeast) and 4.5 m wide. Feature A consists of a rectangular, formed concrete slab located at the northwestern end of the site. The slab measures 14' 9 %" (4.5 m) long (northwest by southeast), 6' 8 %" (2.04 m) wide and 10 '/z" (0.27 m) in height (Figure 49). There are two 3' (0.92 m) diameter manhole covers present on top of the slab; one at the northwest end and one at the southeast end. Both manholes are positioned on raised concrete seats that are 3 %" in height above the slab surface. The southeast seat is square and the northwest seat is broken with remnants remaining. Both manhole covers were rusted shut. No cultural remains are present. Feature B consists of a linear cobble and small boulder retaining wall located adjacent to Feature A to the southeast. The wall is 14' 9 W (4.5 m) long (northeast by southwest) and 1' 11 !4" (0.6 m) wide, built of stacked stones and soil (Figure 50). The inland (northwest) side is level with the sloping terrain and the seaward (southeast) side has been built up to a maximum height of 1' 5 X" (0.45 m). No cultural remains are present. Feature C is an unformed concrete pad that was poured onto an outcrop 8.0 m to the southeast of Feature B. It is 1 ' 1 1 %" (0.6 m) long (northwest by southeast) and 1 ' 3 %" (0.4 m) wide (Figure 51). The inland (northeast) side is 1" (0.03 m) in height above the outcrop and the seaward side is 1' 9 7'2' (0.55 m) in height, extending down the side of the outcrop. The surface has been troweled level. There is a scatter of rusted metal fragment located to the northwest of the feature. The Feature A slab is a component of a utility system, potentially for wastewater based on the presence of the manholes. The Feature B retaining wall appears to have functioned to retain the slope below Feature A. Feature C probably served to anchor wiring similar to the unformed pads at Site 2147. The site is unaltered and in fair condition. It is assessed as significant for its information content. Site 2144 is a complex of five concrete features located in the northwestern portion of the project area. The features consist of a block (Feature A) and concrete pads (Features B-D) located in an area 27.0 m long (northeast by southwest) and 5.0 m wide. The Feature A block is situated in the central portion of the site. This feature is a rectangular formed concrete block that was painted green. It is 5' 6 %" (1.68 m) square at the base, 4' 8 X" (1.44 m) square at the top and 3' 6 %" (1.07 m) in height (Figure 52). There is a column of reinforced concrete extending vertically out of the center of the block that is 10 %" (0.26 m) square and 1' 10 !h" (0.57 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. The Feature B concrete pad is located 12.0 m to the east-northeast of Feature A. This pad is constructed of formed concrete and is roughly square, measuring 5' 1" (1 S5m) by 4' 11 W (1 32 m) and 6 %" (0.16 m) in height (Figure 53). No cultural remains are present. Features C, D and E are formed concrete pads situated 12.5 m to the southwest of Feature A. The Feature C pad appears to be in original location although Features D and E appear to have been moved to this location because the features are chipped and not level (Figure 54). The Feature C pad is 4' 11 W (1.52 m) square and 1' 3" (0.38 m) in height. No cultural remains are present. Feature D is situated adjacent to Feature C to the southwest. This pad is rectangular in shape and is 2' 7 %" (0.81 m) long (north-south), 1' 11 %" (0.6 m) wide and 10 %" (0.27 m) thick. There is a piece of rusted metal that probably was for attachment, extending out of the center of the pad. "U.S.C.G" is Figure 50. Site 2143, Featurc B Retaining Wall, vicw to west Figure 5 1. Site 2 143, Feature C Concrete Pad, view to eat Figure 52. Site 2 144, Feature A Concrete Block, view to northwest Figure 53. Site 2 144, Feature B Concrete Pad, view to east Figure 55. Site 2144, Feature 1) Concrctc Pad with Inscription, view to west stamped into the concrete above the metal (Figure 55). There an inscription stamp that reads, "7-17-74 - Little SKI" over a heart with an arrow through it. No cultural remains are present. The Feature E pad is located to the northwest of Feature C. It is rectangular and is 2' 8 !A'' (0.82 m) long (north-south), 2' %" (0.62 m) wide and 1' 2 !4" (0.37 m) thick. No cultural remains are present. Features A, B, C and E are interpreted as foundations based on their formal type and appearance. The Feature A foundation served as a support for a concrete post. It is identical in dimensions to the post support foundation at Site 2140 and several other features. The specific function of the other features is undetermined, although the metal embedded in Feature D suggests that it was a mount for a tower or piece of machinery. The site is altered and in fair to good condition. Site 2145 is a complex of two adjacent formed concrete pads located in the northeastern portion of the project area, 25.5 m northeast of Site 2144 (Figure 56). The Feature A pad is rectangular in shape and is 6' 5 %" (1.97 m) long (east-west), 3' %" (0.92 m) wide and 2 %" (0.06 m) in height. The pad appears to have been poured in two pieces, evidenced by a seam in the concrete that bisects it longitudinally. The southeastern comer of the pad is broken. The Feature B pad is located 1.85 m to the southeast of Feature A. This pad is roughly square and is 3' 2 %" (0.98 m) long (north-south), 3' %" (0.92 m) wide and 3 W (0.09 m) in height. No cultural remains were present in association with either feature. The site likely functioned as two associated foundations based on their spatial proximity. The foundations are too small to have supported buildings and likely were used for equipment or tower facilities. The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2146 is a complex of two concrete features located in the northeastern portion of the project area. The features are comprised of a concrete block (Feature A) and a concrete pad (Feature B). A second concrete pad very similar to Feature B is located outside the boundaries of the present project to the east of Feature A. The Feature A block is constructed of formed concrete and has been painted green (Figure 57). The block measures 4' 7 %" (1.42 m) square at the top, 5' 7 %" (1.72 m) square at the base and 3' 6 W (1.07 m) in height. There is a recessed area on top of the block that is 1' (0.3 m) square) and 1 '/4" (0.03 m) deep. No cultural remains are present. The Feature B concrete pad is located 12.0 m to the south-southwest of Feature A. This feature is comprised of formed concrete and is 4' 11 1/4" (1.52 m) square and 1 W (0.04 m) in height above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 58). No cultural remains are present. The features at Site 2 146 are interpreted as foundations based on their formal type and appearance. The Feature A foundation likely served as a support for a concrete post. It is identical in dimensions to the post support foundation at the nearby Feature C at 2144, Site 2140 and several other features, except unlike the others, the interior cavity is filled with concrete. The Feature B foundation is too small to have supported a building and likely was used for equipment or a tower facility. The site is assessed as significant for information content. It is unaltered and in good condition. Site 2147 is a complex of 73 small oval-shaped, unformed concrete pads created by pouring concrete directly onto stone outcrops. These features are present in the seaward portion of the project area, extending between Sites 2135 in the west to Site 2143 in the east (see Figure 11). These feature vary slightly in size and shape but most are oval in plan and average 1' 1 K" (0.35 m) in length and 9 %I" (0.24 m) in width (Figures 59, 60 and 61). Most of these features have been troweled smooth on the surface. Electrical wires (bare copper and white plastic coated) extend from the long ends of these pads. E Figure 56, Sitc 2 145, Fcatwe A and B Concretc Pads, vicw to east Figure 57. Sitc 2146, Feature A Concrete Block, view to northwest Figure 58. Site 2146, Feature B Concrete Pad, view lo north The Site 2147 concrete pads apparently functioned to secure wiring that served the towers and associated equipment. The bare copper wiring probably served to ground-protect towers and equipment during electric storms. The other wires probably provided electric power and monitoring communication. The site is unaltered and in fair to good condition. Subsurface Testing Subsurface testing was undertaken in 20 locations during the project. This testing involved the excavation of 20 0.5 m by 0.5 m test units, located in the inland half of the project area (see Figure 11). Four of the units were located within the large depression in the northwestern portion of the project area (TU-8, -9, -10 and -12) and eight were located to the north, south and east (TU-11, -13, -14, -16 thru -20). The eight remaining units (TU-1 thru -7, and -15) were located along the northern project boundary to the east of the depression. The excavations revealed similar stratigraphy throughout the parcel consisting of a surface layer over decomposing bedrock (Table 3). The profiles for the 20 units are depicted in Figures 62 through 65. The surface layer consists of a dark reddish brown sandy silt to clay silt with 10 to 50% cobble, pebble and small boulder inclusions. This layer varied in thickness from 0.07 to 0.4 m with an average depth of 0.19 m. The layer was designated Layer I in 19 of the units although in TU-18 it was overlain by a layer of decaying organic material. Wires were present in two of the test units (TU-2 and -16) and clear glass and waterworn coral were present in one unit (TU-3). No cultural remains were present in the deposit in the remaining units. A sand lens was noted at the base of Layer I in two of the test units (Layer I1 in TU-1 and -2), located at the northeastern end of the parcel. This deposit consisted of 0.02 to 0.06 m of a brown sand. Marine shells (2 Neritapicea and 1 waterworn shell) and one bird bone were present in Layer I1 in TU-1, although no cultural remains were present in TU-2. The subsoil throughout the parcel was comprised of a dark reddish sandy silt to clay silt saprolite with 0 to 60% pebble inclusions. This deposit is represented by Layer I1 in TU-8, -9, -1 1 and -15 and by Layer I11 in TU-1 and -2. The remaining units were terminated on the saprolitic layer, with the exception of TU-14 and -15, which were terminated on saprolite and bedrock. No cultural remains were present within this deposit. Examples of the test units examined during the present project are illustrated in Figures 66 and 6 7. Table 3. Summary of Test Unit Stratigraphy Comment Clay silt with 500h cobble and No cultural remains Nerita picea (n=2,0.4 grams), bud bone (n=l, 2.0 g), waterwon marine shell (n=l, 0.2 g) 19 20 No cultural remains; Saprolite Wire present I I No cultural remains No cultural remains; Saprolite 0.06-0.07 0.07-0.09 Clear glass (n=l, 0.3g), waterworn coral (n=3,0.2 g); Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite 0.07 0.09 No cultural remains No cultural remains; Saprolite Dark reddish brown Dark reddish brown No cultural remains No cultural remains; Saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite 2.5YR 314 2.5YR 314 No cultural remains No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite and bedrock Clay silt with 300/0 pebble inclusions Clay silt with 100/o pebble inclusions No cultural remains No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite and bedrock Wie present; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite No cultural remains; Terminated on saprolite /I Layer I - Dab reddish brow1 (5YK 314) sandy silt with 50% cobble, pebble G'., j f --- 11 - and small boulder inclusions: No cultural senlains Laycr 11 - Brown (IOYK 4i3) sand lens: miuinc shell and bird bone Laycr 111 - Dark reddish brown (2.5YK 314) sandy silt with 60% pcbblc inclusions: Saprolitc: No cultural rcnlains Layer I - Ihrk rctldish brown (5YH 3N) sandy silt will1 50% cohhlc. pclhlc and anall boulda inclusions: Wire present Laycr ll - Brown (IOYK W3) sirnd lens: No cultulnl remains Lnyer 111 - Dark reddish brown (2.5YK 314) sandy silt with 60% pebble inclusions; Saprolitc; No cultuml remains Layer 1 - Dark reddish brown (2.5YK 314) clay silt with 50% cobble and pcbblc inclusions; Glass fragnlcnt and watcrwom corn1 present 0 5Ocm Laycr 1 - ark reddish brown (2.5YK 3i4) clay silt with 50% cobble and pebble inclusions; No cultu~d reniains L, I - Dark reddish brow1 (2.IYR 314) clay silt with 50% cobble and pcbblc inclusions: No oultunl ~rmains 0 Ocm Figure 62. West Face Profiles of TUs 1-5 59 I Lilycr I - Oark reddish brown (Z.5YK 314) clay sill with 20% rubble ;md pcbblc inclusions: No cultu~:~l remains Lnyw I - hk reddish brown (5YK 313) sandy silt with 30% cobble and pebble inclusions: No cultul.il1 remains Lnyer 11 - Dark I-cddish brown (5Y R 314) clay silt with 60% pcbblc inclusions; Snprolitc; No cultu~.ill rcmains Laycr 1 - Dark reddish brown (SYK 313) sandy silt with 30% cobble and pcbblc inclusions: No cultuml remains Layer I1 - Dark reddish brown (5Y R 311) clay silt with 60% pebble inclusions: Saprolitc; No cultural remains TU-I0 Wires Layer 1 - Dark reddish brown (iYK 313) sill with 50% cobble and pebble inclusions; No cultunl ren~ains 'igure 63. West Face Profiles of TUs 6-1 0 60 TU- I I 0 0 6 OrS. aoa, c3 30 0 Layer I - Dark reddish brown (5YK 313) sandy silt with 20% cobble and pcbblc inclusions: No cultural rcmrtins II Layer 11 - Dark brown (7.5YK 3/3) clay silt: No cultural remains Layer 1 - Layer 1 Laycr l - Dark 1-cddis1i brown (5YK 313) clay silt with 20% cobble nnd pebble inclusions: No cultu~nl rc~nains Dark l-cddish brown (SYR 3/3) clay silt with 30% cobble and pcbblc inclusions; No cultund rcnwins Dark ~xddish brown (5YK 31.3) clay silt with 30% cobblc and pcbblc inclusions; No cultur.~l mrniiins TU-15 Laym I - Dark rcddish brown (SYK 313) clay silt with 10% cobblc and pcbblc inclusions; No cultu~nl remains Laycr 11 - Dark brown (7.SYK 313) clay silt with 15% pchblc inclusions: Saprolite; No cultural remains 0 50cm Figure 64. West Face Profiles of TUs 1 1 - 15 61 r - I o Ocm TU- I9 Layer 1 - Dark rcddish brown (SYK 313) sandy silt : Wire present Layer 1 - Dark rcddish brow1 (5YK 314) clay silt with 20% pcbblc inclusions; No cultun~l rcmains Layer 1 - Mulch; No cultulal irlnains Layer I1 - Uark rcddish brown (SYK 314) clay silt with 5% pcbblc inclusions: No cultu~nl remains Laycr I - Dark ~uddish brown (2.5YK 3/4) cloy silt with 20% pcbblc inclusions; No culturirl rcmitins Laycr 1 - Uark lddish brow11 (2.5YK 3i4) clay silt with 10% pcbblc inclusions; No cultuml scrnains Figure 65. West Face Profiles of TUs 16-20 62 Figure 66. Post-excavation of TU-3, view to northeast CONCLUSION Discussion The survey results generally confum the expectations derived from historical and archaeological background research. No traditional Hawaiian sites were identified within the parcel. The absence of such sites is not surprising given the extensive historic use of the area. The survey documented 18 sites with 128 features consisting of concrete pads, concrete slabs, concrete blocks, posts, artifact scatters, terraces, paths, walls, a ditch, a road, stairs, a utility box and a walled slab. Subsurface testing was conducted throughout the inland portion of the project area revealing a shallow surface layer of dark reddish brown sandy silt to clay silt overlying decomposing bedrock. Historic debris consisting of wire and clear glass were present in three of the units. One unit contained a sand lens that yielded a small quantity of marine shell and a bird bone. Most of the identified features are remnants of the U.S. Coast Guard LORAN Station (LORSTA Kauai) that was in operation between 195 1 and 1979. A few features on the periphery of TMK: 2-8-02 1 :43, where a USCG LHS navigation aid is situated, may have been associated with previous facilities that were initially installed in 1908 and continue in use today. As discussed, the majority of the features consist of formed concrete structures of varying size and shape. These features are summarized in Table 4. The features can be grouped into several categories based on morphology and function as follows: (1) features associated with the main LORAN station, (2) wiring anchors, (3) tower baseslequipment mounts, (4) possible wastewater utility features, (5) guy wire anchors, (6) 5' square pads, (7) 5'6-8" square post supports, (8) foundations of indeterminate function, and (9) modem landscaping features. The distribution of these categories is presented in Figure 68. The main buildings of the station are represented by the Site 2 130 complex in the northwestern portion of the project area. These features consist of concrete structural foundations, roads, paths, and utility and drainage features. Site 2142, Feature C at Site 2143, and the 72 features of Site 2147 all consist of small, unformed concrete pads poured directly on exposed bedrock that apparently served as wiring anchors. The features are clustered in the central seaward portion of the project area (see Figure 11). The features apparently secured wiring for the antenna array and associated equipment. Wires protruding from these pads consist of bare copper and plastic-sleeved wires that functioned as grounds, and to transmit electrical power and monitoring communications. There is a large area covered with a deposit of small rusted metal fragments (Site 2136, Feature B; see Figure 37) that is centrally located on the seaward side of the anchor cluster (see Figure 68). The dense deposit of gravel-sized fragments rusted metal probably came from the large, 230 ft high metal tower that was the main antenna of the LORAN antenna array (see Figure 22). Rust removal and associated maintenance was probably necessary on a regular basis for such metal structures sited adjacent to the ocean. One small concentration of eight anchors is situated adjacent to Feature C of Site 2 135 (see Figure 34) next to the navigation aid at the west end of overall anchor cluster. Feature C is an area covered with a similar deposit of rusted metal fragments that also likely indicate the former presence of a metal tower. Two inscriptions are present on concrete pads adjacent to Feature C (see Figure 68, Inscriptions 1 and 2) that indicate a US LHS facility and a date of February 1922. No anchors are present on the seaward sides of these metal fragment concentrations, possibly because the towers were designed to sendlreceive radio signals primarily in a southerly direction. At least three features (Site 21 34, and 2 139, Features A and D) are probably anchors for guy wires that stabilized the main metal tower. Table 4. Suntrtiary of Concrete Features Site 2130 21-30 Feuture A J3 Type Slab Slnb Length IT 7 Y" 14' 3%" Width T I 1%" 7 1%" Depth 2' 5%" 1' 7%" shape Rcctongubr Rcclangubr Comhuction Formd concmte Formbd concretc Associated c lemena I'rcjcctions nnd stcps Projccliot~s u~vl stcps Potc nth1 function Fouiut?tion hr LOKSTA builditg I~o~u~liOn lbr LOKSTA builditp Similar kutut~s in ptujcct ntyu Table X Summary of Cot~crete Feattires (conL) Site 2139 2 140 2141 2142 2143 2143 2144 2 144 2144 2154 2144 2145 2145 214 214 + 2147 Feature 1) A C A B C D E A a A B 72 fcns. Type Post Block Pad Pod Slab Pad Block Pnd Pad Pnd Pad Pad Pad Block Pad Pad Lrngth 1' 7 X' 5' 7 Y" 2'9 ?4" 1'3%' 14' 9 %" I' I 1 X S G %* 91" 4' 11 'A" 2' 7 #" 2'8 %* 6 5 X' 3'2 X' 5'7%" 4' 11 3" I I Y Wdth I' 7 X" 9 6 %" 2'4 #" 8%" G 8%' 1' 3 3' 9 6 %' 411%" 4 ll Y" 1' I I X" 2 Y." 3'3" T %" 97%" 4 11 Y" 9%" Height1 DE th 4 3 H" 3' 8 X" 2 %" L X" 10%" I' 9 ?4 3 G 'X" 6%" 1' 3" 10 X" I' 2X" 2 %" 3 K" 3'G%" I X" 2%" Shnpc Squnrc Squnrc Rccta~~ulnr Oval Rcctargular lrrcgllnr Squnrc Squnrc Squnrc Rcctsr~ular Rectangular Rccteqular Rcctatppbr Squarc Squmrc Oval Construction Formcd cmrctc and lnetal Formed concrclc Formed concrctc Pmucd illto ground For:ormcdcmrctc Pourcd onto outcrop Formed concretc Formed concrctc Formd concrctc Formed concrctc Formed concrctc Fmrd concrctc Formedconcntc Formd concrctc Fd collcrctc Pourcd onto outcrop Associuted elements Mctnl hckct and strnp Rcccsscd am on top \\'it11 \vd pok Rcctangulnr confgurat~on of bolts nnl plntc on surfacc Two mnnhok cowrs Vertical concrete column m ccntcr Metal attschmncnt. 7- 17-74: 7,ittk: SKI" n~d Flcnrt wrth nrrour Rccesscd arcs on top Pute ntiul function Ciu! \\ ~rc nnchor Post st~pport Tower lwrsc M cquipmnt munl Wlr111g anclw Utilitv kzaturc (wastc\\?itcr?) W~rtng anchor I'cnt support I.'ou~&tion for ? I:oumd&n~ for ? 'I'owcr htsc or cquipmenl nmmr I ou~ldaii for ? I ou~idntio~i for :' I otndntioo for ? Post support I ounbuon for ? W~nngnnchors Similar featu~vs in ptapct atra 2134.2139-A 2137-A.2139-B, 2144-A, 2I4G-A 2 133A 2143-C, 2147 2130-C and E 2142,2137 2137-A.2139-B. 2140.2IJGA 2135-A.2139-C.214GB 2137 2l37-A.2139-F3.2140.2IJJ-A 2135-A.2133-C.2144-C 2142.2 133-C 1 - Feature 2 135-B 2-sell 16 1922 (Fqyre 33) 2- Feature 2135-B US LHS (Figure 34 3- Feature 2139-B 7-1 6- 74 - BLACtfOWSW - U.S.C.G. (Figure 40) 4- Feature 2144-D 7-1 7-74 - "Li.CCbSKf" - U.S.C.G. (F1gw-e 59 / / .. f - Feature Associated wtih main LORAN Station Wiring Anchor Tower Base or Equipment Mount @ Utility Feature (Wastewater?) X Guy Wire Anchor 5' Square Pads A 5' 6-8" Square Post Support Figure 68. Distribution of Associated Features within Project Area Three features (Site 2143-A and Site 2130-C and -E; see Figures 13 and 49) are formed concrete surfaces with round metal manhole covers. The covers resemble ones usually associated with wastewater transmission systems. The two at Site 2130 would have been located in or adjacent to the two story building in the depression at the west side of the main LORAN facility (see Figure 22). The location of these features at the lowest elevation within the main facility would be consistent with a main facility-wide gravity-fed wastewater drainage system. Feature 2134-A has two manhole covers and is situated in a relatively isolated location at the coast in the central portion of the project area. The isolated, coastal location may indicate that the system was designed to drain into the ocean; however, no evidence of a buried pipeline connecting the two facilities was observed during the survey. Much of the intervening terrain is exposed bedrock or bedrock covered with a shallow soil deposit that would have required substantial effort to excavate. It is possible that the pipeline was on the surface and was subsequently removed. Alternatively, these manhole covers may represent access points to subterranean vaults unrelated to wastewater, potentially electrical utilities. Six features within the project area likely functioned as tower bases or mounts for equipment based on the presence of bolts and other metal hardware protruding from formed, concrete pads (see Figure 68). These consist of Features 2 13 1-E, 2 133-A, 2 136-A, 2 137-B, 2141, and 2144-D. Four of these features are situated in a roughly linear pattern, 150-200 fi (46-61 m) apart extending from the central coast to the southwest side of the large depression. The other two are situated approximately 350 ft (107 m) apart along the inland side of the project area adjacent to The Point at Po'ipii resort. One feature fiom each group is dated to July 1974 (see Figure 68, Inscriptions 3 and 4). There are two standardized types of formed concrete features that have nearly identical dimensions, and probably had similar functions. One type consists of standardized formed concrete blocks and the other of formed concrete pads. The first type consists of five concrete blocks that are c. 5'6" to 5' 8" square at the base tapering to 4' 8" square at the top (Features 2137-A, 2139-B, 2140,2144-A and 2146- A). The features range from 3' 5" to 3' 8" in height and have a square hole in the upper surface that served to support a large 'telephone pole" size post (see Figure 46). Three of these features (2 137-A, 21 39-B, and 2140) probably support the three poles that were part of the LORAN antenna array seaward of the main facility (see Figure 22). The other two pole supports are situated at the east end of the properly. One has a reinforced concrete pole remnant (2144-A; see Figure 52) and the hole the other one is filled with concrete (2146-A; see Figure 57). The second standardized concrete feature type consists of four concrete pads that are 4' 11 %" square (Features 2135-A, 2139-C, 2135-A, and 2146-B; "5' Square Pads" in Figure 68). One of these (2135-A) is categorized as a block because it is nearly two feet thick, potentially a result of erosion exposing the lower half of the feature (see Figure 32). These features likely sewed as foundations for some type of small structure, facility, or equipment, but lack any attachment hardware. It is notable that all except one of these features is situated within approximately 50-95 fi (15-29 m) of a standardized post support feature, the only exception is the isolated post support (Site 2140) in the large depression. This apparent pairing probably indicates a functional relationship between these two standardized feature types. There are ten pads of variable size that are categorized as indeterminate foundations (Features 2130-D, 2130-F, 2132-A, 2132-B, 2133-B, 2133-C, 2144-B, 2144-E, 2145-A, and 2145-B). The distribution of these features is shown in Figure 68. All appear to be paired with one other pad. Two are situated within the LORAN main facility in the inland portion of the project area. The others are situated in the eastern (2 pairs) and western (2 pairs) coastal portions of the project area. These features likely also served as foundations for some type of small structure, facility, or equipment. The pairing and overall distribution probably indicates a functional relationship between the features. Significance Assessment ksuant to DLNR (1998) Chapter 275-6 (d), the initial significance assessments provided herein are not fmal until concurrence fiom the DLNR has been obtained. Sites identified during the survey are assessed for significance based on the criteria outlined in the Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review (DLNR 1998: Chapter 275). According to these rules, a site must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion "a". Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion "b". Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion "c". Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; Criterion "d". Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; and Criterion "e". Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts--these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. The 18 sites identified within the project area are assessed as significant solely under Criterion "d". The sites have yielded information important for understanding historic land use in project area. Recommended Treatments The sites within the project area have been adequately documented and no further work or preservation is recommended. Although extensive subsurface testing did not identify subsurface cultural deposits or burials, it is recommended that any future development-related land disturbance be archaeologically monitored during the initial site work because significant deposits and burials were found on the adjacent property. The monitoring would be guided by a monitoring plan prepared for DLNR- SHPD review and approval. References Alexander, Arthur 1985 Koloa Plantation 1835-1935. Kauai Historical Society. Lihue. Bennett, Wendell C. 193 1 The Archaeology ofKaua 'i, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80, Honolulu, HI. Burgess, Stella 201 1 Interview on 26 April 201 1. Audio Recording on File at Ham & Associates. Ching, F., S.L. Palama and C. Stauder 1974 The Archaeology of Kona Kaua'i na ahupua 'a Weliweli, Pa'a, Miihii 'ulepii: Surface Survey of the Coastal Lands, Archaeological research Center Hawai'i, Lawa'i, Kaua'i. Ching, Harold 1985 Hawaii's Chinese Pioneers: Notes in the Chinese Historical Society. For Koloa's 1985 multi- Anniversary Jubilee Cook, James 1784 A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean: Undertaken, by the Command of His Majesty, for Making Discoveries in the Northern Hemisphere, to Determine the Position and Extent of the West Side of North America; its Distance fiom Asia; and the Practicability of a Northern Passage to Europe. Volume II. Dublin. Creed, V., G. Ida, and H. Hammatt 1995 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for Po'ipii Road Safety Improvements, Po'ipii, Kaua'i (TMK: 2-8-15, 16, 17 & 18), Cultural Surveys Hawai'i, Kailua, Hawai'i. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) 2003 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division. Dockall, J., H. Hammatt, U. Rainalter, and S. Masciengelo 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Po'ipii Beach Park, Mauka Preserve, Kdoa Ahupua'a, Kona District, Farley, J.K. 1907 Notes on Maulili Pool, K6loa. Thrum's Annual, Honolulu, HI. Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Fornander, Abraham 191 8 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore: The Hawaiians' Account of the Formation of their Islandr and Origin of Their Race, with the Traditions of Their Migrations, Etc., as Gatheredfiom Original Sources. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume V, 1918-1919. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, H.I. Firor, J., P. Rosendahl and S. Goodfellow 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Grove Farm, Kawailoa Property, Land of Mahaulepu, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHFU Report 597-123091 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Lihue, HI. Firor, J. and P. Rosendahl 1992 Additional Data Collection, Hyatt Regency Kauai, Proposed Golf Course Project Area, Land of Paa, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 447 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. and Ainako Resorts Associates. Fredsplace.org nd. The Place to Meet Old Shipmates website (www.fredsplace.org) Hammatt, H 1989a Archaeological Data Recovery Plan for Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa'a, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Landmark Suites of America, Inc. 1989b A Burial Treatment Plan for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa'a, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Landmark Suites of America, Inc. 1 99Oa Preliminary Report on Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa'a, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Sweeny Development Company, Inc. 1990b Preliminary Status Report on Further Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa'a, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Sweeny Development Company, Inc. 1992 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Po'ipii Road and LBwaLi Road Junction, Kbloa, Kaua'i, Cultural Surveys Hawai'i Inc., Kailua, Hawai'i. Hammatt, H.H., J.H. Toenjes 199 1 Archaeological Data Recovery and Construction Monitoring at the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa'a, Kaua'i (TMK 4-2-8-20: 1 & 4-2-8-2 1 : 1). Prepared for Sweeney Development Company. Hammatt, H. , R.M. Bordner and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle 1978 Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed Kiahuna Golf Village Area, Kbloa, Kona, Kaua'i Island, Hawai'i, A.R.C.H., LZwa'i, Kaua'i. Hammatt, H., D. Borthwick, D. Shideler and M. Stride 1988 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Kukuiula Bay Planned Community, Koloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for R.M. Towill Corporation. Hammatt, H., W. Folk and M. Stride 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Poipulani Golf Course and Residential Development, Koloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Poipulani Development Corporation. Hammatt, H., G. Ida, and W. Folk 1993a Archaeological Survey of 7.6 Acres at Kbloa, Kaua'i, TMK: (4) 2-8-14:30, Cultural Surveys Hawai'i, Kailua, Hawai'i. Hammatt, H., G. Ida, W. Folk, D. Shideler, and B. Collins 1993b Archaeological Testing and Monitoring at Poi'pu Beach Park, Koloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report. Handy, E.S.C., E.G. Handy, M.K. Pukui 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii, Their Life, Lore, & Environment. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI Hill, R., T. Tulchin, J. Tulchin and H. Hammatt 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey for a 8.633-acre Parcel at Koloa. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Eric A, Knudsen Trust Ida, G., V. Creed and H. Hammatt 1996 Archaeological Investigation for Environmental Assessment of the proposed KoloaPoipu Bypass Road, Koloa, Weliweli, Kona, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii Report prepared for Wilson Okamoto and Associates. Joesting Edward 1987 Kauai: The Separate Kingdom. University of Hawaii Press Judd, Bernice 1935 Koloa: A Sketch of its Development. In Kaua'i Museum Material, Section 11. Unpublished Manuscript. Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik (editors) 1998 Atlas of Hawaii, Third Edition. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Kailihiwa, S., A. Haun, and J. Henry 20 1 1 Cultural Impact Assessment, TMK: (4) 2-8-02 1 :O4 1, Makahuena Point, Weliweli Ahupuaca, Kbloa District, Island of Kaua'i, Haun & Associates Report 811 prepared for CIRI Land Decvelopment Company. Kamakau, S. 1992 Ruling Chiefs ofHawaii. [Revised] Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. [I842 and 1870.1 Kikuchi, W. 1963 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kauai, Kona District, Hawaiian Islands. Sponsored by University of Hawaii Committee for the Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art, and Culture. 1980 Letter Report on Archaeological Reconnaissance of Keoneloa Beach Area, Koloa, Kauai. Prepared for ADM International. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Multi-Family Rental Subdivision, Pa'anau Camp, Ahupua'a of Kbloa, Kbloa District, Kaua'i, TMK 2-6-04:46. Archaios, Lawa'i, Kaua'i, HI Knudsen, Augustus 19 13 "The Defeat of Kamehameha's Army". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1914. The Reference Book of Information and Statistics Relating to the Territoly of Hawaii, of Value to Merchants, Tourists and Others pp136-141. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu T.H. Krauss, Beatrice H. 1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. Ladd, E.J. 198 1 Archaeological Field Survey Report, Makahuena Point, Kauai. Prepared for the 14" Coast Guard District. Landrum, J. 1984 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Alexander and Baldwin's Lands at Kukuiula, Koloa, Kauai. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. loran-histoy info nd. Loran Station Kauai. httv://www.loran-history.info/kauaikauai.htm McMahon, Nancy 1991 Locating Kane'aukai Heiau, an Archaeological and Historical Synthesis, Weliweli, Koloa, Hawaii. Mitchell, A., R. Chiogioji, H.H. Harnrnatt 2005 Cultural Impact Assessment for an Approximately 203-Acre Parcel in Kdoa Ahupua'a, Kona District, Island of Kaua'i, TMK (4) 2-18--013:OOl; 2-8-014:001, 002, 003, 004, and 019. Prepared for the Eric A. Knudsen Trust. Neller, E. 1981 An Archaeological Assessment of recent Disturbances to Archaeological Sites in the Poipu Kai Subdivision, Pa'a, Kauai. Historic Sites Section, De[t. of Natural resources. O'Hare, C., D. Shideler and H. Hammatt 2003 An Archaeological Assessment of Lands in the Sheraton Kauai Resort at Koloa Ahupua'a, Kauai Island. Cultural Surveys Hawaii Report. Palama, Stephen L. 1973 The Archaeology of Kona, Kaua'i fiom the Ahupua'a of Koloa to the Ahupua'a of Weliweli: Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cane Haul Papakilo Database nd. Milhele 'Aha Index - Foreign Testimony - Helu 5219. httD://vavakilodatabase.com/main/imaidima~ese~er.vhv?file=Ol138.vdf&vath=H/A~SM/7/1/5/1/1 Pukui, M.K., S.H. Elbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary, Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian, Revised and Enlarged Edition. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, HI Smith, H.W. 1991 Historical Documentary Research. Archaeological Inventory Survey Grove Farm Kawailoa Property Additional Parcel, Land of Mahaulepu, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. Walker and Goodfellow 1991. Appendix B pp. B-1 to B-1 1. Spanamwar.com nd. Spanish American War Centennial War Website. http://www.spanamwar.com/ Stokes, J.F.G. 1946 "Dune Sepulture, Battle Mortality, and Kamehameha's Alleged Defeat on Kauai". Hawaii Historical Review Annual Report 1946. Honolulu, HI. Thrum, Thomas G. 1906 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands." Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907. Honolulu. Townsend, John K. 1839 Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River, and a Visit to the Sandwich Islanh, Chili, &c. with a ScientiJic Appendix. Henry Perkins, Philadelphia, PA. Tulchin, T. and H. Hammatt 2005 Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection for an 8.5-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Eric A. Knudson Trust. USCG 1946 The Coast Guard at War IV, LORAN Volume 11. Prepared in the Historical Section Public Information Division U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. Aug. 1, 1946. uscg.mil nd. United States Coast Guard. (www.uscg.mi1) USLHS.org nd. The United States Lighthouse Society website (uslhs.org) Van Ryzin, K. and H. Hammatt 2004 Archaeological Data Recovery of the Eric A. Knudson Trust Lands. Koloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Eric A. Knudson Trust. Walker, A. and P. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hyatt Regency Kauai, Proposed Golf Course Project Area, Land of Paa, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 447-1 11591 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. and Ainako Resorts Associates. Walker, A. and S. Goodfellow 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Grove Farm Kawailoa Property, Additional Property, Land of Mahaulepu, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 597-063092 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Lihue, HI. Walker, A. P. Rosendahl and S. Goodfellow 1992 Archaeological Data Recovery, Phase 11, Hyatt Regency Kauai Mitigation Program, Land of Paa, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 472 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Lihue, Kauai. Westewelt, William D. 1916 Hawaiian Legends of Ghosts and Ghost-God. Forgottenl3ooks.org 19 17 "A Hawaiian High Chief -A-Lau-Niu-Ohua (The leaf of the fruitful coconut), who lived about 1270 (According to Fornander) or 1300 (according to Kamakau)." me Friend, December 19 17. Wigglesworh, K. and D. Graves 1992 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Grove Farm Quany Relocation Project, Land of Mahaulepu, Koloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 1263 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Lihue, HI. Wyman, Jefiies 1868 "Observations on Crania." Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. Vol XI. 1866- 1868. Press of Abner A. Kingman, Boston, MA. pp 440-462. Yorck, J., R. Chiogioji, and H. Hammatt 2004 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a 9.4-Acre Parcel along Waikomo Stream, Kdoa Ahupua'a, Kona District, Kaua'i Island, (TMK: (4) 2-6-04: 19 Portion), Cultural Surveys Hawai'i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai'i. Yorck, J., J. Madeus, Tulchin, T., S. Freeman, J. Dockall and H. Hammatt 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey for Makai Portion of Parcel 19 of the Eric A. Knudson Trust Lands. Koloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Eric A. Knudson Trust. Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services 73-1168 Kahuna A'o Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 Phone: (808) 325-2402 Fax: 325-1520 December 2,2012 Project 810 Pua Aiu, Ph.D., SHPD Administrator State Historic Preservation Division Department of Land and Natural Resources 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Suite 555 Kapolei, Hawai'i 96707 Subject: Final Archaeological Inventory Survey for a 13.6-acre Project Area Weliweli Ahupua'a, Koloa District, Island of Kauai TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041 (A.E. Haun, D. Henry and S. Kailihiwa 2011, Report 810-042611) Dear Dr. Aiu: The subject final archaeological inventory survey (AIS) is enclosed. The draft AIS was revised based on Division review comments dated August 27, 2012 (LOG NO: 2011.1830; DOC NO: 1208SL18). The 12 review comments listed in the ATTACHMENT to the review letter are listed below followed by our response and associated revisions. Project Area Description 1. Revise (page 1) from "the project are varies" to "the project area varies". Response: Corrected 2. Revise Fig 1 caption to include map date. Response: Revised as requested, listing map date of 1996 Previous Archaeological Research 3. Revise Thrum (1907) to Thrum (1906). Response: Revised as requested 4. Revise (page 13) from "He also identified a series of walls at designated as" to "He also identified a series of wall designated as". Response: Revised to read, "He also identified a series of walls designated as". 5. Revise (page 17) from "The features 98 concrete pads," to "The features consist of 98 concrete pads". Response: Revised as requested 6. Revise Table 1- to include the following studies shown in Fig 8: Palama 1973; Hammatt 1992; Hammatt et al. 1993a, and Hill et al. 1996. Response: Revised as requested. Date of Hill et at. changed from 1996 to 2005, which is the correct date 7. Revise Fig 8 -to include the following studies listed in Table 1: Walker and Goodfellow 1991; Hill et al. 2005 Response: Revised as requested Haun & Associates December 2,2012 Findings 8. Revise format glitches (see sentences not right justified) in which dimensions (feet & inches) are overwritten/jumbled: page 19-last 4 paragraphs; page 24 - 3rd paragraph; page 26-1st paragraph (see also - Figure 16)); page 31-2nd paragraph; page 34-3rd and 4th paragraphs; page 42-2nd paragraph; page 45-3rd paragraph (see also "remain ns are"); page 494th) Sth, & 8th paragraphs; page 53-last paragraph. Response: Revised as requested Subsurface Testing 9. Revise (page 57) from "Five of the units were located" to "Four of the units were located". Response: Revised as requested 10. Revise (page 58) Table 3 line subdividing TU 18 into 2 blocks - i.e., layers I and II should both apply to TU-18. Response: Revised as requested 11. Revise (page 61) Fig 64 stratum I label in TU-14. Response: Revised as requested References Cited 12. Revise - Firor 1992 appears in Table 1 and Fig 8 but not in bib; Firor & Rosendahl1992 appears in bib but not in Table 1, Fig 8 or text; Firor et al. 1991 appears in Table 1 and Fig 8 but not in bib; Revise to include the following citation mentioned in text but absent from bib: Knudsen 1914 (see page 7; story dates 1914 but citation is 1913); Kamakau 1992 (see page 8); Thrum citation should read: Thrum, Thomas 1906 "Heiaus and Heiau Sites throughout the Hawaiian islands." Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907. Honolulu. Response: Firor 1992 changed to Firor & Rosendahl 1992 in Table 1, Figure 8 and references Firor et al. 1991 added to references Knutson 1914 changed to 1913 on page 7 -correct in references Kamakau 1992 added to references Thrum 1906 citation modified in references If you have any further questions, or require any additional information, please contact me at (808) 325-2402. Principal Investigator Encl. Report, CD, Copy of Review Letter cc: ClRl Land Development Co. NEIL hBERCROIlRlE (jO\'ER.OR OF IiANAIhlt August 27,2012 Dr. Alan E. Haun, Principal Investigator Haun &Associates 73- 1 168 Kahuna A'o Road ICailua-Kona. Hawaii 96740 Dear Dr. Haun: PAUL J. COSROI' hMlLl FIRST DFPUn HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Suite 555 Kapolei. HI 96806 LOG NO: 201 1.1830 DOC NO: l2O8SLI8 Archaeology SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review - Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 13.6 Acres, Makahuena Point Weliweli Ahupua'a, Kaloa District, Island of Kaua'i TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041 Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report titled Archaeological Inwntoiy Survey TMK: (4) 2-8- 021 :O4I Makahzrena Point, Weliweli Ahupua 'a, K6loa District, Island of Kaua 'i (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa, June 201 1). This document was received by our office on June 6, 201 1; we apologize for the delayed review and thank you for your patience. This report presents the findings of an archeological inventory survey that was conducted on a 13.6-acre parcel and involved a 100% pedestrian surface survey. Sites were defined as clusters of features less than 15 m apart. The exception was a site designation applied to a series of widely scattered, nearly identical small concrete pads. The archaeological survey identified 18 sites comprised of a total of 128 features. All of the sites and features &e identified as remnants of US federal government navigation-related infrastructure. The majority of the remains are associated with the former US Coast Guard Long Range Navigation (LORAN) station that operated at the point from 1951 to 1979. The documented features consist of 98 concrete pads, 7 concrete blocks, 4 artifact scatters, 4 posts, 3 terraces, 3 slabs, 2 paths, 2 walls, and one each of the following: ditch, road, stairs, utility box. and wall slab. Subsurface testing consisted of the excavation of 20 test units. No intact subsurface cultural deposits were identified during the testing. The 18 sites are assessed as significant solely under Hawaii Register of Historic Places (HRIIP) Criterion "d" for their information content, and are recommended as having been adequately documented. No further work or presentation is recommended. Although no subsurface cultural deposits were identified during subsurface testing, archaeological monitoring is recommended for future ground-disturbing activities because significant deposits and burials were found on the adjacent property. SHPD agrees with the proposed significance assessments and treatment recommendations. The archaeological inventory survey report provides an excellent discussion of field methods, archival and historical background, previous archaeological investigations, and the project findings and sites. This report meets the requirements of Hawaii Administrative Rule 13-276-5 and is accepted bv SHPD with the understanding that some minor revisions are made in the final document (see attachment). ke t :nd one rdcopy of the document, clearly marked FINAL, along with a copy -. . ..- -7 cp L A- v -..- I-: ounn ..cc..- ...h..-6.-- cwnn r :L ---. - 8019 or St .A.Lebokaha\\~aii.~o\l if you have any questions ~rtca~c LUIILSLLL ~US~II n. LGUU ai (800) U~L- :ems regarding this letter. Aloha, Theresa K. Donham Archaeology Branch Chief Dr. Ham August 27,2012 Page 2 ATTACMMENT Comments and Questions: Archaeological Inventoiy Survey TMX.. (4) 2-8-021 :O4I Makahuena Point, Weliweli Ahupua 'a, Kdoa District, Island of Kazia 'i (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa, June 20 1 1). Project Area Description (1) Revise @age 1) fiom "the project are varies" to "the project area varies" (2) Revise Fig 1 caption to include map date. Previous Archaeological Research (3) Revise Thrum (1907) to Thnun (1906). (4) Revise (page 13) from "He also identified a series of walls at designated as" to "He also identified a series of wall designated as". (5) Revise (page 17) from "The features 98 concrete pads," to "The features consist of 98 concrete pads". (6) Revise Table 1 - to include the following studies shown in Fig 8: Palama 1973; Hamman 1992; Hammatt et al. 1993a, and Hill et al. 1996. (7) Revise Fig 8 -to include he-following studies listed in Table 1: Walker and Goodfellow 1991; Hill et al. 2005. Findings (8) Revise format glitches (see sentences not right justified) in which dimensions (feet & inches) are overwrittenJjumbled: page 19- last 4 paragraphs; page 24 - 3rd pargagraph; page 26-1st paragraph (see also C Figure 16)); page 3 1-2nd paragraph; page 34-3rd and 4th paragraphs; page 42-2nd paragraph; page 45- 3rd paragraph (see also "remain ns are"); page 49-4th,5th, & 8th paragraphs; page 53-last paragraph. Subsurface Testing (9) Revise (page 57) fiom Tive of the units were located" to "Four of the units were located". (10) Revise @age 58) Table 3 line subdividing TU 18 into 2 blocks - i.e., layers I and I1 should both apply to TU 18. (1 1) Revise (page 61) Fig 64 stratum I label in TU-14. References Cited (1 2) Revise - Firor 1992 appears in Table 1 and Fig 8 but not in bib; Firor & Rosendahl1992 appears in bib but not in Table 1, Fig 8 or text; Firor et al. 1991 appears in Table 1 and Fig 8 but not in bib; Revise to include the following citation mentioned in text but absent fiom bib: Knudsen 1914 (see'page 7; story dates 1914 but citation is 1913); Kamakau 1992 (see page 8); Thrum citation should read: Thrum, Thomas 1906 "Heiaus and Heiau Sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands." Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907. Honolulu. Bernard P. Cawalho, Jr. Mayor Gary K. Beu Managing ~kector Michael A. Dahilig Interim Director of Planning Dee M. Crowell Deputy Director of Planning f* nzm A T)TRR~~F County of Kauaci, State of Hawai'i 4444 Ricc Street, Suite A-473, Lihu'e, Hawai'i 96766 TEL (808) 241-'4050 FAX (808) 241-6699 SEP 1 9 2011 Galen T. Nakarnura SHIRAMIZU LOO & NAKAMURA 4357 Rice Street, Suite 201 Lihu'e, Hawai'i 96766 Subject: Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021:041 Po'ipii, Kaua'i This is to acknowledge receipt of your transmittal dated May 27,201 1 requesting a deteimination for the property referenced above. In considering your request, please understand that the definition of a "LOT" is being referenced pursuant to Section 9-1.5 of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, and it reads: "LOT means aportion of land shown as a unit on an approved and recorded subdivision map. " Based on the foregoing and information you've provided, the department recognizes the 25 parcels within the Makahuena Tract and further identified on File Plan 354 (Exhibit 2 of your transmit@) as existing lots of record. Howeverj. the department is unable to support the existence of Parcels L-1 through L-3 since there are no supporting documents that recognize the establishment of these parcels, Should you have .fUrther questions regarding this matter, please contact Dale A. Cua of my staff at 808.24l.4050. Aloha! ~CHAEL A. DAHILIG 4 Interim Director of Planning An Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N INDIVIDUAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM (IWS) REPORT FOR CIRI Land Development Company an Alaska corporation, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Inlet Region Inc., an Alaska Native corporation PREPARED BY: ESAKI SURVEYING & MAPPING, INC. 1610 HALEUKANA STREET LIHU'E, KAUA 'I, HAWAI'J 96766 (808)246-0625 EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT O-1 Mr. Dave Pfeifer Makahuena Point Project with associated open space and infrastructure. subdivision will be via Pe'e Road. Amb i ent Air Quality Standards Decembe r 20, 20 1 3 Page 2 Access to the new Both federal and s t ate standards have been established t o maintain ambient air quality. At t he present time, seven parameters are regulated including: particulat e matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen dioxide , carbon monoxide, ozone and l ead. Hawaii air q u ality s t andards are comparab l e to the national s t andards except those for nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide which are more stringent than the national standards. Re gional and Local Climatology Regional and local climate together with the amount and type of human activity often dictate the air quality of a given location. The climate of the Poipu area is very much affect ed by its situation along the southern coast of Kauai. Tab l e 1 shows monthly mean wind speed and direction data for Lihue Airport, which is abou t 10 mi l es to the northeast. These dat a can be expected to be reasonably representative of the p r oject site. Winds are predominantly trade winds f r om the northeast and provi de good ventilation much of the time. Monthly mean speeds are about 13 to 14 mph in summer and about 11 to 12 mph during t h e winter months. Daily wind speeds typically vary between abou t 10 and 25 miles per hour. Temperatures in the Poipu area are generally very consistent and mild. Average daily temperatures at Lihue Airport, which are not significantly different from the Poipu area, are about 70°F to 75°F. Wi nte r mont h s are only a few degrees cooler than summer. As indicated in Table 2, average annual rainfall in the Poipu area amounts to about 34 inch es, which means it is a moderately dry location. This is based on more than 50 years of data collected at nearby Puuhi. Summer months are the d r iest with an average of about 1 to 2 inches per month, while winter months receive about 4 to 5 inches. Existing Air Quality Conditions Air quality in the vicinity of the project site prese n tly is mostly affected by emissions from natu ral , industrial, Mr. Dave Pfeifer Makahuena Po i nt Project Decembe r 20, 2013 Page 3 agricultural and/or motor veh icle sources . The only air quality monitoring data t hat is presently collected on Ka ua i by the Hawaii Department of Health is obtained at Niumalu, which is about 7 miles to the northeast of t he Poipu area. The purpose of this monitoring station is primarily to mo ni tor emissions from cruise ships visiting Nawiliwili Harbor . Monitoring equipment is installed at the station to measure fi ne particulate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. This station only began operations in April 2011, so there is on ly a limited record available. The da ta reported to date suggest that air quality standards are currently being met, although a few higher concentrations of sulfur dioxide have been measured. Air quality in the Poipu area is believed to be good at the present time. Air Quality Impacts of Project The p rimary concern for this pro ject with respect to air quality is the short-term direct and indirect impacts that could potentially occur during project construction. For a project of this nature, there are two potential types of air pollution emissions that could directly result in short -term air q uality impacts during project construction: (1) fugitive dust from site clearing, soil excavation, aggrega t e processing and vehicle movement; and (2) exhaust emissions from the operation of on-site construction equipment. Indirectly, there also could be s ho rt- te rm air quality impacts from the disruption of traffic on nearby roadways, from slow -moving constru ction equipment traveli ng to and from the project site, and from a temporary increase in local traffic caused by commuting construction workers. For this project, the potent ial for offsite fugitive dust impacts during project construction is perhaps the most significant. This is because: 1) the project site borders existing residential uni t s on t he north and west; 2) the project site is located in a windy and relatively dry area; and 3} the project site is rocky with t hin layers of fine red soi l typical for much of Kauai. Although t he prevailing trade winds from the northeast will tend to move any fugiti ve dust emissions away from areas to the north of the site, residential areas to the west (The Makahuena Condominiums} could be impacted. Areas to the north or east may also be impacted at times when the occasional winds from the south or southwest occur. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 11-60.1-33 state, in pa rt , that no person shall cause or permi t visible fugitive dust to become airborne without taking reasonable precautions and that no Mr. Dave P feif e r Makahuena Point Project December 20, 2013 Page 4 person shall cause or permit the discharge of visible fugitive dust beyond the property lot line on which the f ugitive dust originates. Failure to comply with the fugit ive dust requirements may result in civil and administrative fines of up to $25,000 per day per violation. Thus, to avoid potential violations of these rules, and given the sensitive nature of the p rope rty, a comprehensive dust control plan should be prepared p ri or to beg inni ng construction. For this particular project, it may be appropriate to consider going beyond the norm or the traditional d us t control measures in an effort to avoid or reduce conflicts. The usual fugitive dust control measures for construction activities include : • Watering of land clearing and earth-moving activities • Applying water or dust suppressants on unpaved roads and material stockpiles • Installing dust screens or wind barriers around t he site boundary • Limiting vehicle speeds onsite • Paving or covering ingress and egress points to the site with crushed rock or other temporary covering material • Covering all moving , open -bod ied trucks transporting dusty materials • Keeping adjacent paved roads clean f rom soil tracked from the site (road cleaning and/or tire washing) • Limiting the amount of exposed areas through planning and timing of project phases • Mulching or chemically stabilizing inactive areas that have been worked . Installing dust screens as suggested above, while commonly done, would likely no t be overly effective in controlling dust if used as the sole means of addressing fugitive dust . In addition, some find dust screens aesthetically displeasing. Additional dust control measures could include: • Scheduling land clearing and earth moving activities for periods of the year that are less windy and more wet (winter months in this case) • Avoiding any rock crushing, screening or stockpiling activities onsite Mr. Dave Pfeifer Makahuena Point Project December 20, 2013 Page 5 • If offsite f ill material i s requi red , wetting the mate r ial prior to trucking it to the site so t ha t it h as a high mois t u r e content • Paving of any permanent parking areas and/or es tab lishment of landscap ing as early in the construction schedul e as possible Although the winter months are wetter and thus more advantageous for dust control, rainfall is not so excessive so as to impede site ear t h work . Even wi t h an extensive dust control program, given the nature of the project site and the nea rb y residential areas, it may be inevitable that there will be some offsite impact s d u e to dust du ri ng periods of site clearing and earth moving activities. Therefore, it may be appropriate to conside r monito ring dust at the site boundaries so as t o eva lua te a nd document the effectiveness of d us t con tro l measures . On -site mobile and stationary construction equipment also will emit air pollu tants f rom engine exhausts. The l arges t of t his equ i pment is usually d iesel-powered a n d emits nitrogen oxides and other a ir po llut ants. The engines for this equipment should be kept we ll-tuned and not a llowed to operate or idle excessively . Slow-moving construction vehicles on roadways l eading to and from the p r oject site cou l d obs truct the no r ma l f low of traffic to such an extent th at overall vehicular emissions are increased. This impact can be mi tiga ted by moving heavy construction equipment during periods of low traffic volume. In summary, even wi th best efforts, short -te r m i mpac ts f rom fug itive d ust during initial project construction, i.e ., d ur ing subdivision improvements, may potent i a lly occur. Becau se of t his, it may b e appropriate and adv isab l e to go beyond t he no r mal dust control measures in preparing t he project dust cont r ol p lan . I t should be ant icipated t h at fugitive d u st control and mi tigation during project construction will likely require extra t ime, effort and cost . Mr. Dave Pfeifer Makahuena Point Project December 20, 2013 Page 6 Please call me if you have any questions concerning the information presented he r ein or if you wish to discuss this matter further. cc: Jennifer A . Benck (Carlsmith Ball) Very truly yours, ~)J~ Barry D. Neal Ce r t ified Consulting Me teo rologist J an Table 1 MONTHLY MEAN WIND SPEED AND PREVAILING DIRECTION FOR LIHUE AIRPORT, KAUAI Feb Mar Ap r May J un Jul Aug Sep Oc t Nov Speed (mph ) 11 .3 12.0 1 2 .8 13 .7 13 .4 13 .6 14 .1 13 .4 12 .1 11.9 1 2 .7 Dire ction Notes : NE ENE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Mean wind speeds are based o n 3 2 years of data . Mean wi n d d irection based on 20 years o f d a t a. Source : "Loca l Climatological Data , Annual Summ a r y Wi t h Comp a r at i ve Da t a, L i hue , Hawaii , 1999 ", U.S . Depa rtme nt of Comm erc e, Na tiona l Oce a n ic and Atmospheric Admin i stration , Enviro nm ental Data Service , National Clima t ic Cen t e r, As h e v i lle , NC . Dec Year 12 .2 12 .8 NE NE Jan Feb Mar Total 5 .1 5 3 .4 1 4 .08 Table 2 MONTHLY MEAN PRECIPITATION FOR PUUHI, KAUAI Apr May Jun Jul Aug 2.2 4 1. 87 1.12 1. 60 1. 92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2 .09 2. 62 3. 49 4 .72 34.31 Precipi tat ion (inches) Notes : Source: Based on 54 years of data from the 1990's. "Climatic Summary of the Un ited States, Supplement for 1951 through 1960, Hawaii and Pacific ", U.S. Department of Commerce , Weather Bureau, Washington , D.C., 1965. EXHIBIT O-2 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION MAKAHUENA POINT PROPERTY, KAUAI, HAWAII Report Prepared for CIRI Land Development Company (CLDC) by Charles T. Blay, Ph.D., Geologist TEOK Investigations Poipu, Kauai January 22, 2014 Revised February 01, 2014 Revised February 10, 2014 INTRODUCTION General Statement: The Makahuena Point property, occupying approximately 13 acres of coastal land at the extreme southern tip of the island of Kauai, was examined geologically over a three-day period of time in early January 2014. Principal objectives of the inves- tigation were to describe the site’s geological features in order to evaluate its sta- bility. The character and stability of the large heavily-vegetated depression occupy- ing the northwestern portion of the property and that of a prominent collapsed lava tube located near the central portion of the property’s coastal zone were of particu- lar interest. Methodology: A base map was constructed utilizing Google Earth photographic images and a portion of the 1996 edition of the Koloa, U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute quad- rangle map (Figures 1 and 2). The orientation of lava rock layers and related geo- logical features were measured, to the nearest degree of strike and dip, using a standard geological compass. The “T” shaped strike and dip symbols shown in Figure 1 indicate the trend (long “strike” line) and direction of inclination (short line at right angle to strike line); the amount of inclination is indicated in degrees, from 0 to 90. Locations were established to the nearest second of latitude and lon- EXHIBIT O-2 gitude utilizing a hand held GPS. Geological features, especially those associated with the collapsed lava tube, are displayed in Photos 2-6. No observations were made below sea level along the coast. Also, owing to a thick weedy vegetation cover no geological observations could be made within the large, oval-shaped de- pression occupying the northwestern portion of the property. GEOLOGY General Geological Setting: The Makahuena Point area of Kauai is composed of basaltic, pahoehoe style lava flows of the rejuvenated stage Koloa Volcanics Formation, the island’s youngest volcanic rocks (Macdonald, et al, 1960, Garcia et al, 2013, Blay & Siemers, 2013). Koloa Formation volcanic vents and associated lava flows in the general vicinity of the Makahuena Point property range from as old as 1.25 million years to as young as 150 thousand years. A series of volcanic cinder and spatter cones immediately north of the property, the Poipu Volcanic Cones, have been geologically dated to have last erupted 320 thousand years ago (Garcia et al, 2013). A considerable por- tion, if not all, of the lava flows within the Makahuena Point property erupted from one or more of those cones. The closest volcanic cone, Pihakekuka Crater (present location of Poipu Crater Resort; Photo 1), north of the Makahuena Point property probably contributed the bulk of the lava now covering the property. Site Geology: Lava flows of the Koloa Volcanics are well exposed all along the rugged coastal zone but are covered by soil layers a short distance landward (Figure 1, Photos 1 and 2). Across most of the coastal zone thick, laterally extensive lava flows, the most characteristic feature of the property, dip gently seaward, mostly at only 2 to 5 degrees (Figure 2, Photo 2). There is moderate undercutting of the flows by wave erosion along the irregular, rocky shoreline. A large, thickly-vegetated, 200 x 500 ft, oval depression, with up to 30 feet of re- lief, occupies the northwestern portion of the property. A distinct, collapsed, elon- gated lava tube, perhaps the geologically most interesting feature within the prop- erty, is well exposed at the coast near the western boundary of the property (Fig- ures 1-2, Photos 3-4). Both the oval depression and the coastal collapsed lava tube feature are likely the result of a large connected lava tube that collapsed complete- ly. It is highly unlikely that the vegetated oval depression is a volcanic crater. At the coast the collapsed lava tube is 100-120 feet wide and 20-25 feet deep. It is partly filled both with large, randomly oriented, angular blocks of lava rock, and with post-tube-collapse lava flows, both of geological origin and now stable. The area of the large oval depression is thickly vegetated, and unlike the geologically- filled coastal lava tube structure, no lava rock exposures were observed within the depression. No open lava tubes were observed above sea level. Portions of the coarse lava block rubble were in the past partly covered with lime cement; however it does not appear that it was done to maintain stability of natural geological rubble filling the collapsed tube. Locally the oxidized and disarticulated fragments of an iron net- ting of some sort are present, but are of unknown origin. At the coast and immediately landward of the coastal exposures, margins of the la- va tube are well defined by a thin, 3-4 ft wide zone of vertical to overturned lava rock layers (Figures 5 and 6). At such exposures, post-tube-collapse lava rock of geological origin can also be observed partly filling the tube structure. DISCUSSION Broad, laterally extensive lava flows and associated lava tubes are typical products of Hawaiian style volcanic eruptions. They represent the non-explosive, effusive- style eruption of liquid lava (magma), in contrast to the explosive eruption of cin- der and ash of volcanoes, such as those occurring in continental localities and along the “Ring of Fire” that rims the Pacific Ocean. Lava tubes develop in order to insulate the liquid magma as it flows down slope away from the emitting vents and cones, allowing the magma to extend great distances from its source. Some tubes are preserved as elongated open cave-like features. Others collapse and are partly to completely filled by solidified blocks of lava rock and post-collapse lava flows. They are the products of the very dynamic process of the effusive eruption of magma and its emplacement away from its vent or fissure source. The lava tube feature present on the Makahuena Point property is an example of a dynamic tube that formed, collapsed almost entirely and then was partly to almost entirely filled with both lava block rubble and lava flows which filled the tube dur- ing, and subsequent to, its collapse. Tube formation and collapse may have oc- curred over and over again until the lava finally stopped flowing through the tube and into its collapsed depression. Today, the composite collapsed tube structure is represented by a subtle, mostly geologically-filled, elongated surface depression. Importantly, it appears that the tube is completely collapsed. No open tube could be delineated, based on the surface expression of both the well-exposed coastal zone and the inland, soil and vegetation covered oval-shaped depression. At pre- sent both features, the coastal partly-filled lava tube and the vegetation-covered oval-shaped depression appear stable. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Makahuena Point property, occupying approximately 13 acres of coastal land at the southern tip of Kauai, was examined geologically in early January 2014. Principal objectives of the investigation were to describe the site’s geological fea- tures in order to evaluate its stability. The property is underlain by extensive lava flows of the geological formation known as the Koloa Volcanics, which locally has been dated to have formed ap- proximately 320 thousand years ago. Most, if not all, of the lava formed from magma flowing out of a series of volcanic vents and cones located immediately north of Makahuena Point. A prominent, northwest-trending collapsed lava tube is present at the coast near the western boundary of the property. It is displayed as a well-exposed, largely filled, elongated depression. The margins of the 100-120 ft wide tube structure are well defined by narrow (3-4 ft) zones of vertical to overturned lava rock layers. The 20- 25 ft deep collapsed tube is partly filled with coarse lava block rubble and post- collapse lava flows of geological origin. There is no evidence of the lava tube structure having acted as a vent for fluids or sediments flowing into the ocean. Inland, to the northwest, is a large, oval-shaped depression that is obscured vegeta- tion. The 200 ft wide, 500 ft long depression displays a relief of 20-30 feet. Lava rocks were not observed within the depression owing to its soil and plant cover. It is likely part of the same lava tube that is evident at the coast, is completely col- lapsed, and appears stable. The obvious lava tube structure of the Makahuena Point property appears to have collapsed completely. At the coast it is partly filled with lava block rubble and la- va flows that were emplaced as the tube was actively collapsing and after various stages of collapse. At present it is a stable, no longer collapsing, feature. No open lava tubes were observed during the geological field investigation. Today the Makahuena Point collapsed lava tube appears stable, with little or no po- tential for additional collapse. However, the specific area of the collapsed tube near the coast is not recommended as a site for the emplacement of large struc- tures. In its current state, the coastal collapsed lava tube structure is one of Kauai Island’s more interesting geological features. REFERENCES CITED Blay, C. and Siemers, R., 2013, Kauai’s Geologic History: A Simplified Overview: TEOK Investigations, Koloa, Hawaii, 161 pp. Garcia, M.O., Swinnard, L., Weis, D., Greene, A.R., Tagami, T., Sano, H., and Gandy, C.E., 2010, Petrology, geochemistry and geochronology of Kauai la- vas over 4.5 myr: Implications for the origin of rejuvenated volcanism and evolution of the Hawaiian plume: Journal of Petrology, v. 51, no. 7, p. 1507- 1540. Macdonald, G.A., Davis, D.A., and COX, D.C., 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of the island of Kauai, Hawaii: Hawaii Division of Hydrology Bulletin 13, 212 pp, color geologic map. approximatepropertyboundarybeaconlargevegetateddepressionMakahuenaPointcollapsedlava tube20 ft40 ft 40 ft0500 FtFigure 1. Google map image of Makahuena Point property, Kauai. Location of property boundary is approximate. Elevationcontours are in feet above sea level. Note general location of collapsed lava tube well exposed at shoreline which aligns northwardwith a large, extensively vegetated, elongate depression. 20 ft40 ft 40 ft4162732434313516655474905289019561050approximatepropertyboundarylargevegetateddepressionbeaconMakahuenaPointcollapsedlava tube 15926’ 40” 15926’ 30” 2152’ 05” 2152’ 10” 2152’ 15” 15926’ 35”0500 FtFigure 2. Locality map of Makahuena Point property, Kauai. Property boundary is approximate. Elevation contours are in feetabove sea level. Note general location of collapsed lava tube well exposed at shoreline which aligns northward with a large,extensively vegetated, elongate depression. Strike and dip symbols indicate general orientation of lava flows. Grid is in degrees,minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude. approximate property boundary Pihakekuka Crater Makahuena Pt. Keoneloa “Shipwreck’s” Beach Makawehi Pt. Keoneloa Bch Mt Haupu Makahuena Pt. lava flows Photo 1. Google Earth image of Makahuena Point property location. Pihakekua Crater (present location of Poipu Crater Resort) most likely produced much of the lava of the Makahena Pt. area. Photo 2.View east from Makahuena Point displaying the gently inclined lava flowspresent across most of the Makahuena Point property. Flows dip seaward mostly at less than 5 degrees. Keoneloa (”Shipwrecks”) Beach and Makawehi Pt. is present along the distant shoreline with Haupu Mt. in the far distance. Photo 3. Coastal view of central portion of collapsed lava tube partly filled with coarse lava block rubble and post collapse lava flows. coarse lava block rubble lava flows partly filling collapsed lava tube coarse lava block rubble Photo 4. Chaotic lava block rubble within collapsed lava tube at coastal exposure. Photo 5. Eastern edge of lava tube displaying roll of lava flows into collapsed tube and late stage lava flows partly filling tube after soon after collapse. roll over of lava flows into collapsed lava tube late stage lava flows partly filling collapsed lava tube edge of lava tube with vertical to overturned layers late stage lava flows partly filling collapsed lava tube vertical to overturned lava flows along sinuous edge of collapsed lava tube large, vegetated depression Photo 6. Sinuous edge of collapsed lava tube with vertical to overturned lava flows along margin and post collapse lava flows partly filling tube structure. EXHIBIT O-3 Biological surveys for Makahu'ena Project site (TMK: 2-8-21: 041), Po'ipfl, Kaua'i 1 August 4, 2011 Eric Guinther, Reginald David 2, Dr. Steve Montgomery3, and Anita Manning 3 AECOSinc. 45-939 Kamehameha Highway, Suite 104 Kane'ohe, Hawai' i 96744 Phone: (808) 234-7770 Fax: (808) 234-7775 Email: guinther@aecos.com Introduction AECOS No. 1269 The project site, owned by CIRI Land Development Company, is an approximately 13-acre (5.3-ha) coastal parcel (TMK: (4)2-8-21:041) at Makahu'ena Point, Weliweli, Po'ipu in the Koloa District on the south side of the Island of Kaua'i (Figs. 1 and 2). A portion of the property previously was occupied by the Makahu'ena Point Lighthouse under the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and a few concrete structural remnants of that facility are still present. At the present time, the property is vacant land between the developments of The Point at Po'ipu (former Embassy Suites Hotel) and the Makahu'ena at Po'ipu. A modern marine navigation light (cover photo) under USCG control is located on an inholding owned by the State of Hawai'i. The site is an L-shaped parcel (Fig. 2) that demonstrates a clear transition from wave swept cliffs, through coastal strand vegetation, into leeward (dry) scrub land. Thus, the zone closest to the shore--a wave-swept rocky substratum-supports essentially no terrestrial vegetation owing to frequent wetting by large waves and wave splash. Further inland is found a sparse, low- growing vegetation of plants tolerant of regular salt spray and minimal soil (Fig. 3). As the soil depth increases inland, plants gain density and stature, but still show the effects of strong and persistent winds. The interior leg of the parcel is 1 This report was prepared for CIRI Land Development Co. to be used as needed to support an EA for site development ("Project"). This report will presumably become part of the public record. 2 Rana Biological Consulting, Inc., Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i . 3 Montane Matters, Waipahu, Hawai'i. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 1 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Methods Biological surveys of the project site were undertaken in May-June 2011. The survey team assembled by AECOS Inc. included Dr. S. L Montgomery (invertebrates), Reginald David (vertebrates), and Eric Guinther (plants). Surveys were conducted independent of each other in as much as each specialty required methods standard to each discipline. Surveys of other dryland areas have created a sizeable body of information on native invertebrates and related botanical resources found in similar areas (Bridwell, 1920; Swezey 1935). A search at the State's Office of Environmental Quality Control (2011) web site for surveys done on the subject parcel or in adjacent areas returned no reports that surveyed biota (OEQC, 2011). A search was made for independent biological studies associated with this site or with nearby sites. Searches were made in the Hawai 'i State, Bishop Museum, and University of Hawai'i libraries. Online proprietary data bases such as Ingenta Connect were searched. Searches were made for publicly available articles on the internet (Google Scholar, Google Books, University of Hawaii's Scholar Space and eVols (2011). Data base searches were made in Bishop Museum's Arthropod (2002a) and Mollusk (2002b) checklists, and the University of Hawai'i, Hamilton Library's Hawai'i-Pacific Journal Index (2011). Only adventive invertebrates species were reported. Searches in the Pacific Basin Information Node specimen database which provides geographic access (2011) returned records of fossil mollusks . A search in the Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program (20 11) database returned no records for this area. Plant names used in this report generally follow Staples and Herbst (2005) and Wagner, Herbst, and Sohmers (1990, 1999). Invertebrate names follow Freshwater & Terrestrial Mollusk Checklist (HBS, 2002b), Common Names of Insects & Related Organisms (HES, 1990), and Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist (HBS, 2002a; Nishida 2002). The avian phylogenetic order and nomenclature used in this report follows The American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds 7th Edition (American Ornithologists' Union 1998), and the 42nd through the 51st supplements to Check-list of North American Birds (American Ornithologists' Union, 2000; Banks et al., 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). Mammal scientific names follow Mammals in Hawaii (Tomich, 1986). Botanical Survey The botanical field survey consisted of walking a majority of the parcel on May 25, 2011. Plants were identified as they were encountered and an estimate AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 5 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I made of the relative abundance of each species developed as the survey progressed. Invertebrate Survey Field surveys for invertebrates were conducted June 2-3, 2011. Initially, a general assessment of terrain and habitats was made, followed by survey efforts at various times of day and night, vital for a thorough invertebrate survey. Visual observation-Visual observations are a cross check that extends the reach of sampling techniques. Visual observation also included turning over rocks, examining dead wood, and other debris. Host plant searches -Potential host plants, both native and introduced, are searched for arthropods that feed or rest on plants. For this survey, wandering transects were followed throughout the coastal and inland area with emphasis on examining native host plants. Sweep nets -Sweeping is a common method of general collecting for most flying and perching insects. A fine mesh net is swept across plants, leaf litter, rocks, pond surfaces, etc. to collect any flying, perching, or crawling insects. Transfer from the net is either by aspiration, or by placing the net contents directly into a holding container. Baiting -Baits are used to attract insect species to specific tastes or smells. For example, native beach crickets respond to a strong odor of decaying proteins. Baits can mimic that smell and attract those insects. Baits of old fish and odoriferous blue cheese, proven attractants, were placed at likely locations in bottle traps and checked periodically. Any insects at the bait are then observed and censused. This method is more efficient than roaming the area seeking cryptic or night active insects; baiting is a recognized method of censusing beach crickets. Light survey-A survey of insects active at night is vital to a complete record of the fauna. Many insects are active only at night to evade birds, avoid desiccation and high temperatures, or to use night food sources, such as flowers that only open at night. A light survey employs a bright light source in front of a white cloth sheet (Fig. 5). Nocturnal insects seem to mistake the collecting light for the light of the moon, which they use to orient themselves. In attempting to navigate, disoriented insects are drawn toward the collecting light and land on the cloth in confusion. This type of collecting is most successful during the dark phase of the moon or under clouds blocking moonlight. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 6 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I station. Stations were each counted once. Field observations were made with the aid of Leica 10 X 42 binoculars and by listening for vocalizations. Counts were concentrated during the early morning hours, the peak of daily bird activity. Additionally, we conducted a search of the property for active Wedge- tailed Shearwater burrows, and recorded the locations of burrows with a hand- held GPS unit. Time not spent at counting stations was used to search the Project site for species and habitats not detected during count sessions. Other Vertebrates Survey With the exception of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or '6pe'ape'a as it is known locally, all terrestrial mammals currently found on the Island of Kaua'i are alien species, and most are ubiquitous. The survey of mammals was limited to visual and auditory detection, coupled with visual observation of scat, tracks, and other animal sign. A running tally was kept of all vertebrate species observed and heard within the project area. Survey Limitations I Conditions Our ability to form advisory opinions is influenced in the following ways: • Weather: Weather was mixed June 2-3, 2011. Rain was disruptive on June 2 and a second evening of surveying was conducted June 3 to ensure appropriate coverage. Conditions for collecting were good on June 3. Weather conditions were excellent on May 25, although onshore winds were strong. • Seasons: Weather and seasonal vegetation play an especially important role in any biological survey. Host plant presence/absence, and seasonal changes, especially plant growth after heavy rains, affect the species collected. Many arthropods time their emergence and breeding to overlap or follow seasonal weather, or to coincide with growth spurts of an important food plant. Monitoring at a different time of the year might produce a different list of species. After seasonal rains, vegetation was in a good state to both identify and act as host to many invertebrates. Nevertheless, the very low number of native plants and the presence of ants--a strong alien predator on arthropods--were strong factors in limiting native invertebrates encountered; more so than the seasonal condition of vegetation. • Moon: The moon was 'dark' and obscured by cloud cover on the evenings ofJune 2 and 3, 2011. (USNO) The nearby artificial light sources offered by street lights and buildings offered minimal competition to the arthropod census light. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 8 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I • Limited duration: The survey provides a reasonable review of the biological resources present given the size of the property and time allotted. The area is not large, yet it is always possible that a biologist will miss one or more species if population levels are low. Surveying for a longer period of time might enlarge our lists of species. A few species reasonably expected to occur on the property were not found (see Species Not Observed on page 24). • Selectivity: The plant and bird surveys attempted to chronicle all vascular plants and birds, respectively, occurring on the Project site. The invertebrate survey focused on finding terrestrial endemic and indigenous Hawaiian species. No attempt was made to completely document the common alien arthropod or all non-avian, alien vertebrate species present. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 19 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 1. Flora for CIRI Land Development Company, Makahii'ena parcel, Poipu, Kauai Species Common name Status Abundance Notes CONIFERS and CYCADS ARAUCARIACEAE Araucaria columnaris (G. Forst.) J .D . Hook. Cook pine Nat R <2> FLOWERING PLANTS DICOTYLEDONE ACANTHACEAE Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anderson Chinese violet Nat 0 Barleria repens C . Nees pink-ruellia Om U2 AIZOACEAE Aptenia cordifolia (L.) N .E. Brown hearts-and-flowers Om u Sesuvium portulacas/rum (L.) L. 'akutikuli Ind c <1> AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus lividus L. Nat Rl Mangifera indica L. khaki weed Nat 0 ANACARDIACEAE Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi Christmas berry Nat u APOCYNACEAE Carissa macrocarpa (Ecklon) A. de Cand. Natal-plum Om R Plumeria rubra L. graveyard flower Om u Thevetia peruviana (Pers.)K . Schum. be-still Nat R ARALIACEAE Schejjlera actinophylla (Endl.) Hanns octopus or umbrella tree Nat R ASTERACEAE (COMPOSIT AE) Bidens pilosa L. Spanish needle Nat Rl Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Flora's paintbrush Nat u Gaillardia x grandiflora Van Houtte waikohuli Om R <2> Hypochoreus cf. radicata L. hairy eat's ear Nat Rl <1,3> Pluchea indica (L.) Less. Indian fleabane Nat U1 Pluchea carolinensis (Jacq.) G. Don sourbush Nat u Verbesina encelioides (Cav .) Benth. & Hook. golden crown-beard Nat 01 BORAGINACEAE Tournefortia argentea L. fill. tree heliotrope Nat R <I> BRASSICACEAE Lobularia maritima Desvaux sweet alysum Om u <2> CACTACEAE Cereus hildmannianus K. Schum . spiny tree cactus Nat u Hylocereus undatus (Haworth) Britt. & Rose night-blooming cereus Nat R <3> AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX) Page I ll Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 1 (continued). SEecies Common name Status Abundance Notes CACT ACEAE (continued) Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. panini Nat Rl Se/enicereus cf. macdonaldiae (Hooker) snake cactus Nat R <3> Britton & Rose CAPPARACEAE Cleome gynandra L. wild spider flower Nat R CASUARINACEAE Casuarina equisetifolia L. ironwood Nat u CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex semibaccata R. Br. Australian saltbush Nat A <1> Chenopdium murale L. 'aheahea Nat R CLUSIACEAE Calophyllum sp. indet. street tree Om u CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gawl. Nat 0 Ipomoea triloba L. little bell Nat u Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urb. hairy merremia Nat Rl CUCURBIT ACEAE Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. & Spach teasel gourd Nat Ul CRASSULACEAE Bryophyllum tubiflorum Harvey chandelier plant Nat R3 EUPHORBIACEAE Chamaesyce albomarginata (Torr. & A. rattlesnake weed Nat R Gray) Small Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp. garden spurge Nat 01 Chamaesyce hypericifolia (L.) Millsp. graceful spurge Nat 0 Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Blume croton Om u Pedilanthus tithymaloides tithymaloides slipper flower Om R3 <2> (L.) Poiteau Phyllanthus debilis Klein ex. Willd. niuri Nat R Ricinus communis L. castor beran Nat R FABACEAE Desmanthus pernambucanus (L.) Thellung virgate mimosa Nat u Indigofera hendecaphylla Jacq . prostrate indigo Nat R Macroptilium atropurpureum (DC) Urb. Nat u GOODINACEAE Scaevola taccada (1. Gaert.) Roxb. naupaka kahakai lnd c <I> LAMIACEAE Ocimum basilicum L. sweet basil Om R <2> MALVACEAE Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet hairy abutilon Nat u AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 12 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 1 (continued). SEecies Common name Status Abundance Notes MAL V ACEAE (continued) Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. cultivars Chinese hibiscus Om u Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke false mallow Nat c Sidafallax Walp. ilima, ilima papa lnd c Sida rhombifolia L. Nat R MORACEAE Ficus microcarpa L. fil. Chinese banyan Nat R MYRTACEAE Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels. Java plum Nat R NICT AGINACEAE Boerhavia acutifolia (Choisy) J.W. Moore a lena lnd R <I> Bougainvillea cult . bougainvillea Om u POLYGONACEAE Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. sea-grape Om R <I> PORTULACACEAE Portulaca pilosa L. Nat u <1> PRIMULACEAE Anagallis arvensis L. scarlet pimpernel Nat R SOLANACEAE Solanum americanum Mill. popolo lnd 0 Solanum lycopersicum cerasiforme cherry tomato Nat u (DunaJ) Spooner, G.J. Anderson, & R.K . Jans en STERCULIACEAE Waltheria indica L. 'uhaloa lnd 0 VERBENACEAE Clerodendrum inerme (L.) Gaertn. Om R3 Lantana camara L. lantana Nat c Stachytarpheta australis Moldenke Nat 0 Stachytarphetajamaicensis (L.) Yah!. Jamaica vervain Nat R Vitex rotundifolia L. til. pohinahina lnd R MONOCOTYLEDONES AGAVACEAE Agave vivipara L. Om R <2> Cordylinefruticosa (L.) A. Chev. ki; green ti Pol R <2> Furcraeafoetida (L.) Haw. Mauritius hemp Nat R <2> ALOEACEAE Aloe vera (L.) N .L. Burm. aloe Om Ul <2> ARECACEAE Cocos nucifera L. coconut palm Pol R AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 113 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 1 (continued). Species Common name Status Abundance Notes COMMELINACEAE Tradescantia spathacea Swartz LILIACEAE Crinum asiaticum L. POACEAE (GRAMINEAE) Axonopusfisifolius (Sw.) P.Beauv. Cenchrus echinatus L. Chloris barbata (L.) Sw. Chloris virgata Sw . Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. Digitaria insularis (L.) Mez ex Ekman Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv . Sporobolus virginicus (L.) Kunth Panicum maximum (Jacq.) STRELITZIACEAE Strelitzia reginae Dryandcr Status = distributional status Moses-in-the-cradle giant lily nrw-lvd. carpetgrass sandbur swollen-finger grass feather fingergrass Bermuda grass beach wiregrass sourgrass wire grass bristly foxtail 'aki'aki Guinea grass bird-of-paradise Legend to Table l End. • endemic; native to Hawai'i and found naturally nowhere else. Ind. • indigenous; native to Hawai'i, but not unique to the Hawaiian Islands. Om R Nat R Nat 03 Nat R Nat A Nat C3 Nat A <I> Nat R Nat AA Nat u Nat R1 lnd A <I> Nat AA Om R <2> Nat. -naturalized, exotic, plant introduced to the Hawaiian Islands since the arrival of Cook Expedition in 1778, and well-established outside of cultivation. Om.-exotic, ornamental or cultivated crop; plant not naturalized (not well-established outside of cultivation, at least at this location). Pol. = Polynesian introduction; brought to the Hawaiian Islands before 1778. Abundance • occurrence ratings for plants on property in March 2008 Notes: R -Rare -only one or two plants seen. U -Uncommon -several to a dozen plants observed. 0-Occasional -found regularly, but not abundant anywhere. C-Common-considered an important part of the vegetation and observed numerous times. A -Abundant -found in large numbers; may be locally dominant. AA -Abundant -very abundant and dominant; defining vegetation type. Numbers (as in R3) offset occurrence ratings (I-several plants; 2 -many plants; 3-abundant in a limited area) in cases where distribution across the survey area may be limited, but individuals seen are more than indicated by the occurrence rating alone. <I> Associated with the coastal strand zone along top of cliff(Fig. 2). <2> Associated with landscape plantings in the area. <3> Plant lacking flowers or fruit; identification uncertain. native to places outside of the Hawaiian Islands). Two additional species (2.3%) are Polynesian introductions (so-called "canoe plants"), arriving in these Islands well before 1778. The remainder (88.3%) are plants introduced to the Islands since 1778--most in the last century-and now naturalized (escaped from cultivation). AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 14 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Although none of the natives growing at the Project site is considered an endemic species (defined as uniquely native to the Hawaiian Islands), the abundance of several of the indigenous species is high within the coastal strand environment (see Fig. 10). Drying winds, salt air, and shallow soil make this environment very harsh and few plants readily adapt to these conditions. All of plants found in this environment on the Project site are widespread species (in Hawai'i as well as on other tropical Pacific islands), typically dispersed by ocean currents. Nonetheless, outside of the coastal strand, it is rare to find a vegetation on lowland Kaua'i dominated by native plants . A total of 16 species of plants (18.6%) in Table 1 are regarded as ornamentals (not naturalized in Hawai'i at this time), although many more are planted and/or cultivated on the site or immediately adjacent as ornamentals. These plants are regarded as naturalized because that is their status in the Islands. Both naturalized and native plants are planted as ornamentals in some landscaping situations. Invertebrate Survey Results Native terrestrial invertebrate species of note are discussed here. Also, information is provided on adventive (naturalized) species often misidentified or confused with native species. Non-native species on the Project site that constitute a danger to native species (e.g., ants) or potential hazard to humans (e .g., paper wasp) are also discussed. The results of the survey are presented in Table 2. Although this listing shows three species as new island records4, this is not remarkable considering the survey for available literature (see page 6) indicated no previous invertebrate surveys at this location. Native Arthropoda~ Araneae (spiders) Fam. Lycosidae: Lycosa hawaiiensis: wolf spider This endemic spider (Fig. 6) is known in similar environments along this coast Wolf spiders hide by day and hunt by night in established individual territories. These quick, strong predators will feed on non-native invertebrates allowing it to adapt to a changed menu. Females provide maternal care to their young, ' New island record designation indicates this species has not been previously reported as present on an island. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 15 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 2. List of invertebrates, Makahii'ena property, Koloa, Kaua'i, June 2011. Taxon / Species Common Name Status Frequency Notes MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA PULMONATA snails and slugs ACHITINIDAE A chat ina Julie a Giant African Snail Adv A SPIRAXIDAE Euglandina rosea Rosy Wolf Snail Adv c ARTHROPODA ARACHNIDA ARANEAE spiders HETEROPODIDAE Heteropoda venatoria Cane spider Adv c ARANEIDAE Argiope appensa orb weaver spiders Adv u (Walckenaer 1841) LYCOSIDAE Lycosa hawaiiensis wolf spider End u observed only Simon, 1899 ARTHROPODA INSECTA COLLEMBOLA springtails ENTOMOBRYIDAE undetermined sp. I unknw c under stones DIPTERA CABACIDAE Canaceoides hawaiiensis beach fly End c Wirth, 1969 CERA TOPOGONIDAE Forcipomyia hardyi End A at light Wirth & Howarth, 1982 CHIRONOMIDAE bloodworm midges Chironomus hawaiiensis End? u at light Grimshaw, 1901 HELEOMYZIDAE Spilochroa ornata Adv c at light; new (Johnson, 1895) island record HETEROPTERA true bugs LYGAEIDAE seed bugs Nysius sp. End u at light AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 16 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 2 (continued). Taxon j Species Common Name Status Frequency Notes HOMOPTERA planthoppers CICADELLIDAE leafhoppers Balclutha hospes End c at light DERBIDAE Cedusa sp . Adv u at light; new island record PSYLLIDAE Heteropsylla cubana Adv AA on koa haole (Cawford, 1914) HYMENOPTERA wasps, bees, ants ANTHOPHORIDAE Ceratina sp. near dentipes Adv u Xylocopa sonorina Carpenter bee Adv c F. Smith, 1874 COLLETIDAE Hylaeus albonitens Adv R (Cockerell, 1905) FORMICIDAE ants Camponotus variegatus Carpenter ant Adv c at light Pheidole megacephala Big-headed ant Adv c on soil (Fabricius, 1793) VESPIDAE wasps Polistes exclamans Common paper wasp Adv 0 Viereck, 1906 LEPIDOPTERA butterflies & moths CHOREUTIDAE Choreutis sp. Twisted wing moth Adv c at light; new island record COSMOPTERIGIDAE Anatrachyntis incertulella Adv 0 (Walker, 1864) /thorne conco/orella Kiawe flower moth Adv c (Chambers, 1875) Trissodoris honorariella Adv u (Walsingham 1907) GEOMETRIDAE Macaria abydata Guenee, 1857 Adv A at light GRACILLARIIDAE Caloptilia sp. Adv u NOCTUIDAE Achaeajanata (Linnaeus), 1758 Croton caterpillar Adv c Asca/apha odorata Black witch moth Adv 0 at light (Linnaeus, 1758) AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX) Page 117 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Vertebrate Survey Results Birds A total of 55 individual birds representing 13 species from 11 separate families, were recorded during station counts (Table 3). Three of the species recorded: Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinius pacificus), White-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus), and Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana), are indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands. The two seabirds (shearwater and tropicbird) are indigenous breeding species, one of which (Wedge-tailed Shearwater) nests on the site. Wandering Tattler is an indigenous, migratory shorebird species. The remaining 10 species observed during the survey are alien (non-native species) to the Hawaiian Islands. Table 3-Avian Species Detected at Makahu'ena Point, June 2011 Common Name I Scientific Name I ST IRA PROCELLARIIFORMES PROCELLARIIDAE -Shearwaters & Petrels Wedge-tailed Shearwater Puffin us pacificus IB 0.50 PHAETHONIFORMES PHAETHONTIDAE-Tropicbirds White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus IB 0.50 CHARADRIIFORMES SCOLOPACIDAE-Sandpipers, Phalaropes & Allies Wandering Tattler Tringa incana IM 0.50 COLUMBIFORMES COLUMBIDAE-Pigeons & Doves Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis A 1.50 Zebra Dove Geopelia striata A 4.50 PASSERIFORMES ZOSTEROPIDAE -White-eyes Japanese White-eye Zosterops japonicus A 2.50 STURNIDAE -Starlings Common Myna Acridotheres tristis A 3.00 EMBERIZIDAE-Emberizids Red-crested Cardinal Paroaria coronata A 2.50 CARDINALIDAE-Cardinals Saltators & Allies Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis A 1.50 AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 28 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Table 3 (continued). Common Name House Finch House Sparrow I Scientific Name FRINGILLIDAE-Fringilline And Cardueline Finches & Allies Carduelinae -Carduline Finches Carpodacus mexicanus PASSERIDAE-Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus ESTRILDIDAE-Estrildid Finches Estrildinae -Estrildine Finches Chestnut Munia Lonchura atricapilla _J_av_a_S_.p._a_rr_o_w _____ Padda oryzivora Key to Table 3: ST Status I ST IRA A 4.00 A 2.00 A 1.00 A 3.50 RA Relative Abundance: Number of birds detected divided by the number of count stations (2) A Alien species-Introduced to Hawai'i by humans, and have become established in the wild IB Indigenous Resident -Native breeding species also found elsewhere naturally IM Indigenous Migratory species -native migratory species does not breed in Hawai 'i Avian diversity and densities are in keeping with habitats present on the site, and the location along the south shore of the Island of Kaua'i. Three species-- Zebra Dove (Geopelia striata), Java Sparrow (Padda oryzivora) and Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis)-accounted for 40% of the total number of individual birds recorded during station counts. The most commonly recorded species was Zebra Dove, which accounted for slightly more than 16% of the total number of individual birds recorded. An average of 27 birds were detected per station count--is a relatively low number--in keeping with the coastal location and limited habitats present on the site. Seabirds -The Wedge-tailed Shearwater colony that stretches the length of the coastal strand area of the site, with at least a couple of outlying burrows further inland, represents a significant native avian resource. This colony has been expanding, albeit slowly for the past several years (David, 2011). During the course of this survey we mapped a total of 23 apparently active, or recently active, burrows (see white dots in Fig. 2; recorded positions are given in Table 4). Numerous scrapes, which appear not to be currently active, were noted but not recorded. This species is not listed under either federal or state endangered species programs; however, it is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 129 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT , KAUA'I Table 4. Recorded coordinates of Wedge-tailed Shearwater active or recently active burrows on the Project site. Degrees North Degrees West ID No. Latitude Longitude 2 21.869175 159.44464 3 21.868974 159.44434 4 21.870819 159.44163 6 21.870818 159.44163 7 21.870650 159.44185 8 21.870640 159.44206 9 21.870346 159.44221 10 21.870214 159.44237 11 21.869786 159.44276 12 21.869806 159.44276 13 21.869513 159.44314 14 21.869417 159.44298 15 21.869419 159.44296 16 21.869383 159.44296 17 21.869457 159.44284 18 21.869386 159.44317 19 21.869147 159.44353 20 21.869123 159.44354 21 21.869105 159.44354 22 21.869144 159.44364 23 21.869138 159.44371 24 21.868976 159.44435 25 21.869806 159.44400 Mammals Two mammalian species were detected during the course of the survey. Tracks and scat of dogs (Canis f. familiaris) were encountered at several locations within the site. One cat (Felis catus) was seen prowling the shearwater colony on the northwest corner of the site. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 30 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I General Discussion Botanical Resources For this site, maintaining a healthy mix of native plant species is particularly relevant for the coastal strand zone (Fig. 2), since this vegetation zone is presently dominated by native species. No botanical resources worthy of special protection occur landward of the strand zone. Invertebrate Resources Native Hawaiian plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations are interdependent. Certain insects are obligatorily attached to host plants, using only that plant as their food and others provide pollination for native plants. Invertebrates such as insects and snails, as well as the fruit and seeds of native plants, are the natural foods of native birds. The health of native Hawaiian ecosystems depends on habitat quality and absence or low levels of continental predators and herbivores. Sufficient food sources, host plant availability, and the absence of continental dominants comprise a classic native, healthy ecosystem. Where appropriate in the invertebrates results presentation above, host plants and introduced arthropods, birds, and mammals are noted. Avian Resources The findings of the avian survey are consistent with the location of the property, and the habitats present on the site. Three of the 13 avian species detected during the course of this survey, Wedge-tailed Shearwater, White-tailed Tropicbird, and Wandering Tattler are indigenous species. Wedge-tailed Shearwaters are a pelagic seabird species, which nests in Hawai'i, and in fact nests on the site. White-tailed Tropicbirds are also a pelagic indigenous breeding seabird species, though there are no resources on the site that this species utilizes . Wandering Tattlers are an indigenous migratory shorebird species that nests in the high Arctic during the late spring and summer months, returning to Hawai'i and the tropical Pacific to spend the fall and winter months each year. They usually leave Hawai'i for the trip back to the Arctic in late April or the very early part of May of each year. The single bird recorded on the site is likely one that is going to over-summer, and not make the journey north to breed. In can be expected that at least three other migratory shorebird species, Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), and Sanderling (Calidris alba) use resources on this site between late July and late AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 3 1 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I April each year. The remaining 10 avian species detected during this survey are all alien introductions to the Hawaiian Islands. Two other seabird species not detected during our survey-Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) and the threatened endemic sub-species of the Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newel/i)--have been recorded over- flying the Project area between April and the end of November each year (David, 1995; Morgan et al., 2003, 2004; David and Planning Solutions, 2008). Additionally, the Save Our Shearwaters (SOS) Program has recovered both species from the general Project area on an annual basis over the past three decades (Morgan et al., 2003, 2004; David and Planning Solutions, 2008; Save our Shearwater Program, 2010). The petrel is listed as endangered and the shearwater as threatened under both federal (Endangered Species Act [ESA]) and State of Hawai'i endangered species statutes. The primary cause of mortality in both Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters is thought to be predation by alien mammalian species at the nesting colonies (USFWS, 1983; Simons and Hodges, 1998; Ainley et a!., 2001 ). Collision with man-made structures is considered to be the second most significant cause of mortality of these seabirds in Hawai'i. Nocturnally flying seabirds, especially fledglings on their way out to sea in the summer and fall, can become disoriented by exterior lighting. When disoriented, seabirds often collide with manmade structures, and if they are not killed outright, dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals (Hadley, 1961; Telfer, 1979; Sincock, 1981; Reed et al., 1985; Telfer et al., 1987; Cooper and Day, 1994; Podolsky et al., 1998; Ainley et al., 2001). There are no nesting colonies nor appropriate nesting habitat for either of these listed seabird species within the Project site. Mammalian Resources The findings of the mammalian survey are consistent with the location of the property and habitats currently present on the site. All three mammalian species detected during the course of this survey are alien to the Hawaiian Islands. Although no Hawaiian hoary bats were detected during the course of our survey, bats have been recorded foraging for insects within the general area on a regular basis (David, 2011). Hawaiian hoary bats are widely distributed in the lowland areas on the Island of Kaua'i, and have been documented in and around almost all areas that have some dense vegetation (Tomich, 1986; USFWS, 1998; David, 2011). There are no suitable roosting sites within the Project site for this species. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 32 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Although no rodents were detected during the course of this survey, it is likely that the four established alien Muridae found on Kaua'i-roof rat (Rattus r. rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), European house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus), and possibly Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans hawaiiensis}---use various resources found within the project area. All of these human commensal rodents are deleterious to native ecosystems and native faunal species dependent on them. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 133 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Potential Impacts to Protected Species or Special Habitats Critical Habitat The subject property is not included in any federal Critical Habitat designations. Thus, development of the site will not impact Critical Habitat. No equivalent statute exists under state or county law. Jurisdictional Waters No federal waters or special habitats are present on the subject parcel inland from the mean high water (tide) line. The Pacific Ocean below mean higher high water (MHHW) along this shore is under federal jurisdiction as described in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act of 1972. Inland of this boundary, no streams or wetlands occur on the subject property. State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) jurisdiction extends seaward from the vegetation line (Hawaii Administrative Rules, §13 - 222)-a line presumably higher than the MHHW line along this wave-swept coast. Botanical Resources No plant species currently listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under either the federal or the State of Hawai'i's endangered species programs (DLNR, 1998; USFWS, 2005, 2010) were recorded within the Project property. Therefore, development of the site will not result in deleterious impacts to listed plant species. Invertebrate Resources No federal or state listed endangered or threatened land invertebrate species were noted in this survey (USFWS, 2010b). Avian Resources No avian species currently proposed for listing, or any that are listed under either federal or the State of Hawai'i endangered species statutes was recorded in our survey of the site (DLNR, 1998; USFWS, 2005a, 2005b, 2011). However, two listed seabirds fly over the area. Hawaiian Petrel and Newell's Shearwater-The principal potential impact that development of this site poses to ESA-protected Hawaiian Petrel and AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX) Page 134 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Newell's Shearwater is an increased threat that birds will be downed after becoming disoriented by outdoor lighting associated with either night-time construction activity or exterior lighting associated with whatever structures and appurtenances are built on the property. Wedge-tailed Shearwater -The principal potential impacts that the development of the site poses to MBTA-protected Wedge-tailed Shearwaters are: 1) during any clearing and grubbing of the Project site where birds and burrows may be disturbed or destroyed; ad 2) an increased risk that birds will be downed after becoming disoriented by outdoor lighting associated with either night-time construction activity or exterior lighting associated with whatever structures and appurtenances that are built on the property. Mammalian Resources No mammalian species protected or proposed for protection under either federal or State of Hawai'i endangered species programs (DLNR, 1998; USFWS, 2005a, 2005b, 2011) were detected during the course ofthis survey. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 35 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Recommendations Vegetation • Landscape with native dryland plants for lower cost maintenance. We recommend post-construction landscaping with native dryland and coastal strand plants. Planted in a mix of ground cover, shrub, and tree heights, native plants will slow run-off and retain moisture when rain occurs. Native plants will remain green and more fire resistant throughout dry periods. Most native plantings have lower maintenance costs as well. Native species need less hedge trimming, weed-whacking, and usually grow well without fertilizers, reducing cost and the potential for non-point pollution of the ocean. Native species will provide educational, visual, and aesthetic benefits while conserving water. Native plants will create interesting areas for walking, cultural learning, nature study, and bird watching. Resources helpful in understanding Hawaiian plants in landscaping include Native Hawaiian Plants for Landscaping, Conservation_ and Reforestation (Bornhorst & Rauch, 1994) and Growing Native Hawaiian Plants (Bornhorst, 2005). By prior arrangement with growers, native Hawaiian plants can be as convenient to mass plant as the introduced plants commonly used to re- vegetate after new construction. Invertebrates • Shield external lighting: during construction and in the finished project and roadways, it will be important to plan to shield outdoor lighting. Artificial lighting is attractive and confusing to many arthropods (see Methods: Light survey, page 6), concentrating them at night as easy prey for feeding bats or arthropod predators such as praying mantis. Insects attracted to lights at night often remain in place at dawn and are then easily seen and consumed by birds. Birds • Immediately prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities on the Project site, a survey for nesting Wedge-tailed Shearwaters should be conducted by a qualified biologist to record all then currently active burrows with GPS. These locations can then be plotted on construction plan documents so that the burrows can be avoided. At this site, the colony is active and expanding; as such, the current location of burrows (as in Fig. 2) is not an accurate indication of where all burrows will be next breeding AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 36 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I season. No construction should occur until all nesting Wedge-tailed Shearwaters have left the colony. • If night-time work will be required in conjunction with construction activities on the property, it is recommended that construction lights be shielded to reduce the potential for interactions between nocturnally flying Wedge-tailed Shearwaters, Hawaiian Petrels, Newell's Shearwaters, and other seabirds protected under either the MBTA or ESA (or equivalent state statutes) and man-made structures (Reed et al., 1985; Telfer et al., 1987). • Permanent exterior lights associated with any development on the property must be shielded so as to reduce the potential for interactions of nocturnally flying seabirds with man-made structures (Reed et al., 1985; Telfer et al., 1987). • Restrict food sources: do not allow employees to feed cats or encourage cat colonies. Food meant for cats will attract rats, mice, ants and mongoose. All offer dangers to sea birds. Mammals • Remove trash regularly: food trash can attract mongoose, cat, and rat and mice populations, resulting in predation on birds. Population surges of such pests will make the project a poor neighbor to existing housing in the area. Provide trash cans at construction areas where food is consumed, provide can covers, and empty cans frequently. Importantly, construction supervisors need to establish with crew members a culture of using the receptacles. • Limit animal access: do not allow employees to bring pet dogs or cats to the site. Even well behaved animals can escape a leash and fail to return on command. Dogs and cats will harass and kill ground-nesting birds. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 3 7 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Glossary6 Adventive: organisms introduced to an area but not purposefully. Alien: not native; occurring in the locality it occupies ONLY with human assistance, accidental or purposeful. Polynesian (e.g., coconut) and post-1778 introductions (e.g., guava, goats, and sheep) are aliens. Anaphylactic: hypersensitivity; may cause shock, respiratory distress, swelling, other problems Arthropod: insects and related invertebrates (e.g., spiders) having an external skeleton and jointed legs. Aeolian: wind blown, a habitat dominated by effects of wind blowing over it. Aspiration: invertebrates are transferred from the original location (leaf, net, etc.) into a large vial. Two tubes are lodged in one stopper in the vial. Air drawn in on one tube, creates suction at the end ofthe second tube; the target insect is drawn into the vial by the pulling air. Endemic: naturally occurring, without human transport, ONLY in the locality occupied. Hawaii has a high percentage of endemic plants and animals, some in very small microenvironments. Indigenous: naturally occurring without human assistance in the locality it occupies; may also occur elsewhere, including outside the Hawaiian Islands. (e.g., naupaka kahakai (Scaevola sericea) is the same plant in Hawai'i and throughout the Pacific). Insects: arthropods with six legs, and bodies in three sections Invertebrates: animals without backbones (insects, spiders, snails, shrimp) Kipuka: an area of vegetation surrounded by younger lava flows Larvajlarvai: an immature stage of development in young of many animals. Littoral: belonging to or along the sea shore Makal: toward the ocean Mauka: toward the mountains Midden: human food refuse in an archaeological setting, often in a heap or pile 6 Glossary based largely on definitions in Biological Science: An Ecological Approach, 7th ed., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, a high school text; on the glossary in Manual of Flowering Plants of Hawai'i, Vol.2, Wagner, et al., 1999, Bishop Museum Press, and other sources. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 38 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Glossary (continued). Mollusk: invertebrates in the phylum Mollusca. Common representatives are snails, slugs, mussels, clams, oysters, squids, and octopuses. Native: organism that originated in area where it lives without human assistance. May be indigenous or endemic. Naturalized: an alien organism that, with time, yet without further human assisted releases or plantings, has become established in an area to which it is not native. Nocturnal: active or most apparent at night. Pupa: the stage between larva and adult in insects with complete metamorphosis, a non- feeding and inactive stage often inside a case Purposefully introduced: an organism brought into an area for a specific purpose, for example, as a biological control agent. Rare: threatened by environmental factors and in low numbers. Senescent: Aged. Said of a plant community when most or all of the individual plants are mature and there is no regeneration or young plants in the complement. Species: all individuals and populations of a particular type of organism, maintained by biological mechanisms that result in their breeding mostly with their kind. Strand: Similar to littoral; describes plant community extending inland from the high tide line, typically growing on rock and sand substrata. Vertebrates: animals with backbones (birds, mammals, reptiles) Waxing: describes gradual increase in visible amount of the moon's disk AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 39 Biological Surveys MAKAHO 'E NA POINT, KAUA 'l References Ainley, D. G, R. Podolsky, L. Deforest, G. Spencer, and N. Nur. 2001. The Status and Population Trends of the Newell's Shearwater on Kaua'i: Insights from Modeling, in: Scott, J. M, S. Conant, and C. Van Riper III (editors) Evolution, Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Hawaiian Birds: A Vanishing Avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology No. 22: Cooper's Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. (Pg. 108-123). American Ornithologist's Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. AOU, Washington D.C. 829 pp. __ . 2000. Forty-second supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 117: 84 7-858. Asquith, A 1993. A new species of Cyrtopeltis from coastal vegetation in the Hawaiian Islands (Heteroptera: Miridae: Dicyphinae). Pac. Sci., 47(1): 17-20. Banks, R. C., C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A W. Kratter, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2002. Forty-third supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 119: 897- 906. _, _, ______, and __ . 2003 Forty- fourth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 120: 923-931. _, _, ______, and __ . 2004 Forty- fifth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds . Auk, 121: 985-995. _, ______, ______,and __ . 2005 Forty- sixth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 122: 1031-1031. _, _, ______,and __ . 2006 Forty- seventh supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 123: 926-936. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 140 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Banks, R. C., C. R. Terry Chesser, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2007 Forty- eighth supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check-list ofNorth American Birds. Auk, 124: 1109-1115. and K. Winker. 2008. Forty-ninth supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 125: 758- 768. Bonaccorso, F. J., C. M. Todd and, A. C. Miles. 2005. Interim Report on Research to Hawaiian Bat Research Consortium for The Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Ope'ape'a, Lasiurus cinsereus semotus. 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2005. _, _, and __ . 2007. Interim Report on Research to Hawaiian Bat Research Consortium for The Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Ope'ape'a, Lasiurus cinsereus semotus. April1, 2007. _, M. Corresen, and C, Pinzari 2009. Interim Report on Research to Hawaiian Bat Research Consortium for The Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Ope' ape' a, Lasiurus cinsereus semotus. February 4, 2009. Bornhorst, H. L. 2005. Growing native Hawaiian plants: a how-to guide for the gardener. Bess Press, Honolulu, 104 pp. and F. D. Rauch. 1994. Native Hawaiian plants for landscaping, conservation, and reforestation. HIT AHR, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 17 pp. Bridwell, J. C. 1920, "A New Lowland Plagithmysine Cerambycid from Oahu with Notes on its Habits. [Ewa Dryland Insect survey]," Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 4 (2): 314-327. Bryan, Jr., E. H. 1929. Notes and Exhibitions, Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 7(2):237. Chesser, R. T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2009. Fiftieth supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 126: 1-10. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 41 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Chesser, R. T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2010. Fifty-first supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 127: 726-7 44. ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, __ _, __ __, __ _, and __ . 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 128: 600-613. Christensen, C. 1992. Kauai's Native Land Shells. Fisher Printing, Honolulu. 28 pp. Cooper, B. A and R. H. Day. 1994. Kauai endangered seabird study. Volume 1: Interactions of Dark-rumped Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters with utility structures on Kauai, Hawaii: Final Report, TR-105847-V1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. __ . 1998. Summer Behavior and Mortality of Dark-rumped Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters at Power Lines on Kauai. Colonial Waterbirds, 21 (1): 11-19. Cowie, R. H. 2006. Succineid project web data: Systematics, Phylogenetics, and Biogeography. Available on the web at URL: www.hawaii.edu/cowielab/ Succineid_project/suchome; last accessed July 2011. Daly, H. V. and K. N. Magnacca. 2003. Insects of Hawaii. Volume 17: Hawaiian Hylaeus. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 234 pp. David, R. E. 2010. Unpublished field notes-Kaua'i, 1980-2010. ___, R. H. Day, and B. A. Cooper 2002. Results of Newell's Shearwater Surveys at the Kaluahonu, Moalepe and Anahola Memorial Colonies, Island of Kaua'i, Hawai'i, July 2002. Prep. for Planning Solutions, Inc., and Kaua'i Electric. __ and Planning Solutions. 2008. 2007 Save Our Shearwaters Program End of Year Report: Prep. for: Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative & The Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 1997. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and Introduced Wild Birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 142 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Administrative Rule §13-124-2 -§13-124-3, June 13, 1996. Exhibit 1. Feb. 1, 1997. Available on the web at URL: www.state.hi.us/dlnr/ dofaw/rules/Chap124exhib.pdf. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 1998. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered And Threatened Wildlife And Plants, And Introduced Wild Birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. Administrative Rule §13-134-1 through §13-134-10, dated March 02, 1998. Division of Forestry & Wildlife (DOFAW) 2009. Unpublished Seabird Survey Data. Ebin, Moser + Skaggs LLP, and Rana Biological Consulting, Inc. 2010. Kaua'i Lagoons Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for: Kauai Lagoons, LLC & Mori Golf (Kauai), LLC. eYols. University of Hawaii at Manoa Library. Available on the web at URL: http:/ /evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/; last accessed May 2011. Hadley, T. H. 1961. Shearwater calamity on Kauai. 'Elepaio, 21: 60. Hawai'i Biological Survey (HBS). 2002a update. Hawaiian Arthropod Checklist. B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Available on the web at URL: http:/ /www2.bishopmuseum.org/HBS/checklist/; Last accessed May 2011. __ . 2002b. Hawaiian Freshwater & Terrestrial Mollusk Checklist. B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Available on the web at URL: http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/HBS/checklist/; Last accessed May 2011. Hawaii Natural Heritage Program (HNHP). Undated. Hawaii Natural Heritage Program, Center for Conservation Research and Training, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Data provided by Roy Kam, Database Manager, accessed May 2011. Hawaii-Pacific Journal Index. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Accessed October 2009. Available on the web at URL: http://uhmanoa.lib .hawaii. Hawaiian Entomological Society (HES). 1990. Common Names of Insects & Related Organisms. Committee on Common Names of Insects. 87 pp. Available on the web at URL: edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi; last accessed May 2011. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page I 43 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Hazlett, R. W., and D. W. Hyndman. 1996. Roadside Geology of Hawaii. Mountain Press, Missoula, Montana. 304 pp. Howarth, F. G. and W. P. Mull . 1992. Hawaiian Insects and Their Kin . University of Hawai 'i Press, Honolulu. 160 pp . Ingenta Connect search service j online abstracts. Available on the web at URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/; last accessed May 2011. Kunishi, R. 1976. "Notes and Exhibitions (Oct 1974)," Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 22(2): 175-176. Liittschwager, D. and S. Middleton, photographers. 2001. Remains of a Rainbow, National Geographic / Environmental Defense Fund. Accompanying zoological captions by Manning, Montgomery, eta/. Montgomery, S. L. 2003. Survey of terrestrial faunal resources on Po'ipii Beach Villas property, Po'ipii, Koloa, Kaua'i, 21pp. Report for Po'ipii Beach Villas, LLC. __ . 2005. Survey of native terrestrial and stream fauna near Koloa Landing, Po'ipii, Koloa District, Island of Kaua'i, 21pp. Report for Po'ipii Beach Villas, LLC. Morgan, C., P. White, and R. E. David. 2003. Habitat Conservation Plan: Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative: Working Paper No. 2 Data Analysis: Interpreting the Save Our Shearwaters Bird Recovery Database (1979- 2002) for Habitat Conservation Planning. Prep. for: Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative. __ . 2004 Habitat Conservation Plan: Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative: Data Report and Analysis: Save Our Shearwaters Bird Program 2003 Update. Prepared for: Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative. Nishida, G. M. (ed .). 2002. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist. Fourth edition. Bishop Museum Technical Report 22: 313 pp. __ and J. M. Tenorio. 1993. What Bit Me? Univ. of Hawaii Press. 72 pp. Office of Environmental Quality Control. Online library. Available on the web at URL: http:/ joeqc.doh.hawaii.govjShared Documents/; last accessed May 2011. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 144 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Otte, D. 1994. The Crickets of Hawaii. The Orthopterists' Society, Philadelphia, PA. 396 pp. Pacific Basin Information Node (PBIN). Data base I geographic search available on the web at URL: http:/ /pbin.nbii.gov/otherinverts/index.asp; last accessed May 2011. Perkins, R. C. L. 1913. "Introduction. Being a review of the land-fauna of Hawaiia," and "Vertebrates." In: Sharp, D., ed., Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, and Bishop Museum Special Pub.6. Podolsky, R., D. G. Ainley, G. Spencer, L. de Forest, and N. Nur. 1998. Mortality of Newell's Shearwaters Caused by Collisions with Urban Structures on Kaua'i. Colonial Waterbirds, 21: 20-34. Pukui , M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawai'i. 289 pp. Reed, J. R., J. L Sincock, and J. P. Hailman 1985. Light Attraction in Endangered Procellariform Birds: Reduction by Shielding Upward Radiation. Auk 102: 377-383 . Scholar Space. University of Hawaii at Manoa Library. Available on the web at URL: http:/ /schola rspace. manoa. haw a ii.ed u/; last accessed May 2 011. Simons, T. R., and C. N. Hodges. 1998. Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia).ln: A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North America, No. 345. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. Sincock, J. L. 1981. Saving the Newell's Shearwater. Pages 76-78 in Proceedings of the Hawaii Forestry and Wildllife Conference, 2-4 October 1980. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, Honolulu. Staples, G. W. and D. R. Herbst. 2005. A Tropical Garden Flora. Plants Cultivated in the Hawaiian Islands and other Tropical Places. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 908 pp. Stearns, H. T. 1966. Road Guide to Points of Geologic Interest in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, Ca . 66 pp. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 145 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I Swezey, 0. H. 193S. "Winter Revival of Insect Life in the Arid Region at Koko Head, O'ahu," Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 9: 9S- 96. ___ .. 19S4. Forest Entomology in Hawai'i. Special Publication 44, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, 266 pp. Telfer, T. C. 1979. Successful Newell's Shearwater Salvage on Kauai. 'Elepaio, 39:71 __, J. L. Sincock, G. V. Byrd, and J. R. Reed. 1987. Attraction of Hawaiian seabirds to lights: Conservation efforts and effects of moon phase. Wildlife Society Bull., 1S: 406-413. Tenorio, J. M. and G. M. Nishida. 199S. What's Bugging Me? University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, 184 pp. Tomich, P. Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. 37 pp. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel & Newell's Manx Shearwater Recovery Plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. February 1983. __ . 1998. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. __ . 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Newcomb's Snail from the Hawaiian Islands. SO CFR Part 17. Federal Register, Vol. 6S(No.17): 4162-4169. __ . 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth. Federal Register, 68(111; Tuesday, June 10, 2003): 34710-34766. __ . 200Sa. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. SO CFR 17:11 and 17:12 (Tuesday, November 1, 200S). __ . 200Sb. SO CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petition; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register, 70 (No. 90; Wednesday, May 11, 200S): 24870-24934. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 146 Biological Surveys MAKAHO'ENA POINT, KAUA'I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. SO CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 7S(No. 217; Nov. 10): 69221-69294. __ . 2010b. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS), available on the web at URL: http:/ /ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StartTESS.do. __ . 2010c. SO CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. Final rule. Federal Register, 7S(No. 121; June 24): 3S990-36012. U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO), Astronomical Applications Department. Sun and Moon Data for One Day. Available on the web at URL: http:/ /aa.usno.navy.mil/. Wagner, W. L., D. R Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 2 vols. 18S4 pp. __ and __ . 1999. Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, pp. 18SS-1918. In: Wagner, W. L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i. Revised edition. 2 vols. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Zimmerman, E. C. 1948-80. Insects of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. ____ .. 2001. Insects of Hawaii. Volume 1: Introduction. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. xx + 206 pp. AECOS Inc. [1269.DOCX] Page 147 EXHIBIT O-4 Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII FIGURE 1 Public View Analysis 1. Ala Kinoiki (foreground) and Po‘ipü Road (cross street) are the closest County highways from the Property. This photograph was taken from the east side of Ala Kinoiki. See location of photo indicated on the map below. 2. From the Ala Kinoiki/Po‘ipü Road intersection the Property is not visible and thus the build out of either the 10 lot subdivision or the 25+ legal lots of record will have no impact on public views from the closest coastal County highways. This photograph was taken from the west side of Ala Kinoiki. See location of photo indicated on the map below. 3. Kaumuali‘i Highway (Route 50), the State highway nearest to the coast in this area of Kaua‘i and closest to the Property, is approximately 4.8 miles from the Property. Because of this distance, the Property cannot be seen Kaumuali‘i Highway. Thus the Makahü‘ena Point subdivision will not interfere with or detract from the line-of-sight toward the ocean from the State highway nearest the coast. Kaumu ali‘i H w y.Maluhia Rd.Pö‘ipu Rd. K o l o a R d . 4 . 8 m i l e s 0 1 mile Makahü‘ena Point 12Ala K i no ik i Rd . EXHIBIT O-4 Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. FIGURE 2 Public View Analysis Current Conditions: Pe‘e Road is the County road directly in front of the Property. Currently from Pe‘e Road the only view of the ocean across the Property from is from the access driveway. Tall vegetation blocks ocean views from other locations along Pe‘e Road. This photograph was taken near the east side of the Property; see key map on the right. With the 25+ lot Subdivision: From this perspective build out of the 25+ legal lots of record would create a dense line of homes along Pe‘e Road and the internal access road, blocking all ocean views. With the 10-lot Subdivision: With only two homes directly fronting Pe‘e Road, the 10-lot subdivision would provide for more opportunities for ocean views between the homes. Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. FIGURE 3 Public View Analysis Current Conditions: From this perspective along Pe‘e Road tall vegetation blocks ocean views. This photograph was taken near the west side of the Property; see key map on the right. With the 25+ lot Subdivision: From this perspective build out of the 25+ legal lots of record would create a dense line of homes along Pe‘e Road and block all ocean views. With the 10-lot Subdivision: With large, one-acre lots, and only two homes directly fronting Pe‘e Road, the 10-lot subdivision would provide for more opportunities for ocean views between the homes. Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. FIGURE 4 Public View Analysis Current Conditions: The paved public shoreline access path in front of The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex ends at the west Property boundary; see key map on the right. A survey stake marks the property line. The end of the paved path can be seen at the bottom left. With the 25+ lot Subdivision: Build out of the 25+ legal lots of record would allow for up to three rows of homes between The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex and the ocean; however from this perspective the homes would not detract from the line-of- sight toward the ocean, as the primary ocean view is to the south. With the 10-lot Subdivision: The 10 lot subdivision, with large, one acre lots, would provide for one row of homes between The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex and the ocean, with generous spacing between homes. From this perspective the homes would not detract from the line-of-sight toward the ocean, as the primary ocean view is to the south. Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. FIGURE 5 Public View Analysis Current Conditions: : This photograph was taken further to the east than the photograph in Figure 4; see kep map on the right. The paved public shoreline access path in front of The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex can be seen in the foreground. The paved path ends at the west Property boundary. With the 25+ lot Subdivision: Build out of the 25+ legal lots of record would not be very perceptible from this vantage point as Building 6 of The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex would block most of the homes and the primary ocean view is to the south. With the 10-lot Subdivision: Similarly, the 10 lot subdivision would not be very perceptible from this vantage point as Building 6 of The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex would block most of the homes and the primary ocean view is to the south. Makahü‘ena Point CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i PBR & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAWAII House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. FIGURE 6 Public View Analysis Current Conditions: This photograph was taken from the public access beach park on the eastern side of the Grand Hyatt Resort and Keoneloa (Shipwreck) Beach; see key map on the right. The Makahü’ena Point Property this the prominent point in the center of the photo- graph. The Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex can be seen in the center of the photograph and to the right. With the 25+ lot Subdivision: The build out of the 25+ legal lots of record on the Property would result in a greater cluster of homes on the Makahü’ena Point Property, but would not be out of context with the large buildings of Point at Po‘ipü condominium and timeshare complex and would not block the line-of-sight toward the ocean from this perspective. With the 10-lot Subdivision: With the 10 lot subdivision, homes on the Property would not block the line-of-sight toward the ocean from this perspective and would be less dense with more open space compared to the build out of the 25+ legal lots of record on the Property. EXHIBIT O-5 House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 1 Makahü‘ena Point The Point at Poipu Makahuena at Poipu Pe‘e Road Certified Shoreline EXHIBIT O-5 House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 2 Makahü‘ena Point The Point at Poipu Makahuena at Poipu Pe‘e RoadCertified Shoreline House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 2nd Floor 1st Floor Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 3 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 3rd Floor 1st Floor Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 4 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 5 Makahü‘ena Point 2nd Floor 1st Floor House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 3rd Floor Visual Analysis 25+ lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 6 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 1 The Point at Poipu Makahuena at Poipu Certified Shoreline Shoreline Setback Line Pe‘e Road Public P a r k i n g Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 2 Makahü‘ena Point The Point at Poipu Makahuena at Poipu Certified Shoreline Shoreline Setback Line Pe‘e Roa d House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 3 Makahü‘ena Point Makahuena at Poipu The Point at Poipu Pe‘e Ro a d Certified Shoreline Shoreline Setback Line House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 2nd Floor Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 4 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 3rd Floor Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 5 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 2nd Floor Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 6 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 3rd Floor Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 7 Makahü‘ena Point House illustrations are representative of the general mass and scale of homes that could be built on the lots but are not depictions of what will actually be built and are provided for general visualization purposes only. 1st Floor 4th Floor Visual Analysis 10 lot Subdivision CIRI Land Development Company Island of Kaua‘i Figure 8 Makahü‘ena Point EXHIBIT O-6 0 < C, 0 < C, ,/ { I 0 ·y<) I . ,., .. "\ \ �) r/i \_O , .... ';.o· 'J_·· .\) '\ " llw Mokuh11on<1 I.M.IC (,) ? ·1\ ?O, IJ:l Ow11C1" Mokoh1w110, cl. ol. \ \ .. • \ ------ GlU1l'JllC Iii! (J � • • && cl1JI! l�1,1!llJCI' 1,1 :r"I l M/\/,JI / U1t1wirl(J l"ilc: 1,1 ;,i_1·1 '.;11bd lc:r1tc1live.dw�J !iO I 100 I ( IN Jo'J,:1,:T i11ch :)() II.. I o, '" P) "' 1.004 Ac. /, )J,1·;;1� lilll !),1!,i\ '.)'.) �;. mio.-;1 w. "I 1AA"/;\ LOT 8 1.123 Ac. ! (}/i, I.!() Ii,// /.01 ll?/.111 EASEMENT E -2 (46 Sq, Ft.) I. I w ( ) / I, I ) r1,.._ I '' ,, () 1() II (I) l) () [/) 1.109 Ac .. on..-,%, cJ)•,,-(_) / I '.1:-::f---�;0 9 / _ L I ,.-�i..'-"'" //.·· ( \ ,..--\ .11· I \\ ,_/ .. ·11 I \\ ,../ .. · I/ I \ \\ ,.-• I/ I \ \\ ..-"'. .-/1 I I \\ . I, I; I I \\ I I I \ \\ ,, I;/ I \<,\\ {v 1 1 /i u11ii1 \\ ,J/;< 1�16>\\ ,_JIJn�i o I 0(1 !.J \\,l..);l,v co1 (I 1\\ V,. / A-) ! J.) \ \J, "'JI I,\)': ,lJ "•\ (,I\\ 1 !,.._ cn 1 rJ1 »--I\ ···-.?<lo•-.•; /,...J !'"JI rJJ,1 "'\\\ "-...__ -� .... ,_�J </j•• {))/ \ \ \\ ----...,_ /I·--I \ \ \ I / . ._ ! \ ). \ '-.. // ._, \ '\ '·, / / ·,. ··-<02 "\ \ ;,/ I '--... •• ::._�(,' . I \ ! 0· . • . ·-i I \ . /;?,;,, I ·-·1 I / • .$()'1. I ........ __ _ I / J I -. I / ·. \ I I I ,<j,· __ \ I ; I-.. d•,1,:1 I / I I / v .so/'!i.:i'.rn" f' I I tl. I/ ·--/?ii' 1}J',L5'/fi"/ .(I() LOT 7 1.535 Ac. 01 "',,, \\\LOT 6 1.103 Ac. !i 1 !1!ill.'.U '.; 111.UJB W "jl/\A"A " C, " " MulrnlillN10 I 1oinl l.i�Jlil11011:;c :;lc1lirnl EASEMEN I A-2 (0.792 Ac.re) "�J " '" 0. / j() Ac. / r).j Ow11c1--lJ11il(id '.;l,{11c'.> of Al fH)I icil "n " 1·u.(n I, ( : \ LOT 5 1.125 Ac. llJ\CIFI( 0 C 1: A N (I I I �OT 4 1.001 Ac. I I I I 1110 l'oini. {Jt l'oip11 I ot /. ?O. ,1 ,u Acre:; Ow11c1: \ I LOT 3 1.001 Ac. �,s M ts � ,1. � UCENSEO 'f::, Q PROFESSIONAL LAND * SURVEYOR No. 4383 �i.',1 I I u'.:>� * LOT 2 1.027 Ac. 1111'.; wo111< WAS 1!1{1-1'/\l�IIJ llY Ml 011 lJNlll·I< MY ';l!l'i'INl'.ilOl'-1 �;i(JllClliff<: I �;Al<I Slll!Vl·.YINC & MAPl'INC, I Xl'll�l -'--i: Al'lrn JO, /.0111 11,1c. ESAKI SURVEYING & MAPPING, INC. Civil l·wJiric<:r� I wid Surveyor·� I / I C, ' •o /.ti "'':r I' 1\ t: I I I C LOT 1 1.244 Ac. OCl/1N I I I I I I I i;,'\ /(\ ) 0) /,,'\ I ' I /1 / I I I/ I I;; ()1 /. 1\'·'' ,, .,, / / • I I I I I I I I I I I //) • .. I Xi>�' \\(/;S: I 1()11 l(J ( IH ACII l)Al�I< lS, \ .\ \ I I I I \ c1rn1,11) I IYA I I 1(/\llAI 1�1-�;rnn 1 ·\ •. _,[_j,;;- II W i'Olfll /\-1 I 'Olfl\J r /1 VICINITY MAP t:IOJES: � i. I II II I .'i. "· H I Ii. /11i11111ll1:; (J11d di:d11ncc:; rn1: li11:;c:d 011 rm:rnd i11/111 r11r1liu11 I-.Jr11no(:,) of owrtcr(:;) of <1djoii1inq l)CJrccl lokrn1 f1rnn Cot111l_y lc1x l\!COl(l:;_ '.;l101·dir1c r:orr1cri, (1ft: 11/Jil:; 111ilc:;s oll1crwi:;e 11c1lc(L I (1:;c1ncr1l AlJ· ·I for l'1Jblic l'mkinq, l'11IJlic l'crlc:;lriw1 (11111 l,i!Jl1l '.it11lin11 Acc()t;:; l'11r1io:;r;:; I q:;rnnc11l AlJ /. r(lr !1 t1blic !'rnle:;lriwi rnid l.irJl1l ')l(lliri11 I (1:,c1nc11l NJ ,S for Corrnno11 Ac(;(::::; &. lJlilily l'11rpn1;c::; I (1:;(n11011l AlJ -� f11r I n:;<11nrnit AlJ· -!) for & lJlili ly l 1 111 po:;c:;_ & lJlilily i'111p<i:;cf;_ I ,1:;crnrn1! AlJ--b f<>t /\cce:-;t; & lJUlily l'1111)()1;e:-;. I _(l:;c1nrn1l I _(J:il/1/lCtll I \l:;t)lfl(:111 I u:;cr r1c:11 l I u:;t:111u11l A-J to1 Op(:n '.)pr1cu I '!II po:;m;. I I' fo1 (Jlili ly !111rpri:;cJ!i , lo, Olildy 1',,,po,;o:< lJtilily I i111 po:>c!:;. for I 'od(i11q I '111 poi;<: S-2015-14CONSOLIDATION OF 11>t! m ru• <Ammirn-:i, Me�f n. n C f,l, � .... , r,r •t, rl ·m: 'I, _,,r !l•,. NAR 2 7 2018 (2.. (\ LOTS 1 THROUGH 3, 45 THROUGH 54, 56 THROUGH 63, PARCELS L-1, L-2, AND L-3, Being LAAUKAHI ROAD LOT, AND EHUKAI ROAD portions of Makahuena Tract (File Plan Being also portion of Grant 1416 to Eke Oponui LOT 354) SUBDIVISION OF SAID CONSOLIDATION INTO LOTS 1 THROUGH 10, ROAD LOT A, AND ROAD WIDENING LOT CANCELLATION OF ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT, AND DESIGNATION OF EASEMENTS AU-1, AU-2, AU-3, AU-4, AU-6, A-1, A-2, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, AND P-1 AU-5 ' AT WELIWELI, KOLOA, KAUAI, HAWAII T.M.K: (4) 2-8-21: 41, and 44 to 68,Owner: CIRI Land Developrnent inclusive Company 2018 Date: February 23, HJW ! l.-ilt:11!(1111(1 ';\1 i:d I .iln1c, !\rn1\li, 1 luwoii !JO /(Jf.i EXHIBIT O-6 EXHIBIT P PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR MAKAHUENA POINT TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041; (4) 2-8-021: 044-067 Located in Poipu, Island of Kauai, State of Hawaii OWNER: CIRI LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Prepared By: David A Grenier, P.E. Hawaii. License No. 6353-C Triad Engineering 1300 E. 68th Ave., Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99518 April 7, 2014 EXHIBIT P TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION 3.0 TOPOGRAPHY and CURRENT DRAINAGE PATTERNS 4.0 FLOOD ZONES 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS 6.0 OCEAN CONDITIONS 7.0 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE 7.1 EXISTING ACCESS 7.2 AVAILABLE WASTEWATER FACILITIES 7.3 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES 7.4 AVAILABLE ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATION 8.0 FLOOD ZONES & CONSTRAINT DISTRICTS 9.0 ANTICIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 SITE GRADING 9.2 DRAINAGE PLAN 9.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & QUALITY 9.4 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9.5 ROADWAYS 9.6 WASTEWATER 9.7 WATER 9.8 ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATION 9.9 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 10.0 CONCLUSION EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: Tax Map EXHIBIT B: Preliminary Site Layout & Grading Plan EXHIBIT C: FIRM Panel 352 of 356 EXHIBIT D: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Map EXHIBIT E: Department of Water Letter dated October 30, 2012 EXHIBIT F: Individual Wastewater System (IWS) Report 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR MAKAHUENA POINT TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041; (4) 2-8-021: 044-067 1.0 INTRODUCTION Landowner CIRI Land Development Company (CLDC) proposes to consolidate the existing 25+ lots of record1 located on its 13.078 acre property (the Property) at Makahuena Point, near Poipu, and re-subdivide the Property into 10 single-family residential lots (approximately one acre each); see Exhibit A, TMK map and Exhibit B, Preliminary Site Layout & Grading Plan. The purpose of this report is to provide information relating to the existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the Makahuena Point Property and outline additional infrastructure required to serve the new subdivision. This report will also assist in identifying site conditions and design elements that require careful consideration of Kauai's land and waters. The existing lots were created in 1932 under a subdivision known as the Makahuena Tract (File Plan 354), which established 63 lots and associated road lots on the Property as well as on the adjacent property currently occupied by the project known as The Point at Poipu. The Point at Poipu property was consolidated and re-subdivided in the 1990s. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Property is located at the southern tip of the Island of Kauai, identified by the County as TMK 2-8-021:041 and TMKs (4) 2-8-021: 044-067; see the attached Exhibit A. The 13.078 acre Property fronts the Pacific Ocean and is located south of Pee Road with The Point at Poipu development to the northeast and The Makahuena at Poipu development to the west. 3.0 TOPOGRAPHY and CURRENT DRAINAGE PATTERNS The general slope of the Property is from the north to a southeasterly direction toward the ocean with the exception of an existing large, oval-shaped depression located within the westerly portion of the Property. No runoff from the Property drains onto the east or west adjacent properties or onto the Pee Road right of way. The elevations on the Property range from sea level up to the 64 foot contour at Pee Road with an existing slopes ranging from the certified shoreline in the 4% to 9% with an overall average slope of the Property at 5.8 percent. A catch basin inlet exists along the south side of Pee Road located approximately in the middle of the Property‟s road frontage. It appears that no runoff from Pee Road drains onto the Property. Minor runoff from The Point at Poipu development appears to enter the Property in the vicinity of proposed Lots 1 and 2. 1 25 lots of record TMK (4) 2-8-021: 044 – 068; one bulk lot TMK (4) 2-8-021: 041, and two unnumbered road lots. 2 4.0 FLOOD ZONES No defined stream channels, notable drainage paths or signs of erosion exist within the Property boundary or along the shoreline which consists of rock outcrops. The Property flood zone designations are X, VE and AE flood zones with base flood elevations as identified and depicted on the FEMA Kauai County, Hawaii Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 352 of 356; see attached Exhibit C. Note that the location of the base flood elevation lines as depicted on the FIRM Panel differ somewhat from the existing and current ground elevation contour lines shown on the Preliminary Site layout and Grading Plan. This difference is due to the actual site survey performed that produced a contour map which is more precise than the methods used by FEMA. Also note that all of the proposed house pads are located above the VE Base Flood Elevations when compared to the actual surveyed ground contours. 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service identifies two different soil groups within the Property. The majority of the Property is classified as Koloa stony silty clay with a hydrologic soil group rating of C which is characterized as soils having a slow infiltration rate. The remainder of the site along the shore line is classified as rock outcrop; see attached Exhibit D 6.0 OCEAN CONDITIONS The State of Hawaii classifies a small portion the waters off the Property‟s coastline west of Makahuena Point as Class AA, which is the most protective classification of marine waters, and requires that the waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible. See HAR §11-54-3(c) (Dec. 2013). The remaining waters fronting the Property from Makahuena Point to the east are classified as Class A waters. The objective of Class A waters is that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic enjoyment be protected. See HAR §11-54-3. "Any other use shall be permitted as long as it is compatible with the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters." 7.0 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE 7.1 EXISTING ACCESS The Property has approximately 215 linear feet (lf) of frontage along Pee Road, which is a County dedicated and maintained road. Existing road improvements include asphalt concrete (AC) pavement with barrier curb and gutter. No sidewalk exists along the Pee Road frontage; however, a detached sidewalk does exist both east and west of the property along the southerly side of Pee Road. An existing driveway apron is located approximately 75 feet (ft) west of the easterly property line. Note that the driveway actually crosses The Pointe at Poipu property and will need to be abandoned and a new driveway apron will be established roughly 100 ft to the west of the current driveway location. 3 A dirt road exists along the westerly Property boundary which accesses a 10,000 square- foot parcel (TMK No. (4) 2-8-021:043) located in the south-western portion of the Property and is owned by the United States. The 10,000 sq. ft. parcel houses a navigational aid known as the Makahuena Light; see Exhibit A which shows the parcel labeled as “Makahuena Lighthouse.” 7.2 AVAILABLE WASTEWATER FACILITIES Currently, there are no County owned or maintained wastewater facilities available to serve the Property. The developments to the east and west have on site treatment facilities which are privately owned and maintained. 7.3 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES There is an existing County owned and maintained 12-inch ductile iron waterline within Pe„e Road fronting the Property 7.4 AVAILABLE ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATION Underground electrical, telephone and telecommunication facilities currently exist at the northeast corner of the Property along the southern edge of the Pee Road right of way. 8.0 FLOOD ZONES & CONSTRAINT DISTRICTS The Property is within the Shore Constraint District and the Tsunami Constraint District. The purpose of the Shore District is to regulate development or alterations to shore and water areas which have unique physical and ecological conditions in order to protect and maintain physical, biologic and scenic resources of particular value to the public. The purpose of the Tsunami District is to minimize the threat to public health and safety as well as damage to property due to extraordinary wave action. CZO §8-12.8. Within the Tsunami District, single family dwellings are permitted, but are subject to additional construction and development standards as provided in Chapter 15, Article 1 of the Kauai County Code. Most of the Property is in flood zone X. Therefore construction shall meeting the requirements of KCC §15-1.5(a) or 15-1.5(b), whichever is determined to be appropriate by the County Engineer. KCC §15-1.5(d). The State Commission on Water Resource Management shall be notified prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. However, the CLDC Project does not entail any movement, relocation of alteration of a watercourse, so this provision is not applicable. Other portions of the Property are in the AE and VE zones. Therefore, the construction and development standards under KCC §15-1.5 for residential structures apply. The maximum height of residential structures in the flood fringe area is the greater of 30 feet from the ground, or the base flood elevation plus 15 feet, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning Commission. KCC §15-1.5(a)(E). 4 Within zones AE and VE all water and sewer systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems, and discharge from the systems into flood waters. On-site waste disposal systems should be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. KCC §§15-1.5(a)(4); 15-1.5(c)(6). Within the AE zone, no new construction shall be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than 1 foot at any point within the community. KCC §15-1.5(a)(6). Within the VE zone, fill is prohibited for structural support and all new construction should be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor, excluding pilings and columns, is elevated to or above the base flood elevation. KCC §15-1.5(c). The maximum height of residential structures within the coastal high hazard area is the greater of 30 feet from the ground, or the base flood elevation plus 15 feet, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning Commission. KCC §15-1.5(c)(4). Building plans for new construction must be certified by a registered professional structural engineer or architect that the new construction is designed and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with the accepted standards of practice for meeting the requirements of the County's flood ordinance. KCC §15-1.5(c)(7). In addition, for areas of special flood hazard (i.e., lands within the floodplain subject to 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year), are subject to additional development standards to minimize flood damage. All finally approved subdivision plans within these areas must provide base flood elevations within the lots, and if fill is used to elevate the site of any lot above the base flood elevation, the final ground elevations of the pads shall be certified by a registered professional civil engineer or surveyor. KCC §15-1.6. 9.0 ANTICIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 SITE GRADING To construct the internal road, utilities, and house pads as shown on Exhibit B, mass grading of approximately 70 to 80% of the Property will occur. Prior to beginning the mass grading operations, the temporary erosion control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be installed as outlined in the County approved Erosion Control Plan. After the BMPs are in place, clearing and grubbing of the site will occur followed by excavation and placing of the material in accordance with the approved grading plan. All embankment material will be non-organic and compacted to 95% as directed by the project soils engineer. Dust control is a key element of the Erosion Control Plan and will be monitored on a continuous basis during the site grading operation. The proposed house pad elevations range from an elevation of 24 feet on Lot 1, to an elevation of 62 feet on Lot 10. The proposed grading plan anticipates approximately 25,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill, a balanced situation requiring no fill will be brought from offsite onto the Property. No material is anticipated to leave the site and 5 only classified material for road and utility construction is expected to be imported. Grading operations will be scheduled to occur outside of the Wedge-tailed Shearwater nesting period (approximately April through October). In addition to not beginning construction within this time frame, a site inspection will be conducted to insure the site is clear of nesting birds. 9.2 DRAINAGE PLAN Along with grading of each building pad, drainage basins will be constructed on each of the lots. These basins will be sized to contain the increase in storm water due to the home construction and the increase in impervious surfaces to ensure that surface runoff does not enter the ocean. Note that, pursuant to the limitations in the Open District, coverage on the lots with constructed buildings will be limited to no more than 10% of the total site. The shoreline survey performed in August of 2013 was certified by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources in January 2014. Prior to beginning site grading operations, a rock retaining wall will be constructed along the makai side of Lots 1 through 8 to be located at (or slightly mauka of) the shoreline setback line, as determined by the County of Kauai. This wall will serve as a retaining structure for construction of the building pads as well as a physical barrier to prevent surface drainage on the lots from reaching the ocean. The wall, which will also be an aesthetic feature, is anticipated to range in height from 3 ft to a maximum of 10 ft. The front of the wall will be constructed with a 1:12 back pitch using face stones 18” or less in size and set using recessed mortar joints. This same style of wall will also be constructed along the north Property boundary adjacent to Lot 1 and The Point at Poipu property to act as a physical barrier as well as a retaining structure. 9.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & QUALITY The drainage systems within the proposed subdivision will be based on and follow the requirements of the County of Kauai Storm Water Runoff System Manual, which mandates that any development greater than two acres in size shall maintain the peak storm runoff to pre-development conditions. Drainage sumps, 8 ft deep by 8 ft diameter, will be installed to control the runoff generated from the road tract and public parking spaces. Individual drainage basins, capable of handling the increase in runoff due to the addition of impervious surfaces, will be constructed on each of the lots. The rock retaining walls, as discussed above in 9.2, Drainage Plan, will be designed to prevent surface drainage from reaching the ocean. The subdivision‟s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R‟s) will require that these drainage sumps and drainage basins be maintained by the subdivision‟s Homeowners Association. The CC&R‟s will also address the issue of each lot being responsible to maintain the required capacity of each drainage basin. Sizing of the basins will meet or exceed the requirements of the Kauai County Storm Water Runoff criteria with the goal of keeping surface runoff from reaching the ocean. 6 The total amount of impervious surface is estimated to be 0.6 acre for the road and public parking area and approximately 1.0 acre for the home improvements and driveways. Under the existing pre-development conditions, the storm drainage flow rate for the 10 year, 1 hour storm event is estimated to be 11 cubic feet per second. The estimated post development flow rate for the same storm event is estimated to be 19.5 cubic feet per second, an increase of 8.5 cfs over existing conditions. The proposed drainage facilities, consisting of drainage sumps and drainage basins, will be sized to handle the estimated 19.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface runoff for the 10 year, 1 hour storm event; not simply the increase in runoff from the existing conditions. The size of each lot‟s drainage basin is anticipated to be in the 4,500 cubic foot range. In addition to the proposed improvements being sized to handle the quantity of runoff anticipated during a 10 year, 1 hour storm event, the grassed and landscaped drainage basins will provide water quality control. These proposed features will function as infiltration basins which provide the means to remove sediment and contaminants. In summary, drainage improvements provided as part of the subdivision will improve drainage conditions over existing conditions as all drainage from the Property (pre- development and post development) is proposed to be retained on the Property during the 10 year storm event. These proposed improvements also address water quality criteria. This exceeds the requirements of the County of Kauai Storm Water Runoff System Manual, which mandates that any development greater than two acres shall maintain the peak storm runoff to pre-development conditions. 9.4 EROSION CONTROL PLAN Temporary erosion control measures will be incorporated during construction to minimize soil loss and erosion hazards. Best Management Practices will include such measures as installation of silt fences, waddles, straw bales, a stabilized construction entry, watering for dust control as well as other measures as outlined in the approved Erosion Control Plan. Construction activities will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and County regulations and rules for erosion control. Before issuance of a grading permit by the County of Kauai, an Erosion Control Plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) required for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be prepared describing the implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. The NPDES permit will allow CLDC to perform erosion control measures to ensure that no discharge to the ocean occurs. The NPDES general permit covers discharges composed entirely of storm water runoff associated with construction activities, including clearing, grading, excavation and construction support activities that result in the disturbances of one acre or more of total land area. See HAR chapter 11-55. In accordance with the Department of Health regulations, as well as the requirements of the standard permit conditions, CLDC shall design, install and maintain erosion and sediment controls that minimize (i.e., reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable) the discharge of pollutants from earth-disturbing activities. HAR chapter 11-55. All storm water controls must be installed prior to earth-disturbance, and pollution prevention procedures must be identified and followed. 7 In accordance with HAR chapter 11-55, the Property will be subject to Best Management Practices to minimize the discharge of pollutants via storm water discharges. Examples include open, vegetated swales and natural or constructed depressions; structures for storm water retention, detention, velocity dissipation devices and other appropriate measures. 9.5 ROADWAYS The proposed roadway access to the lots will be privately maintained and located within a 50 ft wide road tract. Improvements will consist of 24 ft asphalt strip pavement with grassed shoulders. No pedestrian walkway within the road tract is anticipated. A public parking area along the north Property line of Lot 9 is proposed for public use to access the shoreline. Pedestrian access would be along the westerly Property boundary within a dedicated public access easement; see the attached Exhibit B. The proposed development will not substantially interfere with the public's use of the ocean 9.6 WASTEWATER As stated above under 7.2, there are no County owned or maintained wastewater facilities available to provide service to this property. Two options are available to provide wastewater service to the subdivision. The first consists of installing individual wastewater systems (IWSs) on each lot, which is addressed in a report prepared by Esaki Surveying & Mapping, Inc (see the attached Exhibit F). As detailed in the report, each IWS will be designed to meet the wastewater flow requirements of the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) for a five bedroom dwelling, which would have a maximum projected flow of 1,000 gallons per day (gpd) based on 200 gallons per day per bedroom. This will result in a greater wastewater capacity for the entire property (10,000 gpd) than the total anticipated wastewater flow of approximately 3,200 gpd based on the County of Kauai Department of Public Works criteria. Using the DOH higher flow rate insures that an adequate safety factor is used in designing and sizing of the IWSs. The second option to provide wastewater service to the project involves connecting to the adjacent property‟s on-site treatment facility. This option would require installation of a sanitary sewer main line to service each lot along with a privately owned and maintained lift station that would pump effluent to the existing neighboring wastewater treatment facility. Initial conversations with the owners and operators of “The Makahuena” development indicate that there is adequate capacity to handle the increase in flow anticipated from this the subdivision. However, there is no agreement at this time between The Makahuena condominium and CLDC for such shared use. 9.7 WATER As stated above under 7.3, a County owned and maintained 12” ductile iron waterline is available to serve the subdivision. It is anticipated that water for the project will be 8 supplied by the County Department of Water. The total amount of anticipated domestic water usage by the proposed 10 lots is estimated to be approximately 5,000 gallons per day. Irrigation water usage for the project would be in addition to the domestic usage. An eight inch waterline is proposed to be connected to the waterline within Pe„e Road and then extend within the subdivision internal roadway to provide water connections to each of the house lots. The waterline will provide water service for both domestic and irrigation use as well as for fire protection. By letter dated October 2012, the DOW confirmed that there is adequate source, storage, and transmission to serve 25 residential lots at the Property. (see the attached Exhibit E). In the letter DOW stated that “Any actual subdivision or development of this area will be dependent on the adequacy of the source, storage, and transmission facilities at that time. At the present time, these facilities are adequate along Pee Road.” DOW also stated that their letter does not represent a commitment or approval by the DOW of proposed or future water meter requests and/or subdivision building permit applications. CLDC will submit a written request for water service for the proposed 10 lots after obtaining the SMA and Class III Zoning Permits. The request will include detailed water demand (both domestic and irrigation) calculations, along with other information required by DOW. 9.8 ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATION Electric, telephone, and telecommunication lines are proposed to be installed underground extending from the existing facilities along the Pee Road right of way to each lot along the proposed internal subdivision road lot. The anticipated increase in usage from the proposed 10 lots would be minimal. 9.9 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste pickup will be provided by a local private collection company for each individual lot. No community dumpster or centralized collection location will be provided. 10. CONCLUSION The proposed improvements for the Makahuena Point project will be designed in accordance with the applicable rules of the County of Kauai and the State of Hawaii and will minimize any adverse environmental or ecological effects to the maximum extent practicable. Public health, safety and welfare are of primary concern to CLDC during this initial planning process and will continue to be the guiding focus as the project develops. The project design concept provisions outlined above will minimize potential adverse effects upon the site and the surrounding special management area resources. Although development of the project will entail alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, the anticipated design features and construction methods will cause minimum adverse effect to water resources and current land uses. EXHIBIT Q EXHIBIT Q   (;+,%,74 David Weekes 1645 Pe'e Rd Koloa, HI 96756 801-634-9075 Feral Cats 2-4 based on populations David Weekes EXHIBIT Q-1 EXHIBIT R EXHIBIT R EXHIBIT S EXHIBIT S RETAINING WALL DETAILS E N G I N E E R I N G Makahuena Point Subdivision S-4 EXHIBIT T Cultural Impact Assessment at Makahū‘ena Point, Weliweli Ahupuaʻa, Kona, Kauaʻi Prepared by McMahon Consulting 3-2600 Kaumualii Hwy., Suite 1300 –PMB 306 Lihue, Kauaʻi, HI 96766 January 2014 Figure 1: Moi Hole at Makahū‘ena Point EXHIBIT T i Table of Contents Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................................. 2 Geology ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Previous Archaeological Investigations ....................................................................................................... 3 Traditional Background ................................................................................................................................ 7 Kauaʻi ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Weliweli and Makahū‘ena Point ............................................................................................................... 9 Land Commission Awards ........................................................................................................................... 10 Place Names ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Mythology and Mo’olelo ............................................................................................................................ 11 Informants ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Traditional Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 15 List of Figures Figure 1: Moi Hole at Makahū‘ena Point .......................................................................... cover Figure 2: 1921 Aerial Photograph of Kōloa.. ........................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Previous archaeological work in Kona District. ......................................................... 7 List of Tables TABLE 1: PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS NEAR/AT MAKAHŪ‘ENA POINT .................................... 4 TABLE 2: (HAUN ET. AL 2011) MAKAHŪ‘ENA INVESTIGATIONS .................................................. 6 1 | P a g e Project Summary McMahon Consulting conducted a cultural assessment for an approximately 13.078 acre land area, formerly designated as TMK: (4) 2-8-021: 041, and a 10,000 square foot parcel designated as TMK (4) 2-8-021: 043, located at Makahū‘ena Point, Weliweli ahupuaʻa within the Traditional District of Kona, island of Kauaʻi. The larger parcel contains 28 subdivided lots that were created in the 1930's. The property is owned by CIRI Land Development Company ("CLDC"), an Alaska corporation, and wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Inlet Region Inc. (“CIRI”), which is an Alaska Native corporation and one of the 12 Alaska-based regional corporations established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. CIRI was established to benefit Alaska Natives who have ties to the Cook Inlet Region of Alaska; the company is owned by more than 8,100 Alaska Native shareholders of predominately Athabascan and Southeast Indian, Inupiat, Yup'ik Eskimo, Alutiiq and Aleut descent. The 10,000 sq. ft. parcel is owned by the United States. CLDC acquired the property from the United States in 1996. CLDC now proposes to develop the property for residential lots and related uses. Although the CLDC property contains over 25 legally recognized subdivided lots, CLDC's proposed Makahū‘ena project anticipates a less dense development of approximately 10 residential lots and related uses. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii states the duty of the State and its agencies is to preserve, protect and prevent interference with the traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians. Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution requires the State to "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. " Furthermore, Act 50, passed by the Hawaii State Legislature in 2000, requires environmental impact statements to "identify the address effects on Hawaii's culture, and traditional and customary rights." The purpose of a cultural impact assessment is to identify the possibility of on-going cultural activities and resources within a project area or its vicinity, and assess the potential impacts that a proposed development may have on those resources. This cultural assessment has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of a cultural impact assessment, as outlined by the Office of Environmental Quality Control guidelines under Chapter 343 Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, and as required under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution. This assessment is a compilation of information from pertinent literature and records, mythological and legendary sources, previous archaeological investigations, a history of the Kōloa area, modern land use, and interviews conducted with cultural practitioners and elders. There is a paucity of data regarding pre-Contact settlement and historic land tenure for the parcel, and limited mythological and legendary references. The parcel had been owned by the Federal Government, specifically the U.S. Coast Guard, who utilized it starting in 1908 for a now decommissioned light house, and later a Long Range Navigation (LORAN) station. The only structures present on the parcel are the remnants of support structures for the manning and 2 | P a g e upkeep of the lighthouse and a former LORAN station. Hale Opio used the property until 1982. Excavations by Haun et al. (2011) revealed no subsurface cultural deposits. Test trenching revealed soil that is shallow, with poorly drained clay-loam over saprolitic bedrock. One Land Commission Award (LCA) was granted in Weliweli in the ‘ili of Haoana in Punipu, and another that borders Weliweli to Ka’ana’ana within the ‘ilis of Halehinahina and Lapapohaku. The rest of the ahupuaʻa was reserved as government land. Previous cultural investigations reveal that the area has been utilized, and still is, for fishing practices. Environmental Setting Geology Makahū‘ena Point is the terminus of a series of small eruptions along the Poipu Fault that that produced four craters extending across the Kōloa plain approximately 2.3 to 1.0 mya, producing 40 vents, spatter and cinder cones, and a tuff cone. Kōloa lavas cover about half of the surface of the eastern part of the island to the floor of the Lihue Basin. The last crater produced the lava flow that is Makahū‘ena Point. Ranging southwest mauka to makai the first crater has been turned into the Puuhi Reservoir, likely during the tenure of the Kōloa Sugar plantation. The second Puʻu lies on the slopes of the reservoir and is shown on the USGS Kōloa Quad topographic map as a cinder pit named Puʻu Hunihuni. The third crater is named Puʻu Wanawana, situated on the Kōloa Plain above the present Weliweli Road makai of the parcel. The fourth crater is named Puʻu Pihakekua also called Poipu crater, which lies in the northwest corner of Makahū‘ena Point. It is likely that this eruption caused the formation of the point. Finally, a shallow unnamed collapsed crater is present on the parcel. The rugged coastline of the promontory of Makahū‘ena separates the sandy beaches of Poipu on the west and Keoneloa Bay on the east. 3 | P a g e Figure 2: 1921 Aerial Photograph of Kōloa. Note Makahū‘ena Point at bottom right. Soils The soils of Makahū‘ena consist of Kōloa Stony silt clay on a 15-25% slope at the mauka side of the parcel with the makai portion classified as Rock Land. The area is classified as a moderate to severe erosion hazard, with maximum soil depths of 20 inches over a pahoʻehoʻe flow. The coastal portions of the parcel are classified as Rock land, which is defined by Foote et al. as, "areas where exposed bedrock covers more than 90 percent of surface (1972:119). Previous Archaeological Investigations There have been numerous archaeological investigations in the vicinity of Makahū‘ena, with many sites being re-recorded and assigned different site numbers. Thrum recorded heiau sites on Kaua`i (Thrum 1906) and Bennett recorded sand dune burials at adjacent Keoneloa beach (Site 82), and petroglyphs (Site 84) (Bennett 1931). These surveys were conducted prior to the developments at Poipu, Keoneloa beach and former Kōloa Plantation lands for residential, hotels and condominium lots. There were three investigations at Makahū‘ena Point. One consisted of a survey by Ladd under the auspices of the U. S. Coast Guard 14th District to record impacts to the historic lighthouse located at the point (Ladd 1981). In 1983 a reconnaissance survey of the coastal lands of the 4 | P a g e Kona district was conducted within the ahupuaʻa of Weliweli and Mahaulepu. Three boundary walls were recorded in Weliweli. The first (site 3195) is interpreted as a boundary wall dividing a “housing tract from the cane lands.” The second (site 3196) is interpreted as a boundary wall separating Grove Farm land from private landowners. The third (site 3198) is a wall located “in the vicinity of “Puʻu Pihakekua crater” adjacent to the project area (Ching et al. 1983). The State Historic Preservation Kaua`i archaeologist synthesized available archaeological and historic literature related to the location of Kaneʻaukai Heiau in an attempt to pinpoint the location of this heiau said to be located at Makahū‘ena Point. This heiau had been written about as early as 1885 (Lahainaluna School 1885) but no locational data was provided, and later archaeological investigations attempting to pinpoint the location resulted in the assignation of different site numbers; Site 83 (Bennett 1931), (Kikuchi 1963), and SIHP# 3089 (Hammatt 1989a, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and 477 (McMahon 1991). None of these later investigations provided data to conclusively locate this heiau, and the synthesis concluded that Weliweli Heiau, Kauakahaʻi fishing alter and Haliʻi fishing alter are all applied to Kaneʻaukai Heiau in various location. McMahon determined that the existence of the heiau was only preserved through oral histories (McMahon 1991) [Table 1]. TABLE 1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS NEAR/AT MAKAHŪ‘ENA POINT Investigation Site # Investigation Results Lahainaluna Schools None Oral history identifies Kaneʻaukai Heiau No locational data provided Ching, Palama, Stauder 3195 3196 3197 3198 The Archaeology of Kona, Kauaʻi Na Ahupuaʻa Weliweli, Paʻa, Mahaulepu Surface Survey of Coastal Lands Three mauka sites and one site located near Puʻu Pihakekua at Makahū‘ena Point Kikuchi 1963 Site 97 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kauai, Kona District, Hawaiian Islands. Inland of Makahū‘ena Point Ladd 1980 None Archaeological Field Survey Report, Makahūʻena Point, Kauaʻi. No NRHP significance Hammatt 1989a Site 82 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan for Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Pa’a. Identified a rock alignment as possible Kane’aukai Heiau Hammatt 1990a Site 82 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas. [TMK: (4) 2-8-20: 21]. Noted “large rectangular boulder alignments on the east and north side, but other two sides not identified” Hammatt 1990b Site 82 Preliminary Status Report on Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas SPD requires further investigation 5 | P a g e Investigation Site # Investigation Results [TMK: (4) 2-8-20: 21]. 1990c Site 3089 Update on our Research on Kaneʻaukai Heiau, Keoneloa Bay, Weliweli. Survey of Keoneloa Bay Villas project complete. SHPD requests further documentation 1991 Testing of Possible Heiau, Keoneloa, Weliweli, Kōloa, Kauaʻi [TMK: (4) 2-8-20:21] No definitive determination of heiau Haun et al. 2011 Site 2130- 2147 Archaeological Inventory Survey, TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041, Makahūʻena Point, Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kōloa District, Island of Kauaʻi Survey of the project area, found 18 sites, all historic and related to Coast Guard occupation McMahon 1991 Site 477 Locating Kaneʻaukai Heiau: An Archaeological and historical Synthesis, Weliweli, Kōloa, Kauaʻi. Synthesis of all data determines that heiau only survive in the oral histories In 2011, an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of Makahū‘ena Point recorded historic remnants and debris of the former historic lighthouse (constructed in 1906) support buildings and infrastructure, and from the LORAN station that operated between 1952 and 1979. The survey identified 18 sites with 128 features consisting of concrete pads, concrete blocks, metal artifact scatters, posts, terraces, slabs, paths walls, a ditch, road, stairs, a utility box and a walled slab. Twenty subsurface trenches recorded 20th century historic materials, but no pre- Contact sites or deposits (Haun et al. 2011) [Table 2]. 6 | P a g e TABLE 2 (HAUN ET. AL 2011) MAKAHŪ‘ENA INVESTIGATIONS 7 | P a g e Figure 3: Previous archaeological work in Kona District. Traditional Background Kauaʻi Kauaʻi is the oldest of the eight major islands of the Hawaiian chain. Radio carbon dates from Paʻa suggest the island was settled by Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands, and later, Tahiti as early as 200 A.D (Walker and Rosendahl 1990). A rock shelter excavated in the 1950’s at Haʻeleʻele in Kōloa produced evidence of occupation starting in the 11 th century A.D. (Kirch 1985). An old rock altar atop Waiʻaleʻale attests to the deep spirituality of the first Hawaiians. Their sacred places once lined the Wailua River, considered to be one of the most sacred areas in all the Hawaiian Islands. Before European contact [sic 1796], Kauaʻi’s geographic location meant relative isolation from the other islands, an advantage resulting in never being defeated by, or ruled by a chief of another island (Bennett 1931). According to sources (Kamakau 1961; Fornander 1969; Dukas 2004) during Kalaunuiohuaʻs War, also called Kawelewelei War (ca. 1480 – 1500) Kalaunuiohua (Hawaiʻii) fought against the chiefs of Maui, Moloka`i, and West Oʻahu, eventually being defeated at Kōloa by Kukona, chief of Kauaʻi. 8 | P a g e Kauaʻi was discovered on January 20, 1778, when the two British ships under Captain James Cook, the Resolution and Discovery, sailed into Waimea Bay documenting villages all along the southern shoreline passing Maka`huena Point. Christian missionaries arrived on Kauaʻi shortly thereafter, establishing a church in Hanalei on the north shore called Waioli Huila. The little green church still stands. The missionaries would later establish churches in Waimea and Kōloa. In 1810 the island was ceded to Kamehameha I to prevent an invasion and to maintain its political independence until the death of Kaumuali’i in 1824. In April of 1796, Kamehameha I attempted an abortive invasion of Kauaʻi, but suffers a major disaster in the Kauaʻi channel. Locals reported that the warriors of Kamehameha I was able to land two war canoes but were defeated on the beach at Keoneloa Bay, and the rest driven off. Most believe the battle actual took place at Mahaulepu. A second attempt resulted in Kamehameha and his invading army being caught in a storm in the Kaua`i Channel and aborting the invasion. Near the bank of the Waimea River are the remains of Fort Elizabeth. It was constructed in 1816 by the Russians during their attempt to established forts on Kauaʻi and Oʻahu. The Russians occupied this fort for only a short time, and later in the historic period by Hawaiians, who renamed the fort Ka Ula Pa. The great battle took place there for Kauaʻi with descendants of Kaumualiʻi, George Humehume, his son and the Oʻahu warriors sent there to protect the interests of the Oʻahu chiefs. "The natives of all the islands seem very generally to prefer the hot and barren side to the cooler and more verdant situations further up the valley” (Jarvis 1844:121), Many villages were located near the ocean and the numerous fresh water streams where wet taro cultivation was practiced. Archaeological investigations have confirmed this settlement pattern on Kauaʻi recording numerous archaeological features (583 sites, including 175 enclosures and 108 house platforms) integrated with an extensive agricultural field complex that was drawing water from Waikomo Stream in Kōloa (Sinoto 1975; Hammatt et. al. 1978). This agricultural field system, now labeled the Kōloa Field System, was probably developed between 1200-1400 AD and maintained historically up to the 1840s when Kauaʻi is known to have produced large quantities of sweet potatoes for the booming California market" (Kirch 1985: 104). The Kōloa Field System formerly extended from Lawaʻi to Weliweli and served as the main food source for the people of the Kōloa district (Hammatt et al. 1991; Mitchell et al. 2005). The Kōloa Field System is atypical for Hawaiʻi because it is an irrigated system that is not topographically restricted to the confines of a valley. It spreads out over the broad plain of Kona District which is broken up by ridges formed by lava channels (ibid.). The irrigation ditches (`auwai) that watered the fields were constructed along the crests of the ridges, extending from Waikomo Stream for distances of nearly 2,400 m (ibid.). Paʻa has been referred to as “very dry but breadfruit, yams and bananas were planted in the gulches” (Handy and Handy 1972:153). Handy further states that the early Hawaiians in the Kōloa area “had many taro plantations but the sweet potatoes must have had a large place in the subsistence economy of the people" (1940:153). A local informant told Handy that she 9 | P a g e remembered stone walls that enclosed sweet potato growing areas. Weliweli was also a rather dry ahupuaʻa and archaeological evidence shows that Hawaiians extended the waters of Waikomo Stream into this land with the Kōloa Field System. Much of the archaeological remnants found are from the recent historical cattle ranching activities of the Knudsen family in Weliweli (Hammatt et al. 1991). Many believe that major water sources for Weliweli were diverted by late historic sugar cane cultivation. In 1848, a division of land between the crown, government, lesser chiefs (Konohiki) and native tenants of the land was formalized under the Mahele. The Mahele converted land held in tenure to fee-simple, allowing Native Hawaiians to own lands they lived and worked on. In Paʻa Natives Hawaiians applied for and received lands. The documented claims confirmed that primary residences were located along the coast, with people cultivating both wet and dry land taro, sweet potatoes and constructing salt pans and fishponds. Other plots of land inland where used for the cultivation of sweet potato, wet-land taro and orange and banana trees. With the arrival of foreigners, the southeast coast of Kauaʻi began to change. By 1836, agriculturalists were experimenting with crops such as tapioca, mulberry for silkworms, and coffee. In 1835 Ladd & Co began a twelve acre sugar plantation. By 1850 the plantation, known as the Kōloa Plantation, had grown to 450 acres, yielding a crop of approximately two tons. A new mill was constructed in 1854 and then rebuilt in 1913, however, sugar cane cultivation was not initiated on a large scale until the 1880s and 1890s. An 1891 map by M.D. Monserrat shows that the project area was not in cane cultivation. The McBryde Sugar Company took over operations in the late 1890s. In the 1890s, Benjamin F. Dillingham incorporated "three estates, namely Kōloa Agricultural Co. (No connection with Kōloa Sugar Co.); Ele’ele Plantation, and Wahiawa Ranch" (Cond`e 1985). Theo. H. Davies was the acting agent until 1909 when Alexander and Baldwin took over agency control. By 1935 the plantation owned 2776.67 acres and leased 1180 acres. Weliweli and Makahū‘ena Point Weliweli is now a dry ahupua’a. Any water that had been available to the makai portions of the ahupuaʻa was redirected away by the Kōloa Plantation as flumes and ditches were constructed to water sugar cane fields. Handy et.al. describes the ahupua’a: “Weliweli is about like Paʻa (very dry, bananas, yams were planted in the gulches). Both of these narrow land sections lie on a slight seaward promontory, Makahū‘ena Point. W.C. Bennett (1931: 118) found some irrigation ditches and terraces, indicating that there used to be wet taro grown in an area which is not dry. Desiccation may have been partly caused by clearing the woodland when the first sugar plantation on Kauaʻi was established” (Handy et al.1991: 427-428) 10 | P a g e Land Commission Awards The 2011 archaeological survey noted a single Land Commission Award (LCA) for Weliweli, however, there may be more than one (Ching 1983). The first is in the ‘ili of Kahoana to Punipu (LCA 5219): Pohina, sworn, says, I know the land of [the] Clmt. It is in the ahupuaʻa of Weliweli, and the ‘ili of Kahoana lua. It consists of several dry loʻi, a kula and house lot. [Hala] is planted in some places (Papakilo Database). Ching lists another LCA that has a boundary to Weliweli. This LCA is to Ka’ana’ana (LCA 3584): Located in Kōloa Hikina, consisting of four places….No. 4 the entire ‘ili o Kiki-a-ola. No. 4 is bounded: mauka by ‘ili O Halehinahina and ‘ili Lapapohakui; Puna (east) by the ahupuaʻa of Weliweli; makai by ‘ili O Kapaha’alaea; Hanapepe (west) by ‘ili O Kapalakea. Foreign Testimony, v. 13:3, February 16, 1850; 3 acres, 2 roods, 27 rods. Place Names The literal translation of Makahū‘ena is “eyes overflowing heat” while Poipu is designated a land division and also translates as” completely overcast or crashing (as in waves) (Pukui et. al. 1974). Though puʻu are known to be sacred places, there are no place names associated with the puʻu that extend down through Kōloa to Makahū‘ena. It is postulated here that these may refer to the most makai crater, Puʻu Pihakekua, which is now known as Poipu crater. Also, the name Poipu may relate to the crashing of the surf against the cliffs of Makahū‘ena. Makahū‘ena also translates as “the eyes of the spirit”, a reference to night marchers passing through Weliweli to make their leap into Pō (the nether world) at Makahū‘ena Point (Kalihiwa et al. 2011). The Kōloa District, known in traditional times as the Kona District, is adjoined by the ahupuaʻa of Kōloa and Paʻa. The word weliweli is a reduplication of weli that means "violent, dreadful, horrible, fearful, ferocious; revered; respectful, as of the chief; [or] full of fear" depending upon the context (Pukui and Elbert 1986:384). 11 | P a g e Mythology and Mo’olelo There are few legends or chants associated with Makahū‘ena Point, and very little for Weliweli ahupua’a. One story concerns the gourd of Laʻamaomao, in which the winds of Hawaii were stored. This gourd belonged to Pakaʻa, a servant and advisor to Keawenuiaui the ruling chief of Hawai`i. Laʻamaomao, Pakaʻa’s mother, has the ability to control the winds (Fornander 1918: 72). Pakaʻa’s son, Kuapakaʻa, calls all the winds to all the islands to discredit the advisors who replaced Pakaʻa as advisor to the king. During Kuapakaʻa’s chant he names the wind that blows through Weliweli as Kuiamanini (Fornander 1918: 96) One legend recites the search by Pele for a home, but is continually driven off by Wakea, the ancestor of the people. Pele has been searching throughout the islands, and now has landed on Kauaʻi (Wichman 2001): Peleʻs canoe with red sails Reached Kauaʻi just at dawn. The sound of digging on the cliffs Woke Wakea from his sleep. Wakea asked: Who is digging there at Keʻe? I, Pele, came the answer. I am digging a pit to find fire. A fire pit on Kauaʻi, a home for Pele? Not so, said Wakea Each time you dig a hole The waters of Ka-wa-kiki Will drown your fire. Kauaʻi is no place for you Move on! A story relates the involvement with the warrior Lima-loa with the demi-god Kamapuaʻa in the last battle in the long running war between the districts of Puna and Kona. In the tale, the war between Kona and Puna has been ongoing for three generations as the result of the refusal of marriage by the lovely grand-daughter of Moʻikeha, the heir to Puna, to Keliʻikoa, prince of Kona. Kamapuaʻa, in the guise of a man, boasts at the ease with which Kukona’s warriors will defeat Mo`ikeha. Kukona, the chief of Kona, has fought on the side of Puna with his warrior Lima-loa, and does not believe it will be so easy. Kamapuaʻa takes to the battlefield with Lima- loa and Kukona and defeats all who challenge him. Kamapuaʻa is finally challenged by Makaliʻi, chief of Kona, and chants an insult: “The sea is destroying the sands of Kahalahaa, The sea of Hanalei is roaring The sea of Haʻena is shallow While the sea of Ka-lalau breaks over the land. The spray of the sea flies up, 12 | P a g e And my wind and cloud forms appears, O Makaliʻi-nui-ku-a-ka-wai-ea, Small clouds, large clouds, Tall clouds, and short clouds And the large cloud standing close to heaven, That heaven is furious because of you O Makaliʻi-nui-ku-a-ka-wai-ea Your land is not mine, The whole of Kauaʻi has become mine.” Makaliʻi realizes that this is Kamapuaʻa, and chants many chants in hopes that Kamapuaʻa will spare his life. Kamapuaʻa does spare his life, commanding him give up his kingdom to Kukona and live apart from everyone in the mountain of Haʻupu. Satisfied at ending the wars, Kamapuaʻa sails to Tahiti (Wichman 2001). The name Kaneʻaukai is associated with the boundary between the ahupuaʻa of Weliweli and Paʻa. A deity of fisherman, he taught those who wished to fish at the point the proper chants to attract fish. Fish caught off the Makahū‘ena Point by local fisherman today include: awa (milkfish), ʻōʻio (bonefish) heʻe (octopus), ula (spiny lobster) akule (big-eye scad), and moi (thread fish). The cover photo shows on of the moi fishing locations. They also gathered hāʻueʻuke´ (sea urchin) and ʻopihi (limpet) from the rocks. Salt pans were constructed to collect salt in the sections of the point that contain shallow soil (Kalihiwa et al. 2011). Unfortunately, no salt pans were located during the archaeological inventory by Haun et al. (2011). Informants During the previous work for this project (Kalihiwa et al 2011 in Haun et al. 2011) there was an extensive attempt to contact individuals and organizations that they had contacted for this project. In addition to letters, emails, and telephone calls, a public notice was placed in Ka Wai Ola and in The Garden Island newspaper (The Garden Island –Wednesday (4/27/11), Friday (4/29/11), and Sunday (5/1/11) and Ka Wai Ola – May 2011). Only a few informants came forward with information on traditional uses during these studies. Some of the same informants were contacted for this study, are considered cultural practitioners and elders of the community were also contact by Haun and Kalihiwa. The following individuals were: Ruper Rowe, Stella Burgess, Kepa Maly and Kauai Historical Society archivist, Malina Pereza. Attempts were made to contact others but they were unavailable at the time of this study. 13 | P a g e Traditional Uses According to informants, Makahūʻena also means the “eyes of the spirits”. Makahū‘ena Point may have been named so from the leina, or jumping off point to Pō (nether world), present at this locality. The night marchers are known to come through Kōloa down to Makahū‘ena. The night marchers are wandering spirits that have not continued on to Pō because they either have unfinished business, or are lost (Kalihiwa et al 2011). Fisherman currently frequent this area to fish for moi (thread fish, Polydactilis sexfilis) and ‘ō‘io (bonefish, Albula vulpes). The western part of the shore at Makahūʻena is known for having an abundance of moi (ibid.). According to informants there were small salt beds on the property. Salt is not collected off of the rocks on Kauaʻi, but collected from beds called puʻuwai dug in shallow clay soils. The water is added to the bed to evaporate, and the red-stained salt of Kauaʻi is collected. This process was given to the people of Kauaʻi by the goddess Hina (ibid.). There is no evidence of this traditional activity today. Recommendations The objective of this assessment is to identify any culturally significant resources or traditional cultural practices that occurred within the project area and its vicinity. Local fishermen continue to gather and catch a variety of fish and marine invertebrate species for subsistence along the shoreline and rocky edges at Makahū‘ena. Future development of the property has the potential to adversely affect the exercise of these traditional practices for subsistence related marine exploitation. This adverse effect can be mitigated by including explicit plans to ensure, and potentially enhance access and parking to the shoreline. In addition, during the design and layout of the adjacent development project of the Point at Poipu, the building layouts were designed around the four directions winds and around the burial preserve (author’s personal knowledge). The chant of the winds of Weliweli which are well documented in early accounts and referenced in current studies (Fornander 1918; Kalihiwa et al in Haun et al. 2011) are still remembered as significant in the eyes of present day cultural practitioners and kupuna. This should be considered while designing the layout in order to enhance and take advantage of the winds, as well as let the spirits pass through as they do at the Point at Poipu. There also is a leina or leaping off place to Pō at Makahū‘ena Point. Because it is believed that the night marchers continue to pass through this location on their way to Pō, open access needs to be maintained. Although no burials have been identified on the property during the archaeological inventory survey (Haun et al. 2011) numerous burials have been identified in sand deposits at and adjacent to Keoneloa Bay to the north and east. Haun’s (2011) work recommends that 14 | P a g e archaeological monitoring be conducted under an approved archaeological monitoring plan. The State Historic Preservation Division agreed with the findings of the report and the recommendations (Letter: 8/27/2012 LOGNO.: 2011.1830/DOCNO.: 1208SL18). It is recommended that the recommendations be followed through to protect any iwi kapuna (ancestral remains) that may be inadvertently discovered. If human remains are encountered during future development-related activities, the remains will be treated following the procedures outlined in Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E-43. Work in the area of the discovery will be halted, the remains stabilized if necessary and DLNR-SHPD will be consulted for guidance. 15 | P a g e Bibliography Anonymous 1885 Lahainaluna Schools, HEN 43, #17. Manuscript, B. P. Bishop Museum Library. Honolulu Bennett, Wendell C. 1931 The Archaeology of Kauai. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80. Honolulu, HI Ching, K. W. Francis, Stephen L. Palama, and Catherine Stauder 1983 The Archeology of Kona, Kauaʻi, Na Ahupuaʻa Weliweli, Paʻa, Maha’ulepu, Surface Survey of Coastal Lands. Hawaiian Archaeological Journal 74-1, Archeological Research Center Hawai`i. Prepared Fort Leadership Homes of Hawaiʻi, Inc. Ching, Francis K. W. 1983 Final Report Archaeological Reconnaissance Kukuiula-Kualu, Kōloa/Lawai, Kauai. Prepared for the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Chapter 3 –Kaumualii and for Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. Conde, J.C. 1978 Narrow Gauge In A Kingdom, The Hawaiian Railroad Company, 1878-1897. Railhead Publications, 1985 Dukas, Neil Bernard 2004 A Military History of Sovereign Hawaii. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Firor, J. and P. Rosendahl 1992 Additional Data Collection, Hyatt Regency Kauaʻi Proposed Golf Course Project Area, Land of Paʻa, Kōloa District, Island of Kauaʻi. PHRI Report 447 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. and Ainako Resorts Associates. Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Fornander, Abraham 1918 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore: The Hawaiians’ Account of the Formation of their Islands and Origin of Their Race, with the Traditions of Their Migrations, Etc., as Gathered from Original Sources. 16 | P a g e Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Volume V. 1918-1919. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI Hammatt, Hallett 1989a Archaeological Data Recovery Plan for Keoneloa Bay Villas, Weliweli and Paʻa. Cultural Surveys Hawai`i. Prepared for Sweeny Development Company. 1990a Preliminary Report on Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas. [TMK: (4) 2-8-20: 21]. Cultural Surveys, Hawai`i. Prepared for Land Mark Suites of America. 1990b Preliminary Status Report on Archaeological Testing for the Proposed Keoneloa Bay Villas [TMK: (4) 2-8-20: 21]. Prepared for Sweeny Development Company. 1990c Update on our Research on Kaneʻaukai Heiau, Keoneloa Bay, Weliweli. Prepared for Sweeny Development Company 1991 Testing of Possible Heiau, Keoneloa, Weliweli, Kōloa, Kauai [TMK: (4) 2-8- 20:21]. Letter report, Cultural Surveys Hawaiʻi, January 16, 1991. Hammatt, H., R. M. Bordner and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle 1978 Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed Kiahuna Golf Village Area, Kōloa, Kona, Kauaʻi Island, Hawaii. A.R.C.H., Lawai, Kaua`i Hammatt, H., W. Folk and M. Stride 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Poipulani Golf Course and Residential Development, Kōloa, Kauai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Poipulani Development Corporation. Handy, E. S. C., E. G. Handy, M. K. Pukui 1991 Native Planters of Old Hawaii, Their Life, Lore & Environment. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, HI 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, vol. 1.” BPBM Bull. 161 Haun, Alan E., Dave Henry, and Solomon H. Kailihiwai III 2011 Archaeological Inventory Survey [TMK: (4) 2-8-021: 041], Makahūʻena Point, Weliweli Ahupua’a, Kōloa District, Island of Kaua`i (Final). Haun and Associates, Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i. For CIRI Land Development Company, 2525 C Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503. Jarves, James Jackson 1844 History of the Hawaiian or Sandwich Islands, Edward Moxon, Dover Street, London. 17 | P a g e Kailihiwa, S., A. Hann, and J. Henry 2011 Cultural Impact Assessment, TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041, Makahūʻena Point, Weliweli Ahupuaʻa, Kōloa District, Island of Kauai, Haun & Associates Report 811 prepared for CIR1 Land Development Company. Kamakau, S. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. [Revised] Kamehameha Schools Press. Honolulu. [1842 and 1870] Kikuchi, William 1963 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kauai, Kona District, Hawaiian Islands. Sponsored by the University of Hawaiʻi Committee for the Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art, and Culture Kirch, Patrick V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks, and Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaiʻi Press. Honolulu Ladd, Edward J. 1981 Archaeological Field Survey Report, Makahū‘ena Point, Kauai. Prepared for the 14th Coast Guard District McGerty, Leanne and Robert Spear 2001 Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for a Proposed Well Site at Mahaulepu, Kōloa, Kauaʻi, Hawai`i *TMK: (4) 2-9-03]. Scientific Consultants Services, Inc., Honolulu, Hawai`i. For Ron Terry, Geometrician. McMahon, Nancy 1991 Locating Kaneʻaukai Heiau: An Archaeological and Historical Synthesis, Weliweli, Kōloa, Kauaʻi. State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, January 2, 1991. Mitchell, A., R. Chiogioji, H.H. Hammatt 2005 Cultural Impact Assessment for an Approximately 203-Acre Parcel in Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kauaʻi, TMK (4) 2-18—013:001; 2-8-014:001, 002, 003, 004, and 019. Prepared for the Eric A. Knudsen Trust. Papakilo Database nd. Mahele ‘Aina Index –Foreign Testimony –Helu 5219 http://papakilodatabase.com/main/imageserver.phpo?file=01138.pdf&path=H/H/A/S/H/7/1/5/1/12/ Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Ester T. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii, University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. 18 | P a g e Sinoto, A. 1975 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Knudsen Trust Lands at Kōloa, Poipu, Kauaʻi. Typescript in Library, BPBM Smith, H. W. 1991 Historical Documentary Research. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Grove Farm, Kawailoa Property Additional Parcel, Land of Mahaulepu, Kōloa District, Island of Kauaʻi. Walker and Goodfellow 1991. Appendix B pp. B-1 to B-11 Thrum, Thomas G. 1906 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1906. Honolulu. 2001 Pele Ma, Legends of Pele from Kauaʻi. Bamboo Press, Honolulu. Walker, A. and P. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hyatt Regency Kauai, Proposed Golf Course Project Area, Land of Paʻa, Kōloa District, Island of Kauai. PHRI Report 447-111591 prepared for Grove Farm Properties, Inc. and Ainako Resorts Associates. F.2.a.1. Feb. 14, 2023 Project Summary Variance Application Reference Date 12/5/2022 TMK (4) 5-4-004-016 (referred to as Parcel 16 or P16) is an irregular triangular shape. Due to the standard property setback requirements listed in the CZO P16 is rendered unusable and thus does not have privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The purpose of this application is to seek a variance permit to the standard setback, height and parking requirements listed in the CZO to build a micro-livable workspace. Parcel 16 is designated as AG and a remnant of the recordation of Land Court Map 1 of this area in 1958. This parcel was created prior to ordinance of 1972 (see Land Court Map in appendix). Plans within are designed to 1) protect cultural and historic resources while impacting the environmental surrounding area as little as possible 2) improve the value of the land and the neighboring area through thoughtful design and architecture that merges with the native surroundings 3) minimize the impact to the environment by using high efficient and green building practices such as renewable energy technology and advanced water treatment systems 4) complete the build in as an affordable manner as possible 5) make the building compact and walkable to public transportation to avoid need of car. To provide a resource that may be of use towards addressing the affordable housing crisis on island all plans and schematics for this micro-livable dwelling will be made open source and available to the public. Contents: •Ka Pa'akai o Ka Aina Analysis •Site Survey and Orientation •Proposed Plan and Renderings •Proposed Agriculture Work •Tree Removal Plans and SMA •Proposed Water Treatment Plan •Alignment with Kauai General Plan Goals •Summary •Appendix: Supporting Email Communication with Local Departments G.2.a. Jan. 24, 2023xF.2.b Feb. 14, 2023 Ka Pa'akai o Ka Aina Analysis Introduction At the request of the County of Kaua'i I have prepared this Ka Pa'akai o Ka Aina Analysis for Tax Map Key of (4) 5-4-004-016. The County of Kaua'I has requested an evaluation of the project for impacts to traditional native cultural and customary practices and this analysis is intended to address this request. The proposed project area will involve the construction of a two-story micro work from home office with dimensions of 30' I x 10' w x 18' h. Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution reaffirms and shall protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians to the extent feasible. Over the course of several months, I have worked to identify any valued cultural, historical or natural resources in the proposed project area and assess the extent to which traditional and customary rights are or have been exercised in the project area. This section presents a summary of the historical archival information specific to adjacent area from previous studies conducted within the immediate vicinity of the parcel. Hawaiian History in Area From its mountain peaks to the waters of the broad bay, Hana lei and the surrounding area is a richly endowed agricultural, scenic, recreational, and historical environment. For over 1000 years people, first the Hawaiians and subsequently Hawaiian and others, have used and cared for the land and waters. The continuing cultural traditions and ethnic diversity gives the community a blended character representative of the several eras of its historic and cultural heritage of the community. Hawaiians have lived in Hanalei and the surrounding area since the thirteenth century and possibly since the seventh century. The history of the Hanalei area is the story of the people of Hanalei: Hawaiians, Caucasians, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, and Filipino-Americans. It is the history of individuals, but especially ethnic and cultural groups. This history is still reflected in the historic buildings that survive and that are associated with each group. Hanalei Valley, with its taro fields, auwai, agricultural and residential structures, roads, bridges, cemeteries and historic sites, is a significant landscape on the island of Kauai, in the State of Hawaii, and within the United States. It is a landscape which has developed and changed through the intricate weaving of natural elements and human aspirations. Today, this landscape, placed between the power of the mountains and the wonders of the sea, reveals to all who see it a scene of classic beauty; but it reveals much more than that. This landscape is history made visible: the history of ancient peoples and modern ones; the history of agricultural successes and failures; and the history of the yearning to construct a place for human enjoyment beside and within a landscape of stunning brilliance. Known Cultural and Historic Resources According to several reports available at the Kauai Historical Society, inventories have shown Hanalei's prehistory archaeological resources to be extensive. The include irrigated lo'i, habitation sites, other agricultural sites, irrigation auwai and two heiau. However, the absence of comprehensive archaeological investigations and inventories have left many archaeological resources unidentified and, thus, vulnerable to unintentional damage and destruction, and intentional pillaging. The 1986 Cultural Landscape Survey found 13 significant landscapes/sites and 60 significant historic structures; of these, only 9 are listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places: the Hanalei Pier, the Hanalei Bridge, the Haraguchi Rice Mill, the Lihue Hongwanji, Waioli Mission District, Mahamoku beach home, the A.S. Wilcox House, the Baldwin Beach Cottage, and the Old Hanalei School. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAVEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR I.SUMMARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR Action Required by Consideration of Class IV Zoning Permit and Variance Permit to Planning Commission:allow a deviation from the setback requirements for the construction of a single-family residence. Permit Application Nos. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-8 Variance Permit V-2023-3 Name of Applicant(s) MATTHEW BERG II.PERMIT INFORMATION D Use Permit D Project Development Use Permit � Variance Permit D Special Permit � Zoning Permit Class �IV 0 IllD Special Management Area Permit Duse D Minor D Zoning Amendment D General Plan Amendment D State Land Use District Amendment PERMITS REQUIRED A Variance Permit is required to deviate from the setback requirement, pursuant to Section 8-4.3(b) of the KCC, 1987. Pursuant to Section 8-3.1 of the KCC, 1987, as amended, a Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement in applying for a Variance Permit. AMENDMENTS https://kaua icounty-my.sha re point.com/persona l/dcua_kauai_gov /□ocuments/dcua.files/Regulatory Files/Zeni ng/Class IV /Z-IV-2023-B_Berg/Reports/Report-1 l.17 .2023 DC..Z-IV-2023-B_Berg.SFR.docx G.2.a.1. Jan. 23, 2023XF.2.b.1.Feb. 14, 2023 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAVEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR RE: DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Annual Status Report 2022 Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2004-06 Project Development Use Permit P.O. U-2004-30 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35 Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-015:025-037, 045-074, 081 Po'ipCi, Kaua'i APPLICANT: Po'ipCi Beach Villas, LLC. PROJECT BACKGROUND The subject permits were approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 2004 to allow the construction of 323 multi-family condominium units, a manager's unit, 508 off-street parking stalls, swimming pool, and accessory structures and uses. Subsequent extensions were granted in one-year and two-year terms in 2006 and 2007, and a 5-year term was granted in 2009, which brings the current deadline for the project to NOVEMBER 23, 2014. Condition No. 7 (original version) of the permits establishes the time frame to demonstrate "substantial completion" of the project: "7. The Applicant shall provide annual status reports to the Planning Commission beginning one year from the date of this approval. The reports shall provide project status, and progress toward project completion and compliance with conditions of approval. Annual reports shall be provided until completion of the project, and compliance with all conditions of approval. Within five years of the date of approval of this application, the Applicant shall demonstrate substantial completion of the project. Substantial completion shall be demonstrated, at minimum, by the construction of all infrastructure, foundations, structure walls and roofing." The condition was subsequently amended by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2009 to read as follows: "7. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, annual status reports for review and approval by the Planning Commission no later than 60 days prior to November 23 of each consecutive year hereafter. The report shall provide project status and progress toward project completion and compliance. No later than September 23, 2014, the Applicant shall V:\2004 Master Files\Regulatory\Zoning Permits\Class IV\Z·IV-2004-35\2022 Annual Report\Report-11.31.2023_Z-IV-2004-35 Poipu Beach Villas_2022 Status Reportdocx G.1.a.1. Feb. 14, 2023 H.1. Feb. 14, 2023 MAX W.J. GRAHAM, JR. JONATHAN J. CHUN IANK. JUNG Federal l.D. No. 99-0317663 BELLES GRAHAM LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DYNASTY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3135 AKAHI STREET, SUITE A LIHUE, KAUAI, HAWAII 96766-1191 TELEPHONE NO: (808) 245-4705 FACSIMILE NO: (808) 245-3277 E-MAIL: mail@kauai-law.com February 7, 2023 OFCOUNSEL MICHAEL J. BELLES DAVID W. PROUDFOOT DONALD H. WILSON Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Director of Planning Planning Department County of Kauai VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY 4444 Rice Street, Suite A4 73 Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 Re: Deferral Request -Order to Show Cause Petition Use Permit No. U-90-38 Dear Mr. Hull: Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 In the Matter of the Application of Mark and Diane Daniels for a Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit For Real Property Situated at Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Property:Lot 7 of the Sanborn Subdivision Waioli, District of Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Kauai TMK No. (4) 5-5-004:003 Prior Owners: Mark and Diane Daniels New Owner: Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company I am writing to you on behalf of Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company (the "Applicant"). The Applicant requests a deferral of the Order to Show Cause Petition regarding Use Permit No. U-90-38 and Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 ("Master Permit") pursuant to the Planning Commission's meeting on June 14, 1990, and said approval was memorialized in the Planning Department's letter of June 15, 1990. I, along with one of the members of the Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, will be off island during the Planning Commission's meeting scheduled for February 14, 2023, and given there is no video conferencing capabilities, we request a deferral until the March 28, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 78793.DOCX} H.1.a. Feb. 14, 2023 MAX W.J. GRAHAM, JR.JONATHAN I. CHUN IANK. JUNG Federal l.D. No. 99-03 I 7663 BELLES GRAHAM LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DYNASTY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3135 AKAHI STREET, SillTE A LIHUE, KAUAI, HAWAII 96766-1191 TELEPHONE NO: (808) 245-4705 FACSIMILE NO: (808) 245-3277 E-MAIL: mail@kauai-law.comMarch 9, 2022 OFCOUNSEL MICHAEL J. BEL LES DAVID W. PROUDFOOT DONALD H. WILSON Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Director of Planning Planning Department County of Kauai VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 Re: STATUS REPORT Dear Mr. Hull: Use Permit No. U-90-38 Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 In the Matter of the Application of Mark and Diane Daniels for a Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit For Real Property Situated at Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Property:Lot 7 of the Sanborn Subdivision Waioli, District of Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Kauai TMK No. (4) 5-5-004:003 Prior Owners: Mark and Diane Daniels New Owner: Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company I am writing to you on behalf of Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company (the "Applicant"). In accordance with Condition No. 3 of Use Permit No. U-90-38 and Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 ("Master Permit") pursuant to the Planning Commission's meeting on June 14, 1990, and said approval was memorialized in the Planning Department's letter of June 15, 1990, I have enclosed a Status Report. This Status Report is intended to provide an update as requested by the Planning Department in its letter dated February 7, 2022. {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74933.DOCX } Re: STATUS REPORT Use Permit No. U-90-38 STATUS REPORT Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 In the Matter of the Application of Mark and Diane Daniels for a Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit For Real Property Situated at Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Property: Lot 7 of the Sanborn Subdivision Waioli, District ofHanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Kauai TMK No. (4) 5-5-004:003 Prior Owners: Mark and Diane Daniels New Owner: Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company This Status Report ("Report") is submitted by Bula Tree House LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company (the "Applicant"). This Report is intended to provide an update as requested by the Planning Department in its letter dated February 7, 2022. The Applicant reserves its right to supplement this Report once additional information is obtained from the files of the Planning Department as it relates to this matter. I.COMPLIANCE WITH INITIAL CONDITIONS The Planning Commission of the County of Kauai ("Planning Commission'') approved Use Permit No. U-90-38 and Class IV Zoning Permit No. Z-IV-90-51 ("Master Permit") pursuant to the Planning Commission's meeting on June 14, 1990, and said approval was memorialized in the Planning Department's letter of June 15, 1990. (See, Exhibit "A"). The Planning Commission thereafter amended Condition No. 3 by action on April 13, 2010, and said approval was memorialized in the Planning Department's letter of April 15, 2010. (See, Exhibit "A") The approval letters contain ten (10) conditions of approval ("Conditions"). The Applicant is providing the Planning Commission with this Report on each Condition. ]. Condition 1. The size of the art studio shall be limi ted that proposed (288) square feet). No expansion or further commercial use or development shall be allowed on this site. Status. The Applicant continues to acknowledge this limitation concerning the allowable size of the art studio/gallery ("Project"). The size of the structure permitted under Building Permit Nos. 00-3130 and 00-3131 remains the same. (See, Exhibits "B" and "C" for the building permit references). Attached is as survey illustrating the art/studio structure. (See, Exhibit "D"). {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74930.DOCX} 2.Condition 2. In accordance with Ordinance No. 396, the applicant shall pay an Environmental Assessment Fee upon building permit review by the Planning Department. Status. The Applicant assumes the Environmental Assessment Fee was paid by the prior owner following the approval of the Master Permit given the approval of Building Permit Nos. 00-3130 and 00-3131. The Applicant has requested the Planning Department's file for the 1990 Master Permit and will supplement this Report once additional information is discovered. 3.Condition 3. The subject permits are specifically for a 288 square feet art studio/gallery and shall be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission every three (3) years and be accompanied with a status report. However, the Applicant shall make every effort to relocate the retail portion of the use should commercially zoned retail space become available within Hanalei Town. In the event of change of ownership, the new owner shall notify the Planning Commission. Status. The Applicant purchased the property in June of 2019. (See, Exhibit "F"). Thereafter, the Applicant notified the Planning Department of the change in ownership. (See, Exhibit "E"). The Planning Department performed a site visit to the property on December 4, 2019. The Applicant was informed that the Master Permit was in compliance and no further action was taken after the Applicant submitted the requested information. (See, Exhibit "E"). To the Applicant's surprise, the Planning Department issued the Notice and the Applicant was requested to submit this Report. Since the Applicant acquired the Project, it had been actively leasing the 288 square foot Project to local artists. However, the art studio/gallery Project was vacated in January of 2022 and now the Applicant has put the Project back up for lease. The Applicant has surveyed existing retail space in Hanalei town and no small retail space is currently available. Counsel for the Applicant also spoke to a Hanalei Town commercial landlord and was informed there is no space like the Project currently available. 4.Condition 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions, revies existing conditions, or move for revocation of permits should unforeseen or unanticipated conditions be created that cannot be mitigated. Status. The Applicant will observe this condition. 5.Condition 5. Requirements of the State Department of Health, County Water, Fire and Public Works Departments, and State Highways Division must be complied with and/or resolved with the respective agencies. Status. The Applicant acknowledges that original Master Permit request was submitted to the Mayor, Public Works Department, Department of Water, Department of Health, Highways Division, Fire Department, Real Property Division, and H-PIAC as noted in the June 15, 1990 letter. Given Building Permit Nos 00-3130 and 00-3131 were issued for the 288 square foot structure, it is likely the building permit applications were routed to these same agencies. The certificates of occupancy were issued, and as such it is likely no concerns were -2-{W:/DOCS/29229/I/W0l74930.DOCX} raised during the building permit review process. Nonetheless, the Applicant has requested the entire file from the Planning Department to review prior submittals regarding this Project. However, the Applicant was required to deliver this Report within a limited time in response to the Notice and is committed to supplement this request once additional information is provided by the Planning Department. 6.Condition 6. All parking shall be accompanied on-site, and not on the Kuhio Highway shoulders or adjacent properties. If parking cannot be controlled, this shall be considered grounds for revocation of the permits. Status. During the Planning Department's site visit of the Property, the location of the parking was confirmed. Additionally, in response to the Notice, the Applicant submitted an ariel photograph of the parking area. The Applicant has requested the file of the Master Permit from the Planning Department. Given the limited time given to the Applicant to respond to the Notice, it has not generated any additional site plan of the Project's parking area. Should the Planning Department's file on the Master Permit illustrate a difference in the current parking area, the Applicant commits to an updated site plan showing the parking area in relationship to the 288 square foot Project. 7.Condition 7. Applicant shall provide a suitable barrier (chain link or wooden fence) to separate the school and studio use. Status. The Applicant has attached photographs of the existing fence area. (See, Exhibit "G" for the photographs and Exhibit "D" for the survey of the Property). A fence currently exists along between the art studio/gallery and the residence. However, as noted below, the Applicant no longer wishes to continue the preschool operation authorized in Use Permit U-19-78 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-78-28 issued on February 24, 1978, thereby eliminating the need for this requirement. 8.Condition 8. Applicant shall submit for Planning Department review and approval, prior to building permit consideration, a revised parking and access plan. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces shall be reflected. The access point to Kuhio Highway shall be approved by the State Highways Division. Status. Given Building Permit Nos. 003130 and 00-3131 were issued for the 288 square foot Project, it is likely the building permit application was routed to the State Highways Division. The certificates of occupancy were issued, and as such it is likely no concerns were raised during the building permit review process. Nonetheless, the Applicant has requested the entire file from the Planning Department to review prior submittals regarding this Project. The Applicant was required to deliver this Report within a limited time in response to the Notice. The Applicant will supplement this request once additional information is provided by the Planning Department. -3-{W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74930.DOCX} 9.Condition 9. The hours of operation shall be limited to weekends,holidays, and when school is not in session. Status. The Applicant had informed the Planning Department that it is no longer wishes to continue Use Permit U-19-78 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-78-28 for the preschool operation issued on February 24, 1978. The Applicant will work with the Planning Department to formally abandon and cancel Use Permit U-19-78 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z­ IV-78-28. I 0. Condition I 0. The applicant is advised that additional government agency conditions may be imposed. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respective agency(ies). Status. The Applicant acknowledges that original Master Permit request was submitted to the Mayor, Public Works Department, Department of Water, Department of Health, Highways Division, Fire Department, Real Property Division, and H-PIAC as noted in the June 15, 1990 letter. Given Building Permit Nos. 00-3130 and 003131 were issued for the 288 square foot Project, it is likely the building permit application was routed to these same agencies. No issues were raised by the Planning Department during the December 4, 2019 site visit as it relates to the parking, and as such it is likely no concerns were raised during the building permit review process over twenty (20) years ago. Nonetheless, the Applicant has requested the entire file from the Planning Department to review prior submittals regarding this Project. However, the Applicant was required to deliver this Report within a limited time in response to the Notice, and it will supplement this request once additional information is provided by the Planning Department. -4- {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74930.DOCX} DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR February 7, 2022 Bula Tree, LLC c/o Michael Rodger P.O. Box 374 Hanalei, HI 96714 RE: USE Permit U-90-38 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-90-51 Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-004:023 Hanalei, Kaua'i DEREK S.I<. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR The Planning Commission at it's meeting held on June 14, 1990, approved the above permits to operate an art studio/ gallery within 288 square foot structure currently existing on your property, subject to the following conditions: 6.All parking shall be accommodated on-site, not on th e KOhio Highway shoulders or adjacent properties. If parking cannot be controlled, this shall be considered grounds for revocation of the permits. 8.Applicant shall submit for Planning Department review and approval, prior to building permit consideration, a revised parking and access plan. A-minimum of five (5) parking spaces shall be reflected. The aces point to Kiihio Highway shall be approve by the State Highways Division. Please be advised that to date the Planning Department does not have a revised parking plan as required per item 8 of the June 14, 1990 Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission at its meeting held on April 13, 2010 approved an amendment to Condition No. 3 of the subject permits the following: 3.The subject permits are specifically for a 288 square feet art studio/ gallery and shafl be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission every three (3) years and be accompanied with a status report. However, the Applicant shall make every effort to relocate the retail portion of the use should commercially zoned retail space become available within the Hanalei Town. In event of change of ownership, the new owner shalf notify the Planning Commission. Please be advised that the Planning Department does not have any record of any status reports as required in Condition No. 3 or the submittal of the revised parking and access plan reflecting a minimum of five (5) parking spaces as required in condition No.8 of the subject permits. Pursuant to Condition No. 3, please submit an updated status report to the Planning Department within one week of receipt of this notice. The updated status report shall contain the information as required in condition No. 3 and include a current parking and access plan as required in condition No. 8. 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity !;mployer EXHIBIT "A" Bula Tree, LLC USE Permit U-90-38, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-90-51 Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-004:023 Hanalel, Kaua'i Pagel 2 Failure to timely comply will result in the Plannlng Department issuing an Order to Show Cause for the revocation of permits. Should you have further questions regarding this m·atter, p lease contact Romie ldica of my staff at (808) 241-4056. Director of lanning Cc: file Ends.: Conditions of approval letter dated June 14, 1990 Amendment approval letter dated April 13, 2010 JOANN A, YUKIMURA MAYOR COUNTY OF -KAUAI Pl.ANNING DEPARTMl::NT 4280·RICE STREET LIHUE, KAUAI, HAWAII 96766 PETER. A. NAKAMURA PLANNING DIRECiOR ROLAND D. SAGUM, Ill DEPUTY PlANNING DIRECTOR iELEPHONE (808) 245-3918 June · 15 , .1990 ·COPY Mr. Mark Danieils P� o. Box 19i Hanaiei, Hawaii 96714 Subject: · Use Permit -U-90-38 Cla$S IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-90-51 . · TMK: -5 '.'"5-04: 23 Hanalei, Kauai . . The Planning Commission at its meeting held on June 14, 1990, appro ved the above permit_s to operate an· art ·studio/galley within a 288 square foot .. .st_ructure currently existing on your property; subject to the fallowing conditions: · 1. · The size of the art studio shall be limited to that proposed ( 288 squar�r-feet) • . No expansion or further commercial use ordevelopment sha.11-·be allowed on thfs site. . . ·2. In at:cordan"ce with Ordinance· No. 396, · the applicant shall pay anE8vironmental. Assessment Fee upon building permit review by the Planning Department. 3.Said permits shall be temporary in nature,·for one (1) year, b·eginning. from the date of occupancy. At the conclusion :of one year, the Plam�ng Department ·shall re-evaluate the subjectpermits. Applicant shall make every effort to re�acate the reta_il portion of the use should commercial retail .space become availablewithin Hanalei Town prior to·that date. 4.The Planning Conmissio·n reserves the right .. to impose additionalconditi(;ms, revise existing conditions� or move for revocation ofpermits should unforeseen or unant�cipated·conditions be created·that cannot be mitigated.· ·---....... ---···-. ·.•. t·_, ___ ··-· -_____ ........ _ .• · ..... , .... ..:.. ___ ,:... .••. ,, .•••... '_.,., ···--•-•·• ........... _____ :_: ... � ... :-: •. :.: . . . •• -- ........ :., •. , .• , ••• • ••• • .,. • • :, ,,,w• •••••• •• • Mr. Mark Daniells Page 2 June 15, 1990 5.Requirements of the State Heal�h Department, County Water, Fire andPublic Works Departments, and State Highways Division must be complied with and/or resolved with the respective agency(ies). 6.All parking shall be accommodated on-site, and not on the KuhioHighway shoulders or adjacent properties. If parking cannot be controlled, this shall be consider�d grounds for revocation of thepermits. 7.Applicant shall provide a suitable barrier (chain link or woodenfence) to separate the school and studio uses. a.Applicant shall s1,..1bmit for Planning Department review and approval,prior to building permit.consideration, a-revised parking andaccess plan. A minimum of fiv e (.5) parking spaces shall bereflected. The access point·to Kuhio Highway shall be approved bythe State Highways Division.· . 9. The hours of operations shall be limited to weekends, holidays, and when school is not in session. 10.The· applicant is advised that additional government agencyconditions may be imposed. It shall be the applicant's responsi­bility to resolve those conditions with the respective agency(ies). 0t-A L •V\.�PETER A. NAKAMURA� .Planning Director: cc: · Mayor Public Works De.pf. Water Dept. Heal th Dept. . . Highways Div. Fire Dept. Real Property Div. H-PIAC. .. ·----------.. -----··--·· -.............. . SSFm International Innovate I Adapt I Sustain December 2, 2022 County of Kaua'i Planning Commission 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766 Attention: Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull, Clerk of the Commission SUBJECT: Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2021-03 SSFM 2011 079.001 Tax Map Keys: (4) 3-5-001: 008 & 159; 3-7-002: 001 & 002; 3-7-003:001, 008 &017; 3-9-002:004 & 032; 3-9-005:001, 002, 003, & 009 Request for Permit Approval Extension, Authorization Clarifications Dear Mr. Hull, SSFM International, Inc. (SSFM), on behalf of the County of Kaua'i, Department of Public Works (DPW), is submitting this request for an extension of Condition No. 7 from the approved Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit (SMA (U)-2021-03) approved by the County of Kaua'i, Planning Commission effective December 8, 2020. The DPW is seeking a five (5) year extension of this condition which would result in a change to the time deadlines for commencing and completing construction. lf the extension is granted, then necessary building permits would be completed and construction would start by December 8, 2025 with completion of construction by December 8, 2027. The reasons for this extension request are due to additional environmental and land use entitlements needed for the project and the extended length of time necessary to process several outstanding approvals. Following approval of the SMA Use Pem1it for the subject project, Hawai'i Revised Statues, Chapter 6E consultation was reinitiated with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) based on the discovery of two (2) abandoned box culverts along the alignment (outside of the SMA boundary) that were identified as potential historic properties. The team's historic architecture subconsultant was engaged to investigate the two culverts for historic significance and prepare an Architectural Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) to be submitted to SHPD. The Architectural RLS was submitted to SHPD for review in January 2022 and a response is pending. The DPW is also currently processing a State Conservation District Use Permit and the application process is underway with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. In addition, SSFM and DPW are seeking confirmation by the Planning Commission or Planning Director of the Tax Map Key (TMK) parcels that are covered by the subject SMA Use Permit approval. The SMA authorization letter dated December 14, 2020 appears to have some typos in the noted TMKs: (4) 3-7-001: 008, 159 should be 3-�-001:008 & 159; (4) 3-7-005:001-003, 009 should be 3-2,-005:001-003, 009; and the Hanama'ulu Beach Park parcel noted as TMK: (4) 3-7-003:008 is not included in the SMA authorization. We acknowledge that the Hanama'ulu Beach 501 Sumner Street I Suite 620 I Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 I Tel 808.531.1308 I Fax 855.329.7736 I www.ssfm.com Planning I Project & Construction Management I Structural, Civil & Traffic Engineering H.2.Feb. 14, 2023 SSFm International Innovate Adapl l Sustain County of Kaua'i Planning Commission Page 2 December 2, 2022 Park parcel was an inadvertent omission from the application form, however the parcel impacts were adequately disclosed in the application written statement and submitted plans. Please clarify if the above corrections are acceptable at this time and if the Hanama'ulu Beach Park parcel is covered by the original SMA authorization. Should you have any questions regarding the request for extension and/or the confirmation of TMK parcels covered by the SMA Use Permit, please call me at (808) 356-1242 or contact me via email at jchang@ssfm.com. SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. Jared K. Chang, AICP Senior Planner DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR I.SUMMARY Action Required by Planning Commission: Permit Application Nos. Name of Applicant(s) II.PERMIT INFORMATION D Use Permit D Project Development Use Permit D Variance Permit 0 Special Permit 0 Zoning Permit Class Div □111 [2J Special Management Area Permit �Use 0 Minor D Zoning Amendment D General Plan Amendment 0 State Land Use District Amendment DIRECTOR'S REPORT DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR Consideration of Applicant's request for a time extension of an SMA Use Permit to allow completion of the project. Special Management Area Use Permit SMA{U)-2021-3 COUNTY OF KAUA'!, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (SSFM International Inc., Authorized Agent) PERMITS REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 205A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes {HRS) and the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations of the County of Kaua'i, a SMA Use Permit was required as defined in Section 7 .3(() of the SMA Rules and Regulations where the Director found that the proposal {1) is a "Development" as defined in Section l.4F; and (2) is in excess of $500,000. AMENDMENTS Date of Receipt of Completed Application: N/ A Date of Director's Report: N/ A V:\2021 Master Files\Regulatory\SMA Permits\SMA Use Permits\SMA(U)-2021-l\Reports\Report-1_02.02.B_SMA(U)-2021-l_Ahukini Lydgate Bike Pedestrian Path-Time Extension.doa< H.2.a.Feb. 14, 2023 Date of Public Hearing: FEBRUARY 14, 2023 Deadline Date for PC to Take Action {60TH Ill. PROJECT DATA Parcel Location: Lihu'e to Wailua Day): N/A PROJECT INFORMATION Various parcels extending from Ahukini to the northern section of Lydgate Park. Tax Map Key(s): *(4} 3-5-0001:008 & 159 Area: 1,572.833 acres (4)3-7-002:001, 002; (4)3-7-003:001, 008, 017; (4)3-9-002:004, 032; (4)3-9-005:001-003, 009 *TMKS are corrected from initial application dated Dec. 8, 2020 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Zoning: Agriculture (A) /Open (O) State Land Use District: Agricultural/ Conservation General Plan Designation: Various-Parks and Recreation, Natural, and Agriculture Height Limit: Fifty (50} feet Max. Land Coverage: 3,000 s.f. maximum or not to exceed 10% of the parcel or lot area Front Setback: 10'-0" Rear Setback: Five (5) feet or½ the wall plate height whichever is gre Side Setback: Five (5) feet or½ the wall plate height whichever is greater Community Plan Area: N/A Community Plan Land Use Designation: N/A Deviations or Variances Requested: N/A IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Section 8.3.1{f), KCC: N/A Commission Meeting Date: February 14, 2023 V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE SMA(U)-2021-3; Director's Report-Extension COK Dept. of Public Works (DPW) 02.02.2023 21Page SSFM International, Inc. (SSFM), on behalf of the County of Kaua'i, Department of Public Works (DPW) plans to develop a shared-use bicycle and pedestrian path between Ahukini Landing and Lydgate Park. The project is considered a key segment of the Ke Ala Hele Makalae, a coastal shared-use path that spans along Kauai's eastern coastline from Nawiliwili to Anahola. The proposed path will consist of a ten (10) to twelve (12) foot wide concrete shared-use path that will begin at Ahukini Landing and terminates where it connects into the existing path segment at the northern section at Lydgate Park that would span a total distance of approximately 6.7 miles. Other improvements include three (3) comfort stations, restoration of two (2) historical bridges, parking lot improvements at Marine Camp, and improvements to the entranceway to the lower parking lot at the Wailua Golf Course. It should be noted that the initial application (written statements, maps, and preliminary plans), dated October 13, 2020, contained inconsistencies in referencing the correct Tax Map Key (TMK) numbers and did not include the TMK for the Hanama'ulu Beach Park parcel. Upon revision, the applicant has corrected the TMKS for the proposed project area and a summary of the corrections are reflected in the Table below. Initial Application Revised TMK TMK (4)3-7-001:008, 159 (4)3-�-0001:008 & 159 (4)3-7-005:001-003, 009 Not Included (4)3-�-005:001-003, 009 (4)3-7-003:008 Notes Hanama'ulu Beach Park The subject permit was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2020. A condition of the permit required the applicant to adhere to project timelines upon approval of the SMA permit. As originally approved, Condition No. 7 of the permits reads: "7. The applicant to obtain the necessary building permit commence within two {2} years from the date of approval of the SMA Permit, and complete construction within four (4) years from the date of the approval of the building permit". VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION Following the approval of the SMA Use permit, Hawai'i Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 6E consultation was reinitiated with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) based on the discovery of two (2) abandoned box culverts along the proposed alignment (outside of the SMA Boundary). These features were identified as potential historic structures. An Architectural Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) was submitted to SHPD on January 2022 by the applicant's subconsultant and is awaiting response. The applicant is also processing a State Conservation District Use Permit (COUP) with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (DLNR, OCCL). SMA(U)-2021-3; Director's Report-Extension COK Dept. of Public Works (DPW} 02.02.2023 3jPage