The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-04-11 Planning Commission Agenda Packet_PLANNING COMMISSION KAAI NA S. HULL, CLERK OF COMMISSION •The Planning Commission Meeting will be at: o LThu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building o Meeting Room 2A-2B o 4444 Rice Street, LThu'e, Kaua'i, Hawai'i FRANCIS DEGRACIA, CHAIR DONNA APISA, VICE CHAIR GERALD AKO, MEMBER HELEN COX, MEMBER GLENDA NOGAMI STREUFERT, MEMBER JERRY ORNELLAS, MEMBER LORI OTSUKA, MEMBER L3 APR -4 A 9 :01 ,;_ I •Oral testimony will be taken on specific agenda items, at the public meeting location indicated on the meeting agenda. •Written testimony indicating your 1) name or pseudonym, and if applicable, your position/title and organization you are representing, and 2) the agenda item that you are providing comment on, may be submitted on any agenda item in writing to planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the County of Kaua'i Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766. Written testimony received by the Planning Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be posted as testimony to the Planning Commission's website prior to the meeting (https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Boards-and-Commissions/Planning-Commission). Any testimony received after this time will be retained as part of the record, but we cannot assure the Commission will receive it with sufficient time for review prior to the meeting. IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE, OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A DISABILITY, OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS & COMMISSIONS AT (808) 241-4917 OR ASEGRETl@KAUAI.GOV AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. REQUESTS MADE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO FULFILL YOUR REQUEST. UPON REQUEST, THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, OR ELECTRONIC COPY. 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter lihu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B 4444 Rice Street, L1hu'e, Kaua'i, Hawai'i A.CALL TO ORDER B.ROLL CALL C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA D.MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission l.January 24, 2023. 2.February 14, 2023. 3.February 28, 2023. E.RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD l.None for this Meeting. F.HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT 1.Continued Agency Hearing a.None for this Meeting. 2.New Agency Hearing a.SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT {SMA(U)-2023-6) to accommodate streambank stabilization repair work involving a parcel along the Moloaa Stream, situated on the mauka side of Moloaa Road in Moloaa and further identified as 3540 A Moloaa Road, Tax Map Key: 4-9-014:020 (por.), affecting a total area of 1.641 acres= David Houston 1997 Trust. l.Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. b.SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT {SMA(U)-2023-7) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the makai side of Pe'e Road in Po'ipu, situated approximately 400 feet south of its intersection with Pe'e Road and further identified as Lot 6 of the Makahuena Estates Subdivision, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8- 021:073, containing a total area of approximately 1.103 acres = Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. l.Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. 2.Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 to Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 11, 2023 PAGE 2 . c.SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-8) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the makai side of Pe'e Road in Po'ipu, at the eastern terminus of a cul-de-sac, situated approximately 600 feet south of its intersection with Pe'e Road and further identified as Lot 2 of the Makahuena Estates Subdivision, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021:069, containing a total area of approximately 1.027 acres = Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. 1.Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. 2.Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 to Planning Commission. d.SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-9) to allow construction of a 5 feet high entry gate, water feature, and associated improvements within the private road right-of-way serving the Makahuena Estates Subdivision in Po'ipO, situated along the makai side of Pe'e Road and approximately 60 feet south of its intersection with Pe'e Road, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021:078, containing a total area of approximately 0.946 acres= Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. 1.Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. 2.Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 to Planning Commission. e.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-9) and USE PERMIT (U-2023-6) to allow installation of security fencing, wastewater and associated site improvements at the base yard facility in Li hue, situated along the western side of Wehe Road and immediately adjacent to the County Department of Water, further identified as 4398 Pua Lake Street, Tax Map Key: (4) 3-8-005:002 and containing a total area of 7.319 acres = State of Hawai'i, Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). [Director's Report Received 3/28/2023) 1.Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. 2.Supplemental #1 to Planning Director's Report. 3.Continued Public Hearing a.None for this Meeting. 4.New Public Hearing a.ZA-2023-3 -Request: County Zoning Amendment from Agriculture (A) & Open (O) Districts to University District (UNV). Location: L'ihu'e, Kaua'i. The entire Kauai Community College campus as well as adjacent parcels to the west, located on the mauka side of Kaumuali'i Highway in Puhi, further identified as 3-1901 Kaumuali'i Highway and affecting a total area of 148.37 acres. Tax Map Key: (4) 3-4-007:001 (Portion), 002, and 003 = University of Hawai'i, Kaua'i Community College. 1. Director's Report Pertaining to this Matter. PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 11, 2023 PAGE 3 1 KAUA`I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 24, 2023 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair DeGracia at 9:03 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 – 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 DeGracia: The time is now 9:03 a.m., I’d to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday January 24, 2023. Roll call please, Mr. Clerk. Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Commissioner Ako: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Commissioner Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Commissioner Ornellas: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? D.1. April 11, 2023 2 Commissioner Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Commissioner Nogami-Streufert: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Mr. Chair. Next up is: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hull: The department doesn’t have any recommended changes to the agenda. Chair DeGracia: Motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I move to approve the agenda. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion is to approve the agenda. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. 7:0. Mr. Hull: We don’t have any minutes; we don’t have any Receipt of Items for the Record or Hearings and Public Comment. Next would be the Consent Calendar which was approved via the agenda. So, we move into: COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Reports Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, the Subdivision Committee did meet this morning, present were Commissioner Apisa, as well as Commissioner Ornellas, and myself. On the agenda was an application for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for a 136 subdivision up in Hanapēpē, however a request was made to defer that meeting until February 14, taking no action, just a report from the Subdivision Committee. Chair DeGracia: Could I get a motion to approve the report? Ms. Otsuka: Motion to approve. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion is to approve the Subdivision Committee report. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. 7:0. Mr. Hull: Next we have Agenda Item K: UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) 3 Commission consideration of Petition for Declaratory Order Regarding Special [sic] Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-6; Project Development Use Permit U-2015-7; Variance Permit V-2015-1; Class IV Zoning Permit ZA-IV-2015-8 for Coco Palms Hui, LLC. Mr. Hull: Probably be appropriate to take public testimony at this time, Mr. Chair? Chair DeGracia: Yes, please. Mr. Hull: So far, we have twelve individuals signed up. I’d like to make a statement, for the sign-up list, this is for members of the public. If you are a party to the petition or to the applicant there will time for that presentation before the Commissioners, so this is just for public testimony. First up we have is, Roslyn Cummings. When you testify, if you could state your name for the record, and you’ll have three minutes for testimony. Thank you. Ms. Roslyn Cummings: Aloha. Mr. Ako: Morning. Ms. Cummings: On the record, inoa Roslyn Nicole Manawai`akeamalama (inaudible) Cummings. Can I have the legal representative in attendance introduce yourself? Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai: Deputy County Attorney, Laura Barzilai. Ms. Cummings: Aloha, thank you. I am not in support of the Coco Palms Hui permits; development is not at the progress of kānaka or kānaka maoli. It is detrimental to `aina, our natural resources and what is natural. All it does is line the pockets of the one percent at an advancement. While the 99% suffer, furthering the divide amongst our people. I’d like to make a statement about Mauna Kea Trask who badly spoke as a bar member, claiming that what I’ve shared in testimony is foreign laws, and by making this statement, he is claiming that the County of Kaua`i is not part of the jurisdiction superiority of the United States of America as a nation, it’s government, governing parties, and government branch, which would further the notion that we are dealing with corporate entities doing business in Ko Hawai'i Pae 'Aina under the crown, what crown, and under whose superiority and authority, and also Wailua ahupuaʻa is crown lands, with the native tenants rights vested inherit interest upon heirs kindred of LCA, royal patent claims, under its legitimacy through mo'oku'auhau and koko kuleana, he `aina Kaua`i, I am of Kaua`i, in protection of na iwi kūpuna, waiola, Wai'ale'ale, Waiwai of Manawa, once `aina, wai is altered, it causes tremendous damage to our kino, our ʻuhane, our ʻaumakua, our 'unihipili, the pillars of our creator in creation, I ask all who took oath of office to uphold your oath and investigate the past damages to cultural sites, na iwi kūpuna on record, not all iwi is being or has been documented from previous projects, that may or may not have been documented and take into account the living kūpuna kānaka has witnessed to these damages, so no more harm can be made (Hawaiian language), the law stems from then until now. I respect everyone in this room and do not envy, nor do I wish to be the position where you are, one must question the validity and integrity of those around them and in hopes that your position will help huli this systematic failure for the people, not private corporations, and interests. A hui hou, mālama pono. Chair DeGracia: Mahalo. Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have signed up is Charles Hepa. Mr. Charles Hepa: Aloha. Good morning, everybody. Just to be clear without starting my time now, how much time I got? 4 Mr. Hull: You have three minutes of testimony. Mr. Hepa: Three minutes! That’s all I got? Mr. Hull: Yes, sir. Mr. Hepa: Alright guys. First of all, good morning. My name is Charles D. Hepa, I am the great-great heir grandson of Isaac Kaiu, which a lot of people don’t like to hear that name. Isaac Kaiu is the great grandson, the son of actually of Ali`i Isaac Kaiu, which is the son of Queen Deborah Kapule Kekaihaʻakūlou and King Kaumualiʻi, therefore guys, as an heir of these monarchies and people, highly respected people, that you guys’ respect and put statues of upon our island. I have my affidavit of heirship, notarized, and certified in the land courts already recognized. This happened October 20, 2017, 10:45 a.m., and no one came to my attention and my authority of knowing what’s going on, or even having my family’s okay. So, I say no to all permitting because my family own and is the rightful owners with land titles and the royal patents to these lands that nobody possess today, that’s clear title. I have copies I brought with me, this is the original that you guys can see, and I have copies that I made for you folks last night to pass out to you folks right here, this is all for you guys. I’m putting each and every one of you on notice right now, and if there’s any illegal movement from today that’s happening, you guys will be seeing my family in court, and this will be a legal matter. Thank you guys for a short period of time of my breath and I respect, and I love each and every one of you. Thank you. It’s a beautiful day, a beautiful morning and aloha. Mahalo. Chair DeGracia: Aloha, thank you. Mr. Hepa: On record. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Dan Mortimer. Mr. Dan Mortimer: Good morning and thank you for the time. It has been thirty years since Hurricane Iniki severely damaged Coco Palms, that is adequate time to raise the funds to create a park or cultural center. To date there is not a viable plan to purchase, build, and maintain the property. The graffiti covered structures of what was once a thriving hub, is now an embarrassment and an eye sore for everyone who drives by it. Archeological supervision will protect the historical significance of this site. The cultural aspects of the property can also be collaboratively highlighted through reasonable dialogue. Once renovated, Coco Palms will once again be a contributor to the tax base, jobs, cultural significance, and be a place of beauty. Please honor the issuance of building permits and allow this project to move forward. Mahalo. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Gary Hooser. Mr. Gary Hooser: Aloha Commissioners. My name is Gary Hooser, and I’m speaking today on my own behalf, and don’t represent any organization. I strongly urge the commission to support the Petition for Declaratory Order and acknowledge what is so obvious to most residents in the community. Since receiving their permits in 2015, the owners of the Coco Palms property have not made substantial progress, that is the question here today. While the commission is advised by both county staff and attorneys, I encourage the commissioners to come to a decision on your own, you were appointed to represent the community and no one else. The fear of legal action against the county should not be the driving factor. The permits granted under the Iniki Ordinance in 2015 allowed the owners and developers to ignore important county building rules and regulations. These permits (inaudible) amended in 2018, 5 after the Iniki Ordinance had already expired. The Iniki Ordinance itself is legally flawed special legislation, it violates the State Constitution, and it certainly doesn’t allow the county to exempt projects from state laws, like Chapter 343, pertaining to environmental impacts statements. The commission is encouraged to require an EIS, or (inaudible) the determination by the courts, which are now proceeding prior to allowing further development to occur. In August of 2022, Parker Enlow, the owner’s representative at the time, assured the Planning Commission they would hold public meetings to hear public concerns and respond appropriately, no such public meetings have been held. Parker Enlow apparently no longer represents the owners, and a public information search reveals a Parker Enlow previously was convicted of fraud, The commission is encouraged to ask this question directly to the present owners, was there prior representative convicted of fraud? In conclusion there are two questions the Planning Commission should put directly and promptly before the Kaua`i Ethics Commission. The County Attorney can advise on this matter, but it’s the Ethics Commission who makes the final determination. This should not require a complaint filed by a member of the public but rather be requested by this Planning Commission. The chair of this body is also the Kaua`i representative for the Hawai'i Carpenters Union, the union and its members will clearly receive a direct financial benefit should a Coco Palms development move forward. The vice chair prior to being appointed, had a real estate listing agreement to sell Coco Palms, resort condominiums units being proposed by previous unsuccessful developer. It’s unclear whether that previous developer retains a financial interest in the property, and it’s unclear whether this matter was previously disclosed. To be clear these questions are not about personal integrity, they’re about ensuring legal compliance with the ethics and rules. I encourage the commission to support the Petition for Declaratory Order, and to immediately seek a ruling by the Ethics Commission prior to any formal vote. Thank you. I’ll be available for questions if needed. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next, we have signed up John Gibb. Mr. John Gibb: Good morning, Council, my name is John Gibb. I was fortunate enough to grow up here on the eastside, and I just want to speak on behalf of our interactions so far with the ownership. I know a lot of people aren’t here and aren’t present who have had positive experiences with the ownership. Me, specifically every time we’ve ever had either asked or recommendations from them in regards to derelict vehicles that have been dumped there, now at this point there was over ninety vehicles that were removed, thirty plus tons of trash, however much drug interaction and stolen items that were back there, as progress is being made, we’re seeing less and less, and less of that, and I know KPD, for example could very earnestly speak on behalf of that as well, so I think just a lot of that is glanced over, unfortunately in a lot of these kinds testimonies because people don’t want to come up and speak on that sense, but for my personal experience with neighbors around Koki Road, Haleilio road, and Kuamo`o Road, I know I can testify to that. Just want to come up here and speak from that point, as best as possible. If anybody has questions after, I’d be more than happy to catch up with anybody, either on this side or that side. So, that’s it. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Pua Rossi-Fukino. Ms. Pua Rossi-Fukino: Aloha, good morning. My name is Pualiʻiliʻimaikalani Rossi-Fukino, and I’m here speaking on behalf of myself and my ohana. I was raised in the moku o puna in the ahupuaʻa of Wailua, and I’m able to trace my mo'oku'auhau to Wailua through my great, great grandmother who was born and raised there. I’m here to request that you rule that the permits for this proposed hotel are lapsed and no longer valid, and since 2015 we have seen no substantial progress in development, if anything the site has gone into further disarray and looks even worse than ever before. And I have an eight-year-old 6 son who asks me every day, why no one is taking care of this site. Again, I’m asking that you vote against the validity of these permits. We need to honor the Kaua`i community by creating a space for us to come together, a place for education and training, and a place where the legacy of our kūpuna may continue. What I’m asking is that you put community and culture before all else and treat this place with the respect that it deserves. This is our opportunity to show aloha for this `aina. Mahalo for your time. Chair DeGracia: Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Puanani Rogers. Ms. Puanani Rogers: Is there anywhere I can hook up my computer? What is the wi-fi password? Mr. Hull: There should be a County of Kaua`i wi-fi that’s accessible without a password. Ms. Rogers: Hmmm…Aloha and good morning, welina mai kākou. It’s interesting to be sitting in front of you. I don’t know any of you, as a matter of fact, I don’t see any kānaka maoli sitting here at this table, which is of most important to me because this is Kaua`i, this is Hawai'i and you folks have to start thinking Hawai'i and culture. There has been no benefit to our people since these developers came to Coco Palms. You have to understand, why we feel the way we do about that place. I sit here and invoke the presence of my ancestors to be here because it’s because of them is why I’m here. Their voices are not being heard right now, so we have to speak for them, and I’m speaking for the spirits that dwell at Coco Palms, they are there, there are burials there. There is significant cultural, spiritual wahi pana, the whole Wailua ahupuaʻa, Wailuanuiaho`āno, which means Wailua the sacred, in the name itself, you should understand. Please, no more benefits to these developers that have failed their duty to comply to the laws, and the courts that you folks have implied upon them, and you keep letting them get away with it for all these years, eighteen years, thirty years, eight years ago, when you made the amendments, come on, wake up. This is Hawai'i, this is Kaua`i. Think native, think culture, think ke akua, think spiritual, that’s how we feel about this place. It’s not a political issue, it’s a spiritual and cultural issue for us. I support the petition that has been brought forth to you, the declaratory order. Please if you have any good sense, and a brain and a heart, you must vote to support this petition. The failure of these developers is shameful. You letting them get away with this for many, many years. You should be ashamed for letting this go on. We’re tired of it; we’ve been looking at this place for the past thirty years and it hurts us every time we pass by. We been there, we’ve done vigils to try to protect it, many, many years ago we done this. But you not listening, you not listening with your puʻuwai. I ask you to go and search your ancestors and see what they might say about this, but they are here, I invoke my ancestors, they’re here, and they’re witnessing this, and I want this to go on record… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Rogers: …my name is Puanani Rogers, and this is for the record, and this is because in the future, if my children or grandchildren should read this document, they will see what you folks have been doing to our `aina. And I hope that they don’t have to go through the same thing that we are going through. We are doing this for our future generations, yet unborn, they have to live here, so make it nice, make it healthy, make it happy for their futures here on Kaua`i, and stop this Coco Palms development, it is not a resort area anymore, it’s going to be inundated by climate change in a few years, it’ll be under water, so this whole thing is a foley. Just give the lands back to us, to the kānaka maoli that can take care of it properly. Mr. Hull: Four minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Rogers: Okay, goodbye. Thank you. 7 Chair DeGracia: Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Rogers: It’s a pleasure being here. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Malia Chun. Ms. Malia Chun: Welina mai, me ke aloha. My name is Malia Kahaleinia Chun, and everything Aunty just said is basically what I want to evoke today. I’ve written many, many testimonies in opposition of this development and in opposition of granting permitting to this developer. Time and time again, I feel like it’s probably been lost deaf ears. I am a kamaʻāina of the area that is proposed for development, and when I say kamaʻāina I don’t mean I qualify for a maika`i card, I mean I grew up across the street from the Coco Palms development, right next to Holoholoku Heiau. My father was once the sous chef there, and I know firsthand and I’ve experienced first the mana and the cultural significance of this site. This young man spoke about Koki Road, my great grandparents raised my grandmothers eight siblings on that road, so yes, it hurts to know that it’s been left dilapidated and in disarray. I don’t come here with any formal testimony, I’m just here to speak from my naʻau, in that I believe if the Planning Commission knew back in the 60’s in the significance of this area and what it means to our ancestors, the development of the original Coco Palms would’ve never been built, and so you sit here today with much more knowledge than what the Planning Commission held back then. You sit here understanding, hopefully the cultural significance of the area of this development. There is good reason why, for the last thirty years this area has sat in disarray and development, and has not been developed any further, there’s a good reason and we need to start paying attention to that reason. There is a good reason why, for the past eight years this developer has sat on this, and if you pay attention to the environment this land will speak to you and will tell you that a resort is the last thing that should be developed on this land. If there’s any development that happens on this land, it should honor the history and the heritage of the kiko wai`na, the capital that once subsided there. There is iwi kūpuna there, we know that. That entire area if sacred and it’s surrounded by our ancestors still. Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Chun: So, mahalo nui for your time, and I have faith that will all do the right thing for Kaua`i, and for our future generations who can no longer afford to live here and call this place home. Mahalo nui. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Megan Wong. Ms. Megan Wong: Aloha, my name is Megan Wong, I did not prepare a formal testimony, but I have one of my dads which I will read for him later. So, I come speaking from my naʻau in the three minutes that I am given. I am born and raised here on Kaua`i, our genealogy traces also back to that place, and it hurts me that we continue to choose development, development over culture, development over sacred spaces. We choose money, we have to stop that, because our kūpuna taught us to think of seven generations to come, not for today, not for right now, and I feel like I bring with me the kūpuna that have passed and those who can’t be with me here today. It is worth more to us than fifty million dollars, fifty million dollars without a building, this place is rich history, and please do right by Kaua`i, by our lāhui, by our community, and of the scared space. Please don’t choose to be threatened by big money and development. We have your back and we back you up, we back you up with our affidavits to this place, and if this cannot be heard here, and the next level they push forward, we will be there, like Super Ferry and stand in the way with our bodies, because sometimes that’s the only way we can be heard. So, I support this petition and I beg of you to make the right decision, and not listen to big money. Mahalo. 8 Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have, Kona Wong. Mr. Kona Wong: Aloha, and good morning. My name is Kona Wong, I too am a lineal descendent of Deborah Kapule, and I’m against this development, and I highly suggest that you guys go and seek out more of these heirs and see who has the interest of this property, the legal documents, and provide us with who is the owner of this place, and I’m putting you on notice now. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next signed up we have, William Wong. Ms. Megan Wong for Mr. William Wong: I’m reading a testimony for my dad who sits in the back. We are writing about the intended hotel plans for Coco Palms, with a strong appeal to stop development. My husband and I live above Coco Palms in Wailua Homesteads and had been looking that blight for decades, with a hope that it could be repurposed for the community, putting aside that it is a sacred and precious site that should be preserved, which doesn’t seem to factor into the planning commissions decisions. The impact on traffic alone would be disastrous. Our small island is choked with gridlock. At that very intersection with years of improvement, construction is still not completed. An up to date environmentally impact study must be required as their 2015 permits have lapsed due to the lack of substantial progress. With hope for resolution that benefits the people of Kaua`i, not one that lines the pockets of mainland investors at our expense. Thank you, William Wong. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Belle Kaiwi. Ms. Belle Kaiwi: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Belle Kaiwi for the record, and I’m here on behalf of my kūpuna from the Wailua area. This past weekend I was fortunate to attend a two-day seminar, the first one held Saturday, here in Līhuʻe and the second in Anahola, my hometown right now. As we introduced ourselves and what we brought for the seminar on Saturday, I said that I brought my ʻohana from Līhuʻe, not only Līhuʻe, Kauaʻi, but Līhuʻe, Oʻahu. That’s where the name Līhuʻe originated from, and the family came from Oʻahu, Waialua area where presently there’s Schofield Barracks is, that’s Līhuʻe, and when the family left Oʻahu, they came here and they stayed with their other family that lived here in Wailua, over at the Holoholoku Heiau, that was mentioned, and also when the present hotel is built on. I already submitted testimony prior to this hearing, so this is just a continue for me. And it was interesting on Saturday because we learned how to go back and claim our kuleana lands. We have here, land court documents that we can submit to the Bureau of Conveyance as we complete our land claims and we also have descendancy claim applications for the State Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation, and we also have for the State Historic Preservation Division, burial registration form, which we haven’t even spoken about, the only burial I know in that area that was ever reinterred was those found at the opposite end at Kaumualiʻi Park, and where did the burial council put that iwi kūpuna, next to the hale kukai. So, my claims go back to Holoholoku Heiau, where… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair DeGracia: Excuse me, could you please conclude your testimony. Mahalo. Ms. Kaiwi: Yes, sir, I will. When my ʻohana, Esther Lehia Holi was born, she was the last one born there, and she still has descendants here on Kauaʻi, but I come from her brother, Frank Kahalau Holi, and they 9 were raised by their uncle, F.W. Malaihi who has a kuleana land right there next to Deborah Kapule with his father-in-law, Oliver Chapin. He was married to Oliver’s daughter, Kaluaipihana. Mr. Hull: Four minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Kaiwi: So those are the kuleana lands that I intend to claim. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Ms. Kaiwi: Oh, and another thing, I have it here on my thing, if you have someone who could also download it from my phone, the genealogy, the history of that area, it’s here. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next…having a problem reading the handwriting but, Keahi (inaudible), I think the last name. Keahi? Mr. Keahi (inaudible): Aloha kakahiaka, Commissioners, Mr. Chair, Planning Director Hull, mahalo for allowing me time to speak. So, I’m a kānaka maoli, I consider myself belonging to the people of Kauaʻi as well, and I’m nobody so I don’t want to make a big deal about myself, but for those of you that it matters just for putting it on the record for anybody that might be reading this, my grandmother was a founder of OHA before Office of Hawaiian Affairs was nationalized by the State of Hawaii, you can look in the Congressional Record for that, as in the State archives, but other than that I’m just a person that’s concerned and I was asked to come and speak today, ironically by a haole person, but one thing I just want to kind of bring some awareness to some things about this island, and again I’m not making any legal arguments. For those you that know me, I love the law, I respect the law, I practically live in the courtroom, so if I wanted to make a legal argument, I could but for me this is not about that, it’s really a political, I’m here to make a political argument which is beyond the law, at least within the scope and purvey of this body within their discretion. On this island things are a little bit different the way things run. On this island you have, and again, this is not to personally embarrass any of the Council members as many of the commissioners as I’m sure I will see you again for other reasons, so with due respect. On this island we’ve elected a council member that was a dealer of methamphetamines, that is kind of a, it’s an embarrassment to the island and it’s not, you know this all of the people of Kauaʻi’s responsibility that we make this kind of decisions, we go and we vote and that’s the kind of people we vote for, and we have a better relationship with Russia at this point than with the host culture, which is the kānaka maoli. I just want to put it out there that we have bigger problems on other islands that we can see kind of the result of just letting things go. On Oʻahu they’re risking not even having clean water in the future for future generations. This just an opportunity for us to kind of look at the consequences of our actions and I’m not picking sides in this particular argument, just bringing some awareness. As far as the political argument… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Keahi: Mahalo, may I just conclude? Chair DeGracia: Yes, please conclude. Mr. Keahi: Mahalo. Politically, one thing I know for sure is that kānaka maoli also known as native Hawaiians by some, are kind of fed up that their, and it’s not about Hawaiian rights in my opinion, it’s about responsibilities and many Hawaiians that I’m aware of have a responsibility to continue to push for the things that they have a responsibility and kuleana for, and so, this going to keep going and going until Hawaiians have fulfilled their responsibility, it’s not about rights, it’s about fulfilling their responsibility, 10 and I personally, as a political opportunity, I would like to see this go, to continue, to continue on to go to higher levels of court… Mr. Hull: Four minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Keahi: …and go through the whole process because that’s the only that this community and the world is going to understand kind of the seriousness of the issue so that we can use this as a platform to get as much information out into the community and into the world that the message can finally be heard. So, thank you for the opportunity. I’m actually glad for the conflict and I hope that the conflict continues so that we can continue to get information out there. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, I apologize, I can’t quite read the last name but, Linda Piztola, I believe, my apologies. Ms. Linda Pizzitola: Good morning, Linda Pizzitola, I’m a resident of Wailua Houselots, I drive by the Coco Palms property every day and just shake my head in disbelief every day. Maybe eight or ten years ago I was part of the organization, Friends of Coco Palms, and we had a vision for a cultural center, a community center, and the seeds were planted for what is now, Wailuanui, which looks like a fabulous thing to me, I was up in the night on the webpage looking at all the high caliber people involved, and the goals for the property and the vision for the property, I would love to see that come to fruition. As we all know the permits have lapsed. There’s a petition out there that I urge you to support for the good of the island, the good of the `aina, the community and the culture, the local culture. So, please do the right thing, you know what the right thing is, and again as somebody said earlier, don’t cave to big money. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have signed up, Ron, I believe Agor, but I can’t read the last name, but I believe Ron Agor. No? Okay. Next, we have signed up, Mia Checkley. Ms. Mia Checkley: Aloha and good morning, my name is Mia Checkley, I’m a resident of Kauaʻi and a homeowner in the Wailua Houselots. My extended ʻohana here on Kauaʻi is comprised of about twenty people and we all live in the Wailua or nearby in Kapa'a area. The Coco Palms corridor of Wailua is an eyesore, it’s a blight, it’s a proverbial tattered welcome mat for Wailua, which is my home. And while I have deep respect and reverence for the historical and cultural aspects of the site, I don’t think it’s beneficial for anyone to allow it to sit for another thirty years. Coco Palms was a beautiful place for the community to enjoy before and it can be again. Wailuanui guys want to make it a cultural gathering and I’m all for that, however I don’t have any faith that they will ever get the fifty-million dollars that they need to make that happen, and so in thirty years we’re going to be looking at the same exact site. And so, I support the redevelopment of the site. In terms of the supposed lapsed permits, the County of Kauaʻi issued permits only weeks ago to the new developer and they should in good faith, honor those permits, allow the brand new developer an opportunity to finally restore Coco Palms to her former glory. People say that they’re rushing to get a dust fence up to prove substantial progress but apparently they don’t understand how these things work. Permitting, planning, getting contracts in place, getting insurance in place, soliciting bids from multiple subs and contractors, procuring materials, hiring an archeological monitor, how all these things work, it takes time. It sat for thirty years, what’s a few more months to allow the new developer an opportunity to do because otherwise, again I don’t see that anything’s going to change in thirty more years. If they money to buy the site and develop it, but they’ve had all time and we hear people talk about how the terrible status of the site right now, where’s the community, were they 11 picking up the trash, were they removing the ninety cars, they’re not. It’s going to just keep going, so I’m in support of redevelopment. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Last, we have signed up, Rupert Rowe. Mr. Rupert Rowe: Aloha, my name is Rupert Rowe. I want to start off with a short story. In 1949 my kūpuna sent me to Honolulu to learn the western way because we knew what was going to happen in the future. So, by moving to Honolulu, I got to play in the palace, it was not the way it is now. I seen the changes, came back in the late 50’s, watched my kūpuna cry because Coco Palms was going to build. Watching the iwi that were dug out over there, there was eighteen hundred that were dug up, there was eighty seven footers that were dug up, sitting in a position facing towards the east because power of all cultures come from the east. When the sun rises the energy flows. I want to get right to the point, the pain that my kūpunas suffered, they were the aliʻis of this area. Right now this decision that you folks make will alter our identity as a third-class citizen in this island, that is totally wrong. I look at each one of you, Commissioners, you folks are all malihinis, you are the foreigners here making a decision that will alter our destiny. Who gives you folks the right as a malihini? Only the kānaka can stand up and say what he needs to say. Honestly this project should’ve been dumped a long time ago, but we still pushing it because the kālā, you know the kālā that is the money, we don’t need money, we need `aina. `Aina gives us identity. We’re the strangers, you guys should stop this project. How embarrassing. I am the po'o of Kāneiʻolouma Heiau, I got involved with that so that our people have a place to go and enjoy in their past and understand their future. That’s why I said, I went to Honolulu, I seen the changes throughout Hawai'i. It's sad, I cannot change that. I’m eighty-one years old. It is very sad when I look at my moʻopunas, I have to tell them, there’s nothing for you in the future because the malihini has altered your destiny. Mr. Hull: Three minutes. Mr. Rowe: They all moved out of Hawai'i. What can I say? How can I say what I need to say? This project should stop. The kālā cannot make us happy. All these projects that we planned in the future, where you going put the ʻōpala? That was the problem when Hawai'i became a state. The kūpuna said the problem will come. This is seventy-four years, and we didn’t finish the problem. Where you going put the rubbish? Where you going put the kukai? All of those things are important, that’s how you mālama the 'āina Hawai'i. When you pass development, do you folks ever look along the shoreline of the blue tarps that go up? Mr. Hull: Four minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair DeGracia: Excuse me. Mr. Rowe: They’re the kānakas. They’re the homeless person. Chair DeGracia: Excuse me, please conclude your testimony. Thank you. Mr. Rowe: So, anyway I’m going to step back. I hope you folks all make the right decision. As an Aliʻi, I tell you, do it right. Correct the problem, so that there is a future. Aloha. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. 12 Mr. Hull: That’s all we have signed up for public testimony. If there’s anybody who would like to testify, who has not previously testified you can do so by approaching the microphone. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Fern Holland: Aloha Commissioners, Fern Holland for the record. Yes, the property is an eye sore, we all know that it’s an eye sore because no substantial progress was completed over the last eight years. There is a plan, there’s a fabulous plan, like somebody mentioned, we’ve only had about two years to work on that plan, for the last two and a half years, I’ve poured my heart and soul into developing that plan and we’ve spoke with every legislator that has been supportive from the county level to the federal level of government that is supportive of helping us find the funds that we need. We’ve gone out over the last month and a bit since we met with you, we’ve acquired substantial amounts of pledges to move forward, we’ve worked with financial to come up with funding, we’ve only had about a month of that effort over the holidays and we’ve made incredible progress, we haven’t been doing this for thirty years, it’s been a pretty short run and we’ve made a huge progress and we have an incredible plan, that I haven’t heard anybody really oppose. The cultural aspects of the property are really important, I’m not going to go into that, you’ve been told multiple times by kānaka just how important. We don’t need to cave, I know that the largest attorneys that money can buy are intimidating but the truth is, there’s much more value in standing up for what’s right and standing up for this place and standing up for generations. We look at this exemption for them to rebuild under standards of the Iniki Ordinance that is a thirty-year-old hurricane but really, they’re rebuilding on fifty year old ideals, fifty year old culture and environmental stuff and maybe in the last couple of weeks they’ve pushed forward in trying to make progress by clearing habitat for the 'alae 'ula, habitat for wetland endangered species that we know were nesting in that area that have now been cleared, where is the federal and state environmental monitors, where are the people that are charged in ensuring that those wetlands nesting sites were removed. There are no community outreach, there’s been no public, we’ve tried to meet with them, the developers are very confident that they can make many, many hundred million dollars of this property outside of what the actual cost of purchasing the property is, which is valued closer to 12 million, then it is this huge inflated amount that they would like to make off this property. The truth is is that this property is priceless, it is priceless for our history, it is the birthplace of Hawaiian culture, it is the birthplace of many, many important things that go far beyond any monetary value, and I plead for you to make these developers follow the law and treat them today like they don’t have the largest attorneys and the biggest most funded attorneys behind them. Treat them like they’re me, that has nothing, no money to sue you just a person, and if you take the fear of being sued out by these huge attorneys and (inaudible) that they bring to the table, I ask you to consider them like everybody else, like the little guys that have to follow the law and they have to make substantial progress into eight years before their permits are expired. The progress of development on sacred grounds is what… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Holland: …brings our people to being houseless, so when the gentleman speaks about the removal of these cars and the removal of these things, I just remind you that the building of hotels on sacred Hawaiian sites, the building of hotels on our food production infrastructure on the most historic and special sites, on a royal graveyard, on a royal cemetery that’s mapped as a cemetery, is what disconnects our people from their culture, is what takes away their identity and is what leads people to being houseless, it’s what leads our people to the drug problems that you see in that property, this will in fact only perpetuate and exasperate the problems that our people face. It is not the answer to healing it, the answer to healing it, is to return these lands, the most sacred of Hawaiian lands to Hawaiian people that can feed our people, that can restore this fish pond, it’s not a lagoon from Elvis, it is a fish pond, that is an eight-hundred plus year old fish pond that fed our people in a time where we’ve never been more concerned about our food security, never been more concerned about our future, we must return to the indigenous ideas and knowledge that allowed us to perpetuate… 13 Mr. Hull: Four minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Holland: …and I just ask you to please, please put that above the fear of being sued, I ask you to please put that above money, and do what is right today. Mahalo. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else that would like to testify, that hasn’t previously testified? You can approach the microphone. Please state your name for the record and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Felicia Cowden: Aloha, I’m Felicia Cowden, Councilmember. I am speaking as a Councilmember but individually as a Councilmember. I appreciate the very challenging position that you all have. There are rules that are set out that are guided to assist really where money commitments are placed. On a regular basis, I try so hard to help the displacement of the people, all people certainly the Hawaiian people you know, bullseye to target, but so many people are being displaced, including those right now being taxed out of their homes there were so many challenges and always it's no, no, no there's so many barriers for us to be able to do the right thing, and I have sat here as a citizen when I came before it, when it was the entitlement resort entitlement was going to be taken away, I testified on that before so I don’t gonna go too deep but even the attorney for the lender was shocked, and they wanted it taken away, because it's a lot of money to clean up the mess, and I have sent in testimony that had an interview with Uncle Val Ako, who was the one who dug up those 86 bodies that were in fetal positions facing east, I sent that with the testimony of him of what was so special to the Board of Land and Natural Resources Committee meeting, and they never even looked at it, they never saw it, they never opened it up. It was just an open and shut case to approval to continue to take that fourteen additional Department of Land and Natural Resources land that ties it to this really very small private property. You know, over and over again the property has gotten the benefits of doubt, because honestly nobody wants the liability, how do you clean all that up? I get it. But I don't want to hurt these people who are, who are have their money at stake, but way more important is that that's not the right place for hotel any longer, it is a cultural spot, it is a wetland, it's right in the inundation zone, and somewhere we have to stand up and just go with this petition, here it is thirty years beyond Iniki. It is crazy that we're allowing an Iniki rebuilt when it was in the eye of the storm, literally and it's in the flood plain and inundation plane, and here we've done our sea level rise constraint district we just had big waves took twenty feet of shoreline out of my friend's yard just this last weekend. It doesn't make sense that we're saying yes to building on a sacred land in an inundation zone, thirty years beyond. Somebody testified that said… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Cowden: …they're not going to be able to, the communities might be able to clean it up, well, investor after investor after investor hasn't been able to clean it up, but I do appreciate the hard work that you guys are paying for, right now is cleaning it up for whoever is next. So, I ask you to really consider the petition. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else who would like to testify? If so, please approach the microphone, state your name for the record and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Vivian Davenport: Aloha, my name is Vivian Davenport, and my first question to each and every one of you is, who are you working for? Are you working for the County? Who is the County? The County, the people, the people who live here, or are you working for developers? Yeah, are you getting bribes for 14 working for wealthy developers? We can't figure out why you keep choosing them. Is it because you're getting paid? Is it because you're afraid of their lawyers? I just wanna know why you are not working for the people of Hawaii. The second thing, I'd like to do is invite you all to see the UH inundation map for 2030, it's all going to be underwater. It's an app you can download from UH. Take a look at the inundation zone. Do you know that recently it was 80 below 0 in Russia? Okay, there's California is flooding. There was a snowpocalypse, where snow is 10 stories high or something in Alaska. The world is changing, global warming is here, work for the people, we need to come together and survive. We don't need any more hotels. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. At this time I’d like to call a ten minute recess. Commission went into recess at 10:01 a.m. Commission reconvened from recess at 10:14 a.m. Chair DeGracia: I’d like to call the meeting back into session. Mr. Hull: Okay, we’re back in session folks. We have finished with all those that signed up to testify. Are there any other individual members of the public that did not previously testify, and did not sign up but would like to testify on this agenda item? If so, please approach the microphone, please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Flora Rubio: My name is Flora Rubio, I am here to testify simply because enough is enough, we’ve seen Coco Palms deteriorating, we’ve seen what used to be sacred land that has all the iwi kupuna buried there. I’ve seen the mound where their bones were just thrown, and we need to have it come back and stop letting hotels be built there for tourists, there’s enough tourists on this island. We need a place for our people, we need a place for the people who live here, and their children, and their children’s children, we need a gathering place, it is a beautiful place that has the beautiful fish ponds, it was our kings and queens home, and we need to have to returned to our people, our people who live on Kauaʻi and are raising our families on Kauaʻi, and I just ask that it never, never, never return to being a hotel and over run by people from other places who don’t respect our island, who don’t respect our people. That’s all I have to say. I live in Kapaʻa and I’ve in lived in Kapaʻa many years, raising my children and my grand children there, and I just ask you to please, please consider the long term results of allowing any outsiders to come and build on Coco Palms land. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Do we have anyone else who has not previously testified but would like to testify on this agenda item? Please approach the microphone, state your name for the record, and you have three minutes for testimony. Mr. Larry Parker: My name is Larry Parker, and just real quickly, let people know I understand that I am an off island new resident who has gone from being a user of Hawaiʻi to resort to being a person who understands that I’m an intruder here and that I need to give back and that I’m seeing as I learn that we have a huge opportunity here to start recreating the balance that needs to be recreated here, and that my understanding from everything I read is that there's a lot of compelling reasons, legal, environmental and just moral reasons, to not go ahead with the project. So, this is a really good chance to kind of put the hand on the wheel, slow things down and start putting things back into a balance that’s going to be sustainable into the future. So, thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. 15 Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else who has not previously testified, that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, Chair? Chair DeGracia: Okay. Commissioners, it looks like we have a bunch of written testimony which we have not been able to read through which we just received this morning. I will call it recess sometime, so that we can thoroughly go through some of this testimony, because I think it's important. People put a lot of time and energy into writing these testimonies. So, Commissioners does anybody have a suggestion on a time frame in which you guys would like for me to call recess? Ms. Apisa: Thirty minutes? Chair DeGracia: Thirty minutes. Mr. Hull: For the members of the public, what the Chair is bringing up is that the commission has been recently notified via the Office of Information Practices that transmittal of any communications after the agenda has been publicized, including but not limited to public testimony is not appropriate, so previously the commissioners would receive all the written testimony and be able to go through it, digest it, prior to the actual meeting, because that communication has been, we’ve been put on notice of this issue and concern, the commissioners now can’t receive any testimony received after the agenda’s been publicized until the day of the meeting, so they have the communications that were sent by many of you in this room, as well as others, but because they haven’t been able to view it, they’re now looking at time to actually go through and review the testimony that was submitted. It’s a bit of a (inaudible) they’ve been put in but that is essentially the way that they’ll be operating from here on out, so it looks like there’s a request to recess for thirty minutes. Chair DeGracia: Yes. Okay, I’d like to call a recess for thirty minutes, we’ll reconvene at 10:50. Commission went into recess at 10:20 a.m. Commission reconvened from recess at 10:55 a.m. Chair DeGracia: I’d like to call the meeting back into session. Mr. Clerk, can we commence by asking if there is any additional public testimonies? Mr. Hull: Yes. Folks we’re back in session. Before we turn it back over to the commission, we do have two more members of the public that did sign up to testify that didn’t previously testify, so it may be appropriate to call their testimony now. Chair DeGracia: Please. Mr. Hull: So, we have signed up, Joell Edwards for public testimony. So, if you can approach one of the microphones, state your name for the record and you have three minutes for testimony. Ms. Joell Edwards: Good morning, my name is Joell Edwards, I’m from Wainiha, a small business owner and community member of Wainiha. I’m asking the commission to support the Petition of Declaratory order today and determine that the permits have lapsed because of a lack of substantial progress over the last eight years since they were initially granted. Just to note that most projects with a lapse of just even two years of progress show, either a lack of funding, support from the community or simply good planning execution or company leadership, having these permits now at eight years proves all of the above and more. It's also very interesting to note that the placement of a dust screen just weeks before this meeting is how the developer defines significant progress. The permits granted in 2015, allowing the developer to ignore important existing county building rules and regulations were amended in 2018, after 16 the Iniki Ordinance had already expired. It is time for this historical site to be given the protection, restoration and respect it deserves for the benefit of future generations of Kauaʻi. With the incredible cultural and environmental significance, the site has so much more to offer than accommodation for transient guests. Please review and follow the guidance of the law and thank you for your time this morning. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next we have Mahana Danu. Ms. Mahana Danu: Aloha everyone, my name is Mahana Danu of Kilauea. I have lived on this beautiful island for over half my life since I was 18. Looking around today, I am not of kānaka ʻōiwi, I do not have a drop of Hawaiian blood and I don’t see that many people in this room that do. And what we're speaking of today is the property, the land of Coco Palms which does not belong to any person. It belongs to Ke Akua, God the Creator, and any of us are just the caretakers of this earth. I’m Native American, and my ancestors, say, how can we buy or sell the earth? We are only here to take care of it. Each of us, no matter what our ancestry is, know this is the truth. So as we're fighting over a plot of land in order to develop it, to make more money for the elite few, we need to understand that this very powerful place with huge cultural significance before the Great Mahele, was a cultural, such a cultural significant place it was a city of refuge to protect women and children in times of war and in types of peace and there's plenty of history that anyone can look into that, and I'm not one to educate anyone on this, but this is such an important place, and there are people that have testified today that do have the kānaka ʻōiwi, the koko, the bloodlines that goes beyond the Great Mahele, that goes beyond any title that anybody can claim, oh, we’re going to sell this land for this amount of money, no, this belongs to the people of Kauaʻi, this belongs to the people of Hawaiʻi Nei. This should be a cultural center protecting the ancient Hawaiʻi ways, the ancient Hawaiʻi history, that of the kūpuna of the past, and that for the keiki of the future. This is not to be yet another hotel. How are you going to deal with the septic and the waste when we have hundreds of thousands of gallons that waste water that goes (inaudible) hotel there that goes into the Wailua River. How can you justify that in an environmental impact statement, you cannot? How can you justify any of this? There's so many hotels here, we don't even have room for the housing, for another, for the employees, we don’t have housing for our own kānaka. How are we gonna have housing for yet another hotel? It's not justifiable, it's not economically feasible. What we need to do is put people over profits. We need to look to the past in order to go to the future. This historical place is meant to be a city of refuge. Let us look to the past and to make this a historically cultural place, that goes beyond money and to the developers, think not just with your pockets, think with your hearts, think about the people. Kauaʻi is not just a piece of land to develop, to make money and profit, this place is most sacred place in the whole planet for us to protect, and those of us that do not have the koko, we are the kiaʻi, the protectors standing… Mr. Hull: Three minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair DeGracia: Excuse me could you please conclude, thank you. Ms. Danu: …and my conclusion is that we're not going anywhere, we will always protect this island, and if I die, my spirit will protect this island, forever and ever. Aloha, mahalo. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: We have no additional members of the public signed up to testify, but if there are any members of the public that didn’t previously testify and would like to testify now, you may do so by approaching the microphone. Seeing none, Mr. Chair, I turn the meeting back over to you. 17 Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mahalo to the public, the petitioners, and the applicant for being present today to discuss this item. Right now, we’ll discuss preliminary issues followed by a short status report from both sides, then brief argument on the Petition for Declaratory Order followed by questions from the Commissioners. As a preliminary matter, it’s been raised to my attention that there is a question of potential conflict of interest affecting myself, and Vice Chair Apisa. I will now read a statement into the record, Pursuant to Section 20.04(B), and the Kauaʻi County Charter, Section 3-1.7 of the Kauaʻi County Code and Rule 1-2-15 of the Kauaʻi County Planning Commission, I hereby provide written disclosure on the record of what has been raised as a potential conflict of interest by parties who have filed a Petition for Declaratory Order for Commission decision on January 24, 2023. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest and I do not wish to recuse from a vote on the matter, however, in the interest of full disclosure and thorough compliance with relevant rules and law, I hereby submit the following statement: In my private professional employment, I am the Kauai Field Representative for the Hawai‘i Regional Council of Carpenters. In my job, I monitor and enforce the collective bargaining agreement with our signatory contractors. The Council represents its members and signatory contractors. Agenda Item K.1. for the Planning Commission’s January 24, 2023, Meeting is an action item for the Commission to decide upon a Petition for Declaratory Order regarding the development permits for the Coco Palms Resort Development. Petitioner alleges that I have a conflict of interest based upon my professional position and alleges direct financial gain to my myself or my employer and its members. Layton Construction (“Layton”) allegedly is retained by the Developer as the general contractor for this resort project. Layton is a signatory to The Master Agreement covering Carpenters in the State of Hawai‘i. Dependent upon certain circumstances, Layton Construction may or may not be required to use subcontractors who are signatory to the Council. At this time, I am not aware of any subcontract bid, or subcontract, offered to any Council member, nor is there a guarantee that there will be one. The decision before the Commission does not involve direct or substantial personal financial interest to me, nor does my decision directly affect the Council. Commissioners, Pursuant to Rule 1-2-15, I am asking whether any Commissioner deems a conflict of interest, if so please indicate by saying, aye or making comments on the record. Hearing none, I will proceed with this matter. I will now ask Vice Chair Apisa to discuss a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Apisa: Thank you. Pursuant to Section 20… Mr. Ako: I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, can I take a step back? Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: I was just a little too slow, I guess to jump on the gun on this one, but I just wanted to say on the record, I see no conflict in your matter and in this issue here, and I just wanted to applaud you for stepping up and being part of this commission here, because part of this commission we have people that represent business, we have people that represent agriculture, we have people that labor over here, and obviously, if this project was to move forward there is going to have labor that’s involved in the project here, there’s going to have to be from the masons to the carpenters to everybody in here, so, I see no conflict in your participation in this matter here for the record. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Apisa: Thank you. Pursuant to Section 20.04(B) of the Kaua'i County Charter, Section 3-1.7 of the Kaua'i County Code and Rule 1-2-15 of the Kaua'i County Planning Commission, I hereby provide disclosure on the record of what has been raised as a potential conflict of interest by parties who have filed a Petition for Declaratory Order for Commission decision on January 24, 2023. I do not deem that a conflict exists, and I do not elect to recuse from a vote on the matter, however, in the interest of full disclosure and thorough compliance with the relevant rules and law, I hereby submit the following 18 statement: My statement is that, in approximately 2005 to 2008, I was associated with a group of investors led by Mr. Richard Weiser who attempted to develop the Coco Palms resort. The extent of my involvement was to attend several meetings which may have resulted in my real estate brokerage being retained to sell condominium units at the resort, but the units were never built, and my brokerage was not retained. During this period, the corporation holding the development permits was Coco Palms Ventures, which held permits on the property until 2013 when these permits were revoked. Coco Palms Ventures is unrelated to Coco Palms Hui, the applicant for the currently active 2015 permits, and is further unrelated to RP21 Coco Palms, the current property owner and permit holder. I have not communicated with the Coco Palms Ventures entity since 2008, 15 years ago. I have no direct or substantial financial interest in the Coco Palms development, nor did I, or my real estate office, ever realize any direct or substantial financial gain from this development. Since 2008, myself or my real estate brokerage have not had any involvement with any owner, investor or potential investor of Coco Palms. I therefore believe that I have no conflict of interest which prevents me from voting on the Petition for Declaratory Order. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Vice Chair Apisa. Pursuant to Rule 1-2-15, I’m asking whether any Commissioner deems a conflict of interest for Vice Chair Apisa. Hearing none, we will proceed for the record. Both matters have been referred to the County Board of Ethics for consideration on their February agenda. At this time parties may approach to be seated at the tables. The Commission would like to hear a 5-minute Status Report from the petitioners as a follow up to the last meeting regarding efforts for parties to meet to discuss the purchase of the resort parcel. This will be followed by a 5-minute Status Report on the same matter from the applicant. Commissioners will reserve all their questions until after the status updates and arguments on the petition. Okay, petitioner. Ms. Teresa Tico: Thank you, Chair. I don't know if this is on. Can you hear me? Chair DeGracia: Yes. Ms. Tico: Alright. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did have several meetings with the developers’ representatives. I felt that they were productive, you know, in the sense that at least we were cordial, we talked about the potential of our purchasing the Coco Palms properties from them. They were not adverse to that, but of course they wanted some showing that we could actually raise the funding and as you know, it's very difficult to raise millions of dollars in a very short period of time, Commissioner Apisa knew that was going to be at the last commissioners meeting when we discussed the potential of buying out the developers. And we have continued to form a nonprofit, we're in the process forming a nonprofit to hold title to the land should it be acquired. We have been meeting with financial institutions insofar as low interest loans that we could obtain, assuming we are able to raise enough funds, could make a down payment, and I don't think I'm at liberty to tell you what other entities we've met with, but I will say that we're encouraged, it's just that we need time, we can't raise these funds overnight. This process takes a very long period of time. I recently applied for a grant which I had to withdraw from the State, just simply because we weren't ready and we hadn't gotten our nonprofit status at that point, so you know, insofar as the grant, even if we had our tax-exempt status, we wouldn't be seeing the money for another year anyway. These things take a very long time. I just, I have to be candid with you, there is no way that we can buy out the developers interest at this time, although we were encouraged with the discussions that we have with them. I'm sorry I don't have anything other to report anything else, but we are continuing in our efforts. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. William Yuen: Mr. Chairman, William Yuen, and Richard Crum on behalf of the applicants. Ms. Tico is correct that several discussions were held, there was never any formal offer to purchase made on 19 behalf of the petitioners, so there's no discussion that we can say conclude anything concrete as far as a purchase. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. As I mentioned, Commissioners questions are reserved, parties are now given the opportunity for 5-minutes each of argument, regarding the petition for declaratory order. Followed by 2-minutes each for rebuttal. Ms. Tico. Ms. Tico: Thank you, Chair. Before I get into our argument in support of the petition, I just wanted to bring to the Commissioner's attention that, you know there is this DLNR issue, about half of the lands that are proposed for this development, are leased from the State, and they're leased from Coco Palm's Ventures, LLC., and as I believe we mentioned this at the last hearing, Coco Palms Ventures is not registered in the State of Hawaiʻi, we don't even know if they exist. Commissioner Apisa in addressing her potential conflict of interest, said that Coco Palms Ventures is unrelated to the Coco Palms Hui, and I think I have an email from Bill Yuen, who is one of the attorneys for the developers that RP21 Coco Palms is in related to Coco Palms Ventures, but the State of Hawaiʻi has leased these lands to Coco Palms Ventures, and we don't understand how this resort can be developed when half of those lands are leased to an entity that’s not even registered to do business in the State of Hawaiʻi, and according to the representations made today and made from Mr. Yuen has nothing to do with RP21 Coco Palms. It's just inexplicable. I don't know how that can be. It's one of the reasons that we're going to be asking for a continuance of this hearing, because the Land Board deferred or they didn't defer, they went ahead and renewed the leases, the Coco Palms Ventures, this nonexistent entity, but they said that they wanted to review the issue in 3 months, and that's coming up very soon. Their staff admitted that they hadn't read any of the letters that had come in about these leases. They said they hadn’t really studied it, they haven't had time, and so their staff is undertaking an investigation of this issue right now, and they will be resuming discussions when they at their next meeting I believe, and they will determine then whether the leases are valid. So, this is still up in the air, and we believe that this body should wait until the DLNR meets, and determines, you know, who really has these leases. How can the state renew leases to a nonexistent entity? And that's one of the reasons we're asking for continuous at this time, until that hearing can take place and the State can get its act together and decide who really has those leases, because that's half the land that this project is going to be developed on, if it goes forward. The other reason we're asking for continuance is because obviously, you know, if the Ethics Commission determines that there is the conflict of interest in, our group, you know we don't really believe there is a conflict of interest with Commissioner Apisa, we never made that accusation, we simply disclosed the fact that she had worked for the prior developer as well as my disclosure of the fact that Commissioner Apisa’s Real Estate Company had represented one of my properties when I was living off island, so we made full disclosure, we didn't accuse her of a conflict, we just asked the county attorney if there was a possibility of a conflict, and left it at that. We're fine with the Deputy County Attorney's opinion, however, Commissioner DeGracia, we really need to know more about this, because we do feel that there would be bias potential for bias, you know, assuming that the carpenters union, though their workers are hired to work on this project, this is a big multimillion dollar project, so all of you, like all of you, in the carpenters union stand to gain financially, and so the second reason we would ask for a continuance of this hearing today, and the continuance of your vote is to give the Ethics Commission the time to make a ruling on this issue with respect to Chair DeGracia. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Ms. Tico: I think I spoke too long. I just wanted to, as far as you know, our position, we still take the same position that these permits lapsed back in 2017. They were, you know, revisited by the Planning Director in 2018, and they were, the developers were allowed to continue under the same conditions. I think the conditions in 2018 are a little more lax than the initial conditions insofar, as, for example, 2018 conditions don't require the developer to apply for permits to get the dust control fence up, yet in the 20 original conditions they were required to get permits to go through the permitting process to get a dust control fence. But, in any event we feel that because Iniki Ordinance was repealed… Ms. Barzilai: Five minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Tico: …before the 2018 conditions were renewed that the permits have already lapsed, and the Planning Director did not have the right to even file a petition to revoke, they were lapsed, once their lapsed, it’s a mandatory lapse, it's an automatic lapse, and they remain lapsed at this day. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Coco Palms Hui. Mr. Richard Crum: Good morning, Commissioners. Can you hear me? My name is Richard Crum, and I’m here on behalf of RP21 Coco Palms, LLC., I’m with the law firm, Dentons US, LLP. We're gonna ask the Planning Commission to deny the Petition for Declaratory Order for the following reasons, and I’ll try to be brief. First, the Planning Commission does not have authority to make determinations of substantial progress under the SMS Rules. That duty is for the director, not the Commission. Second, the former Planning Director, Michael Dahilig, made a determination of substantial progress at a November 13th, 2018 commission meeting. This is an affirmative determination, of substantial progress on the record and Director Dahilig said, “we feel comfortable that there are enough safeguards here to help them, meaning the former property owners, maintain forward progress.” Third, the sitting Director, Hull, stated that in August 23rd of 2022 meeting, that the time to demonstrate progress under these specific permits has been effectively extended beyond the two-year window outlined in SMA Rule 10, so the Director stated, and I’m quoting again, “unless otherwise stated in the permits, when you look at these specific permits that were granted in 2015, there were specific deadlines for actions to occur that go beyond the two-year window, from 2015 to 2017, in particular building permits to be applied for in 2019, demolition actions to occur, I’m done quoting now. And this statement by the Director, directly contradicts the petitioners reading of the SMS Rules, and we support the interpretation advance by the Director. Fourth, and I think this is the most significant point, substantial progress has been made. If you look at the declaration of Benjamin (inaudible), there photographs attached on exhibits A & B, and they show substantial progress, renovating the Coco Palms hotel. The SMA Rules say things like placement of solid material, construct and demolition constitute development. If you review the photos and the declarations, substantial progress occurred as early as 2016, September of 2016. Another reason to deny the petition is that the theory of automatic lapse advanced by the petitioners is not supported by the law. The Kauaʻi Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 1-10-7 states, and I quote, “an order disposing of a petition for Declaratory Order, shall be applicable only and strictly to the limited factual situation described in the petition, and set forth in the order.” So, the petitioners want to say that these permits are invalid, because a Circuit Judge in another case called West Sunset 32, reversed the decision of this Commission with respect to other permits, but the Commission rules require that the decision to be made about these permits other circumstances in another case, on other property dealing with different circumstances cannot be a basis for a decision here. We'd also like to say that even if there was no substantial progress, the director can and has considered other things when determining whether progress, like taking and filing the development condition status reports that our clients have filed, and since they have been filed and taken in, these shows continued compliance with all developing conditions. I’d also like to note that in the West Sunset 32 case, council for the petitioners affectedly agrees with our position. Ms. Tico represents Michael Kaplan, in a West Sunset 32 appeal, and has presented similar argument, basically saying that automatic lapse of permits under the same SMA Rule 10, eliminates vested property rights without due process of law. Ms. Tico also argued, and this is a quote, “any lapse of a permit under SMA Rule 10 is not automatic, a permit may be deemed lapsed only if the Director in his discretion determines that substantial progress has not occur. Finally, the petitioners are asking the Commission to do things that it doesn't have the authority to do, and they've admitted that before the Commission, they don't have a jurisdiction or authority to make rulings on the legitimacy or the passage of Kauaʻi ordinances, because the Commission lacks that jurisdiction, the 21 Commission need not rule on that issue and the relief requested should be denied. We thank the Commission for their time this morning, and I believe our clients have a few things they'd like to share with the Commission if we have time. Chair DeGracia: Ms. Tico, do you have a rebuttal? Ms. Tico: Yes, I’d like to say, when I represented Mr. Kaplan it was at the administrative level, and Circuit Court level, and we did make those arguments. We lost. We are now following Judge Watanabe’s rule of law, the decision that she made, so to argue that you know we made arguments that support their theory is unfounded. That was before the Watanabe decision was issued, once her decision was issued, we accepted it and we're now using it in this particular case. What was fair in that case should be fair in this case, and Judge Watanabe said that a lapse, once a lapse occurs it's a mandatory lapse, it's not up to the discretion of the Planning Director. To say that the Planning Director in 2022 stated that the permits were effectively extended beyond the two-year window, To say that in 2022, that's years after the permits lapsed, that’s far too long, I mean, the permits lapsed in 2017, and now to claim 5 years later, oh but we’re extending the two-year window, you can’t do it, it’s too late. So, we feel that these permits lapsed back in 2017, the Iniki Ordinance was repealed when the developers came before this body in 2018, they should have been required to go through the process that every one of us on this island must go through when we develop anything, they should be required to do for a shoreline certification, for example, you know right now they have the benefit of the Iniki Ordinance, 31 years later, which allows them to have all of these non-conforming structures. I believe that all of you have read the reply that we submitted, and in the reply we outlined, all of the numerous nonconforming structures that they get to build now, 31 years later, with all the changes we've had in our world, on our island, in our society, with our economy, with our environment, with sea level rise, they get to have a commercial building that has no set back from Kuhio Highway. Ms. Barzilai: Two minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Tico: … their lot coverage can exceed the 50% lot coverage allowed under the CZO, the first floors of the buildings do not have the required elevations above the base flood, now applicable to the properties, and so on, and so on. We enumerated all of these many nonconforming structures that they get to build now, thirty-one years later because they're still taking advantage of this repealed ordinance. Nonetheless, we do maintain our position that these permits lapsed in 2017 before the renewal in 2018, and therefore this body should declare they are lapsed, and not allow the development to go forward. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Yuen, Mr. Crum. Mr. Crum: Thank you. I just like to briefly say that if you read the West Sunset 32 case, it effectively supports our position, the judge, in that case, Judge Watanabe decided that permits lapse only if the director has made no determination of substantial progress, but as I stated in our opening, there have been 2 directors that have determined progress under these permits. So, that argument, I think that fails. And Mr. Yuen, do you have anything further? I think that's what we'd like to say at this time. Ms. Tico: If I may, Chair? One sentence. Chair DeGracia: Very briefly. Ms. Tico: Very briefly. Thank you. I did ask the Planning Director, Mr. Hull, to provide me with any documentation in the files that showed the Director made a finding of substantial progress in, pre 2018, and Mr. Hull said that he could find nothing, and I did, I think I attached those emails the interaction that we have to our reply brief. 22 Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Yuen, Mr. Crum, do you have any last brief statement? Mr. Yuen: Our clients would like to make a statement about some of the progress that they have made, if that’s permissible. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners? Are we open? Sure. Ms. Barzilai: Chair, I would prefer that this is done in response to questions, as opposed to allowing additional time, people had time to make statements on the record earlier during testimony. Chair DeGracia: Okay. So, I’m sorry, I have to retract on that, and we can focus on what we have in order. Ms. Barzilai: We can take Commissioner questions at this time. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, are there any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Apisa: I would like to hear the substantial progress that they are claiming. Ms. Barzilai: Would you like to ask a question? Ms. Apisa: Yes, the question is, what is that substantial progress? Mr. Yuen: It is appropriate that I have the clients discuss that now, or do you want to continue with questions for the petitioner first? Chair DeGracia: I believe these questions are directed towards the petitioner. Donna, is that for the… Ms. Apisa: Correct. Chair DeGracia: Ms. Tico? Ms. Apisa: Well, no, it would be directed to the applicant. Chair DeGracia: Okay. At this time let’s clear up any questions we have for the petitioner first, and then we’ll move into whether or not we would entertain any additional information from the applicant. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: Now help me understand this, Ms. Tico. I think we’re talking about in 2015, n application was put in by Coco Palms somebody, and then in 2017 is when the claims being made that there was no substantial progress that was made and there was no findings that substantial progress has been made. Right. Ms. Tico: Correct. Mr. Ako: From 2017 to 2018, was when there was this question about the revocation from the Director at that time. Then finally in 2018, there was a new set of conditions that have come out in lieu of the revocation process itself, and that is the conditions that we live with today, yeah. I think the obstacle that I have in my mind right now is, the reading of the new conditions in there, which talks about, I think the SMA Rule 10, unless as otherwise stated in the permit, then the two-years shall prevail in there. In my mind is, the 2018 condition have been acted upon and approved by the Commission, and that’s what we have in front of us. 23 I have the problem is, how do we rescind those conditions to go back to the 2015 conditions, and those 2015 conditions, in mind, does not exist anymore. Ms. Tico: That’s correct, and that is our argument. Our argument was at the 2015 conditions were not complied with within 2 years there was no substantial progress, therefore they lapsed, and that everything that occurred since then it shouldn't have happened, because the permits were lapse. This is very similar to the Kaplan case, to the West Sunset case. You know they had nine years earlier been engaged in what they believed constitute a substantial progress but the court disagreed and said there were no findings of substantial progress. Mr. Ako: But whether or not it should or should not have happened. The 2018 new conditions happened. Ms. Tico: You know what it… Mr. Ako: Do we go back and rescind the 2018 conditions? Ms. Tico: Yes, because they should never have been imposed. The permits have lapsed before that time. That's where everything went wrong. You read it in our reply. That we explain that at that point, that’s where everything went wrong. Mr. Ako: Correct. And do you believe the Commission has the authority to rescind the action that was taken by the 2018 Commission? Because it was the 2018 Commission that approved the new conditions. Do we now need to rescind it and does this body here, do you believe, have the authority to rescind that? Ms. Tico: We don’t even need to get to the authority aspect because once the conditions are lapsed, they are lapsed. Anything that happened beyond that doesn’t matter. I’m sorry, but you know we believe that they were lapsed before 2018. I gave the analogy in our reply brief of an expired driver's license. Your driver's license expires, you can't go into the Department of Motor Vehicles and ask them to just stamp it and renew it. No, you have to start all over again and take that written test, and that's what our argument is here. We're asking this body to enter a declaratory order that the permits lapsed in 2017, due to no substantial progress, and anything that happened beyond that is irrelevant. Mr. Ako: So, to clarify in my mind that 2018 need not be rescinded. Ms. Tico: No. Shouldn't even have happened. Once the permits lapsed, they’re lapsed. You can’t be driving around with an expired driver’s license. Mr. Ako: Even if another license was granted after that? Ms. Tico: Well, it wasn’t because they didn’t go through the formal proceeding. If they would have had to have gone through the whole permit process again. Ms. Barzilai: Excuse me Chair, I believe we’re getting into legal argument and this is one lawyers opinion and there are other legal opinions that can be provided. Chair DeGracia: Okay, got it. Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions for the petitioner? Mr. Ornellas: Yes. Ms. Tico, you brought up the issue of DLNR leases. Ms. Tico: DLNR leases, yes. Mr. Ornellas: Can you tell us the relevance of the lease issue in regard to the declaratory ruling. 24 Ms. Tico: We’re asking for a postponement because if they decide not to renew those leases this project development will not go forward. Mr. Ornellas: I’m assuming those leases are revocable permits. Is that correct? Ms. Tico: Yes. Mr. Ornellas: Thank you. Mr. Ako: I have another… Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: Can? Chair DeGracia: Please Commissioner Ako. Mr. Ako: The other thing I thinks that’s troubling in my mind is the fact that we’re going back to 2017, that’s the question in there. What has been, I guess in my mind, the delay from 2017 to today, to being this up as an issue? As quote, “as progress has been made,” whether we agree, whether it’s been substantial progress or not, progress has been made. I think we’re looking at five or six years later, where now we’re saying, wait we shouldn’t have done that back then. Ms. Tico: Yes, I understand. Mr. Ako: Why now, as opposed to then. Ms. Tico: I understand. What brought this up is that we, then we had the Watanabe decision, and everyone had to rethink everything, and I believe the Planning Director will explain, he had to rethink everything he had to send out letters people with SMA permits, asking them, what have you done? So, yeah, it changed, it changed everything. Mr. Ako: So, for my education the Watanabe decision in 2020, affects an action that happened in 2017, prior to? Ms. Tico: I believe so. Because in the Kaplan case, the West Sunset case those permits had been issued more than nine years earlier, and she still said that they had automatically lapsed. And the developers have attached the entire decision, I attached the relevant portions to our petition, but the developers attached the entire decision as one of their exhibits, so it’s there for your review, at which might be another reason to consider a continuance. They submitted, I think it’s close to 400 pages of argument and exhibit, it’s a lot to digest. It took me quite a while to get through everything too, so I would understand if all of you didn’t even have a chance to get through the argument. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the petitioner? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Based upon what has been happening to date, with the leases and the either the renewal or the non-renewal or reconsideration of the leases. How much time do you think it’ll take DLNR to actually do this? Ms. Tico: I believe in the next month or two. Is it alright if I ask, Mr. Hooser who is in the audience? He was actually there, so he would know. 25 Ms. Nogami-Streufert: If we’re asking for a continuance, you’d want to know for how long, because if you have another 2 year continuance that doesn't make any sense. Ms. Tico: No, it would be. It would be 2 months, no more than 2 months, because of my understanding is the Ethics Commission can rule. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: No, no, not the Ethics. Ms. Tico: Okay. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: We’re talking about the leases. Ms. Tico: Yes, I believe that they are going to be making that decision or they're reviewing these leases in another month or 2. I’m sorry I don't have the exact date, I wasn't present at that hearing, but Mr. Hooser knows. Ms. Barzilai: Chair, I have to clarify, is Ms. Tico making a motion on the floor for continuance? Because I have to know what’s before the Commission. Ms. Tico: I did, I did, at the onset of my statement. Ms. Barzilai: You mentioned… Ms. Tico: I asked for a continuance for two reasons based on the referral of the potential conflict of the interest of the Chairman to the Board of Ethics, and also... Ms. Barzilai: I heard your reasons. I just want to know if you’re actually making a motion because I have to know what’s before the Commission. Ms. Tico: Yes, I did. Thank you. Ms. Barzilai: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, anything further? Hearing none, do we have any questions for Mr. Crum or Mr. Yuen? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Yes, I do. There’s been a lot of, I’m not going to argue what the word substantial means, because I don’t think that that’s something that we can, that I can decide, is or is not substantial, but if you could go through some of the actions that have taken place that would indicate that there has been progress. Mr. Yuen: Can I have our clients address that? Chair DeGracia: I believe a lot of this, the progress had been outlined, I believe in the materials that we were provided. Do we want to hear… Ms. Nogami-Streufert: The reason for doing this is because there’s a lot of people in the audience who do not believe that there has been a substantial or has been any progress, and if we could do a shortened version of what has actually happened, I’m not looking for a whole decertation, I’m just looking at something that would indicate and let people that there has been or has not been progress. If that’s acceptable. I have a feeling that there’s a lot of misinformation or non-information about what has or has not happened, and I think it might be illuminating for a lot of people to know what has happened in the past. 26 Chair DeGracia: Okay, I agree Commissioner. If we could have a brief summary. Mr. Aaron Pacini: Thank you. My name is Aaron Pacini, I’m council with Reef Capital Partners. Reef was a lender to Coco Palms Hui, and then after Coco Palms Hui was unable to pay then we foreclosed on the property. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of that misinformation. One, there's been talk of, it's one developer after another, we're selling this project Reef has decided we want to develop it and we want to do it right. I hope you have an opportunity to talk to Patrick Manning, who's with our team, so you can understand where capacity, capability of how seriously we take this responsibility to properly develop Coco Palms. Particular to the question in our brief, if you would like to take a look at the declaration of Benjamin Schram, and this is probably the fastest way, we can talk about some of the trash removal, the car removal some of those things, but this probably the most substantial, and I’m going to read from paragraph number 9, in Benjamin Schram’s declaration, between March 10, 2015, and March 10, 2017, the lenders funded approximately 5 million dollars to Coco Palms Hui, LLC., for the redevelopment of Coco Palms Resort, including approximately 2.9 million dollars paid to Pacific Concrete, Cutting & Coring, Inc., for demolition site preparation and removal of asbestos contained materials prior to March 10, 2017… Chair DeGracia: Excuse me. Mr. Pacini: Yes. Chair DeGracia: I believe it would be more appropriate if you could speak on your behalf and your experience in your capacity as opposed to what you have there. Mr. Pacini: I’m simply speaking on behalf of our company, and the money that we lent to Coco Palms Hui and how that money was spent, Benjamin Schram is part of our company, is with us, and you can look at his declaration and he’s attached pictures that actually, physically show what changes actually occurred with the asbestos removal and development, but if you’d like to take a look at that provision. Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Chair, I think these papers are already before the Commissioners, and I think the Commissioners have had an opportunity to review them. Chair DeGracia: Yeah. I mean, I don’t mind you outlining it in your own understanding, it’s just that a lot of the stuff we have are already beforehand, some of the Commissioners have went through and I assume all, I read it, but I know this is a disclosure out to the public, so this opportunity is given as a status report, brief status report as to, I guess answering a lot of the questions that the public has or clearing up some misinformation that’s going around. And I don’t mind you continuing but under your own understanding and maybe addressing some of these things briefly. Mr. Pacini: Wonderful. So substantial progress for that, there's been almost 3 million dollars paid for the demolition, well, now, you can read that declaration, as far as what we're trying to do with that property, there was some misunderstanding, could I invite Patrick Manning to talk about what our plan is, and maybe address them, he's with Reef as well? Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Pacini: I think there’s kind of two parts to the questions, substantial progress and then what we’re trying to actually accomplish. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Mr. Pacini: In response to some of the public comment. 27 Ms. Barzilai: Chair… Mr. Pacini: Is that appropriate? Ms. Barzilai: …I believe that the public representative is Ron Agor, as the party who’s supposed to be making comments on technical progress. It’s at your discretion. Chair DeGracia: Okay, I’ll leave it up to them. Who is more appropriate to deliver this information to this body. Mr. Pacini: Would you just repeat the precise question that you want to address, because there’s different people that could address different questions. Chair DeGracia: I believe you cleared up, like you said, there’s a two-part, where substantial progress was involved and also there are also items that you guys may want to clear up that may have been miscommunicated… Mr. Pacini: …about what the project is and what we’re trying to do. Chair DeGracia: To the public. Exactly. Mr. Pacini: Okay. Mr. Yuen: I think Patrick Manning, he’s the best one to speak on that. The only other thing I want to clear up is, the state revocable permits are a relatively small part of the property. None of the properties on which the buildings are going to be renovated, the buildings are on private property, owned by RP Coco Palms 21. The state revocable permits cover a parking lot, cover some of the grounds, cover some of the fishponds, and I’ll turn it over to Mr. Manning. Mr. Patrick Manning: Thank you. Commission, Chair. Patrick Manning, I’m a partner with Reef Capital. I really don't get involved in any of the lending arm of what we do. I get involved when we're going to develop a project and I only develop projects that are important, and I mainly wanted to just introduce myself. I know that Planning Director wasn't able to send you a video that was made, and I know it isn't relevant to have you know the mayor, in the town I've been developing in it for 20 years as well as the university in our area, but I'm happy to send everyone a video that basically speaks to our integrity and doing what we say and meeting with the residents, and the mayor lets everybody know that the residents all show up and support us shoulder to shoulder, because we do things right. A project I'm doing right now, we set aside 70% of the land is an ancient lava flow, and we're putting trails in, a nature center, and I just wanted you to know that I came here, walked the land many times, and I have a heavy heart because you can you, from those came way before Coco Palms to the more recent celebrity era, it's an important piece of property, with the Iniki and just building on those same foundations, I just worry that revoking permits would result in, you know, nothing happening, and we are passionate about the project about Coco Palms, and we are capable, experienced, and financed, to do the property, and anxious to get started. So really, just wanted to introduce you to us just a little bit. Mr. Hull: I’d just like to clarify one thing, and it wasn’t Mr. Manning’s intention for confusion, but I think when Mr. Manning spoke about the mayor, there might have been some confusion, and I’m part of the reception of that. He’s speaking of a mayor of a previous town that Reef Partners has worked, not necessarily Kauaʻi’s mayor. Mr. Manning: Yeah, sorry. 28 Mr. Hull: But there’s that something that Reef Partners wanted to provide after the agenda had been published, much in the same manner that the public testimony couldn’t be transmitted to you folks earlier. I’ve informed him that the video itself could not emailed to you folks so, that maybe part of a packet later that will part of the public testimony, but just to clear the air on the… Mr. Manning: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Thank you for that background. I think the question on the floor is what substantial progress has been made to date, and then what's the projection? Mr. Manning: So, as priorly stated we have a ton of cleanup, there been about 40 tons of trash removed. There's been about a 100 cards removed, the asbestos, remove all of those things that were discussed, and then we're continually, almost, I think, on a daily basis, having clean up, and yes, the dust mitigation was put it recently, but that's because we're intending to move forward, not I don't think it was because of this meeting, I could be wrong, but that's substantial completion. And then, of course, we think the integrity of the concrete is non-existent, so we'll have demolition started as soon as we're able. And so of course, we just wanna go forward with all of the progress from here, I mean, think there's substantial completion when we have removed biohazard and cleaned the place up a lot is it's just definite progress. Mr. Yuen: We’ve obtained 24 of the 25 building permits that we need, so we need one more permit before construction starts. Chair DeGracia: Follow up on the permit, when do you foresee pulling that last, 25th permit? Mr. Yuen: I think that could come within the next month. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions for Mr. Yuen? Mr. Ako: Yes, I have a question. You know in the brief that was submitted by Coco Palms, there are statements in there that are saying that, as mentioned earlier, progress has been made. There’s other statements in there which talks about the continued progress, and there are several statements in there which talks about the type of progress that has been made, or just progress has been made. Do you equate those types of progresses with substantial progress? To you is that the same thing. Mr. Yuen: Yes, I believe substantial progress has been made. I think when the developer has advanced 5 million dollars to do both demolition and asbestos removal, asbestos removal is a very tedious process, and that kind of work took about a year to complete, and we think that certainly, 5 million dollars is a substantial sum and that reflects substantial completion. Mr. Ako: So how do you come to this conclusion of what is substantial progress? Because very honestly, in my mind I’m not sure what that means, substantial progress, and I think it’s something that can be determined by the director, yeah. Mr. Yuen: Correct, it’s the Director’s call… Mr. Ako: Right. Mr. Yuen: …to determine whether substantial progress has been made… Mr. Ako: Correct. 29 Mr. Yuen: …and both Michael Dahilig and Ka`aina Hull have concluded that substantial progress was made. Mr. Ako: Did they conclude, or did they have…I guess maybe I should just cut through the chase saying, do you have any type of document which would tell me that there is, that a statement was made about substantial progress, because that, I think would help me (inaudible)… Mr. Yuen: Those statements were made at Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Ako: That’s substantial progress or was it an inference in your mind that substantial progress was made. Mr. Yuen: I think they made the statement that substantial progress was made at least substantial progress to satisfy the requirements of the Planning Commission rules. Mr. Ako: Or was it just to move forward or there was progress. I guess in my mind I’m trying to make that distinction because the rules talks about substantial progress, and yet your briefs talks about different types of progress, so I’m trying to figure out whether the inferences that you are making about the different types of progress, in your mind, is that the same as substantial progress. Mr. Yuen: In my mind progress, the progress, the Director has the discretion to make a determination as to whether the progress made by a developer or an applicant is substantial enough to permit him to go forward, and in this case, the Directors have made that determination. Mr. Ako: Okay, but you don’t have anything in writing that would make it real easy for us to say. Mr. Yuen: Well, it’s the transcript of the Planning Commission meetings, in which the Directors have made that statement. Mr. Ako: Okay. Mr. Yuen: And we’ve attached that as appendices to our argument. Mr. Ako: Okay. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Question? Ms. Cox: Yes, I have question. In the August meeting, in looking back at the minutes in the August meeting, a couple of statements were made that I just wanted to ask a little bit about, because I think one of the issues we have here is kind of a lack of trust because of all the changes and the length of time, so, one of the statements was made that I think it was Ron Agor, said that there would be community presentations made in the fall. Have any community presentations been made this fall? Mr. Yuen: The only ones that I'm aware of, were the meetings that took place following the October Planning Commission meeting, there were several calls with Ms. Tico, and some of the petitioners. Ms. Cox: Okay, but not general community presentations. Mr. Yuen: Not a general public meeting of that kind, no. Ms. Cox: And then the other thing is that the building, as you know everybody who drives by Coco Palms complains about what it looks like, no matter which side of this issue they’re on, and one of the things we were told in August was again that the building closest to the highway would be demolished and gone 30 within six months, which would be the end of February. I just want to know is that actually going to take place because it’s still there. Mr. Yuen: I would refer it to Mr. Manning or Mr. Pacini. Ron Agor, okay. Mr. Ron Agor: My name is Ron Agor. I did make the statement that we were contemplating taking down the structure in front but after seriously looking into it, we found that the structure is a nonconforming structure, and if we were to take it down we wouldn’t be able to rebuild it. So, the structure itself is, we did an inspection and it’s safe to remain as is until the retrofit of the construction begins. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Mr. Agor: And I’d like to address, somebody asked, well how long is it going to take to get the last permit, I’m holding on to that, at my discretion with the developers. The zoning permits timelines start when the last permit is issued and with what’s going on, I don’t want to pull that last permit, you know, we’re making appeals, after appeals, or more challenging and then it would force to probably, I mean if I pull the last permit were going to lose the permit if more challenges extend beyond the one year, but we can proceed with construction, with the permits that we have now, and if we do, in a year or so, if we feel comfortable that we’re clear in terms of challenges, then maybe we’ll pull the last permit. There’s a lot of issues that affect the project, and every time we get into a situation like this, you know, you’re putting us in a bad place. So, this is America anybody can challenge anything, but you know, you gotta give too. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, if I can ask. So, I guess what I’ve just heard is that, until we pull that last permit, the clock really doesn’t start ticking, right, and you’re very careful when you pull that last permit because of what may happen prior to that. Meaning, you cannot tell us or give us any kind of substantial timeline in terms of when this project may start or may even be completed. Is that a true statement? Mr. Agor: No, I believe the developer intends to continue their work now and begin construction, because they have permits. They can build… Mr. Ako: Right, they can. Mr. Agor: …structures that permits were issued. And… Mr. Ako: But you hold off on the last one. Mr. Agor: What’s that? Mr. Ako: But if you hold off on that last one, then what happens? Mr. Agor: The zoning permit expiration time period will not begin until we pull the building permit, we pull the last building permit. Mr. Ako: I understand you very well that one of the, I think one of the big issues here is, this things been standing there for thirty years now. Mr. Agor: Yeah. Mr. Ako: Right, and we just, I think we had enough of this view of Coco Palms as it is right now, we need to kind of move forward from it, so without a significant timeline on that, this could go on forever, I mean, not forever but… 31 Mr. Agor: Logically, the developer wants to complete the project in two years. If we begin construction, continue in what we’re doing right now and begin construction, progress is going to be made, and I’m thinking that if we do that, continue construction and come summer, we feel comfortable that we’re not going to be faced with more petitions, more challenges, then we’ll pull the last permit. I mean, that’s only logical. Mr. Ako: Well, excuse me because I have no idea about how these developments works and all of that. All I see is what is in front of me, and from what I hear, and just for clarification going back to your issue about the nonconformance of the building and why it’s not, demolition wasn’t taken on that, and that is because, if you take that building down then when you rebuild, you go under the new codes? Mr. Agor: Yes. Mr. Ako: That’s what it is and not (inaudible). Mr. Yuen: You cannot rebuild in the same footprint if you demolish that building. Mr. Agor: We would have to conform to the setbacks. Ms. Cox: Can I asks a question, Chair? Sorry. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Ms. Cox: Sort of a follow up question. Has the developer considered actually trying to live up to the current requirements? I understand that you don’t want to demolish that building because then you wouldn’t be able to build in the same place, but the reason that you can’t building the same place is because of the setback, which is for safety and the coastline erosion. So, I’m wondering has the developer considered making some changes to the plan of the project, based on current information? Mr. Yuen: Economically it makes more sense to renovate the existing structures rather than knock them down and start from scratch. Ms. Cox: So, it’s an economic decision. Mr. Yuen: Yes. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, do we have anymore questions regarding the petition for declaratory order for the applicant or the petitioner at this time? Ms. Tico? Ms. Tico: If I may, I just want to draw the Commissioners attention to our Exhibit J in our reply, which was my request to Planning Director Hull for documents pertaining to any extensions of time given to Coco Palms Hui to complete the project development, and any findings by the Director of substantial progress regarding the project development within the first two years of the issuance of the permits, and if you go to Exhibit K, he answers me that he was unable to find any of those documents. It’s in the reply brief that petitioners filed. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, what would be the time frame that you’re looking at that there was no information given? Ms. Tico: Were still talking about the two years following the issuance of the 2015 (inaudible). 32 Ms. Nogami-Streufert: To 2018, is that what you’re talking about? Ms. Tico: Yes, yes. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Mr. Ako: So, Ms. Tico in your interpretation it’s a matter of because we could not find, there was none. Ms. Tico: Well, yes. Thank you. And I might add that I looked, personally, I looked through those boxes and could find nothing. Chair DeGracia: Thank you Commissioners. Anything further? Ms. Cox: Yes, I have one question for Ms. Tico, and that is just, you’ve asked for a continuance. Ms. Tico: Yes. Ms. Cox: So, your group would actually prefer continuance then supporting the declaratory order at this point. Ms. Tico: Yes. Ms. Cox: Is that correct? Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, are we ready to act or do you wish to enter into the executive session? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I would ask for an executive session with the County attorney. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Is that a motion? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Yes, I move to go into executive session. Chair DeGracia: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-S(a)(4), the purpose of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal counsel on questions, issues, status, and procedural matters. This consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to the following matters: Commission consideration of Petition for Declaratory Order, Memorandum in Opposition, and Petitioner's Reply Regarding Special [sic] Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-6; Project Development Use Permit U-2015-7; Variance Permit V-2015-1; Class IV Zoning Permit ZA-IV- 2015-8 for Coco Palms Hui, LLC. Chair DeGracia: May I get a motion? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I so move. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Moved and seconded. Let’s take a voice vote. All in favor say, aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. 7:0. Hearing none, we’ll be adjourned into executive session, estimated time is one hour. We’ll reconvene at, actually Commissioners, how would you like to do lunch? Would you like to have it during the executive session? We’ll reconvene at 1:05 p.m. 33 Commission went into Executive Session at 12:05 p.m. Commission reconvened from Executive Session at 1:20 p.m. Chair DeGracia: Thank you parties and members of the public, the Planning Commission’s open meeting is now reconvened. Commissioners, I’ll entertain open discussion on this item. Mr. Yuen: Mr. Chairman, can I just say that we’re opposed to the continuance of this matter. Chair DeGracia: Noted. Ms. Cox: I would like to have it stated what it is we're actually making a ruling on today because what we're being asked to do in our jobs today is much smaller than the entire issue of Coco Palms, so could we have just a restatement of what we are being asked to decide today. Ms. Barzilai: So, under your rules, Commissioner Cox, you are being asked to either grant the petition for declaratory order, you are asked to deny the petition for declaratory order, or to refer the matter to a hearings officer for an evidentiary hearing. That’s how I view the matter. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Ms. Apisa: I will make a motion to deny the request for continuance. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to deny the petitioners request for continuance. Any discussion? Ms. Apisa: I guess just to offer an explanation. I think we've heard a lot and read a lot, and I think we need to move forward. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I’d like to say a little bit about this. As you can tell, we’re all very conflicted about this. There are lots of things that we see as potential not issues but as things that we may not be totally in favor of, there are other things that we may agree with, and it’s been very difficult for all of us to make this decision, whatever decisions that we all come up with because we haven’t discussed who’s going to be voting how, but that’s just to let you know that it’s not an easy decision for any of us, but we’ve done all of our readings, we’ve listened to all of the testimony, we’ve read every testimony that came in today, we’ve tried to be as fair as we possibly can, and within the constraints of what we can do, we will come up with our decision today. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Commissioner Streufert. Any further discussion concerning the motion on the floor, to deny the petitioners request for continuance? Okay, if we could get a roll call vote. Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? 34 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. Motion passes. 7:0. Thank you. Commissioners, if we could move forward now with a discussion on the petition for declaratory order, and we’ll welcome any of your thoughts, any of your arguments, any of your opinions on the matter, before we entertain a motion. Ms. Cox: It seems to me that one of the issues is that we have sort of a confusion between 2015 and 17/18 and now, and there may have been decisions made in the past that we would not agree with and very much wish hadn’t happened, at least I can say that for myself, but again, what we're looking at now is has there been substantial progress made as declared by the director, so it's a very, very narrow, and I'm gonna cry, so I really believe that I’m working for people of Kauaʻi, I want to be working for people of Kauaʻi, and I’m finding myself in an impossible situation because what we're being asked to vote on here today is so much smaller than what the issue is. I think there is a true lack of trust. I have to say I'm disappointed in the willingness of the developers to adapt the project, to conform to current standards, and to listen to the people, and to work with the people, I’m terribly disappointed, but that's not what's before us today, what’s before us today is, has substantial progress been made on the conditions as determined by the director? Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Ako: If I can add. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: Chair DeGracia. I guess this morning as I was listening to a lot of the concerns and testimonies that were made, I guess several things just hit my heart. You know, how many of you are kānaka maoli on this table over here, or how many of you are malihinis, how many of you grew up here, and I guess I’m going to be the first to admit that, call it what it is, I’m kind of like an alien, I’m an intruder, I’m not from here. I was not born and raised on this island here, I came here in 1991, late in 1991, and I was accused of being the one that brough Hurricane Iniki to the island over here in September, and little did I know at that time that today I’d be sitting at this table over here and trying to wrestle with these questions that I have in front of me here. You but, knowing all of that, I think till today I look at Kauaʻi as being my home right now, our son grew up over here, and yet, because of whatever reasons he left to go school and this wasn’t a place that he felt that he could come back to make a living here, so, yes I do have skin in the game on this here, in terms of the fact that Kauaʻi, I consider is my home, and what happens to Coco Palms or what doesn’t happen to Coco Palms that situation there does impact my life as well as the life of everybody else on this island. And I know the view on this issue here from out there, whether you’re on 35 the left side of the room or the right side of this room, is a lot different than we see from this side. And decisions have to be made out here, and there’s a lot of things that I think I’m looking at, we’re talking about the flood lines over there, the coastal rise, and I think that affects both sides of the issue, whether it’s a park over there or whether it’s a resort that’s there, whether there’s traffic in there, and there’s that issue about the fear of being sued out there, and I think that’s going to exist from both sides of the issue no matter which side it goes. So, I think in my mind the only thing I need to do is try to figure out what to do that’s right out here, and then you come back to that question, to do the right, for who, who is right. I don’t anyone here is going to disagree with the fact that we have to do what is right. The question is, right for who, right for what. So, I think as Commissioner Cox has said, we all struggle with this thing here and we all want to do what’s right, and yet when I look at this issue here, I’m not sure whether substantial progress has been made, I don’t think I see anything that shows me substantial progress has been made and at the same time, when I look at time I don’t see how in my mind I can go back to 2015 when something already has been approved in 2018, so, as torn as it is to be here, and be it at the same time, you know, I guess we’re just forced to make a decision, and I think on this case, I will be, if there is a motion against the declaratory ruling, I’m going to be voting no. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, further discussion? Please. Mr. Ornellas: First of all, I’d like to thank all of the people that came out today and helped us make this very difficult decision. And I think testimony points to a lot of the really serious issues involved with this particular project. It’s going to be an uphill battle all the way to get this thing built, if it is ever built, with that said, my understanding is that the Planning Director makes the determination of whether or not substantial progress has been made and not the Planning Commission. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Commissioner. I believe we are considering the proper authority of the commission under SMA Rule 10, and whether or not this commission, not the director has the authority to rule what is sufficient progress, and I believe there are a lot of issues that have been raised here, a lot of it that we all feel that many of us pass by Coco Palms and have been passing by Coco Palms. Since after Iniki we’ve seen emotions rise and get excited for something at a certain specific point in time we felt was right and then emotions may have changed throughout time, however with all of these positions on coastal rise and proper usage of the property, entitlements to the property, the clear title, who owns the property, other lawsuits that’s in order. What’s before the commission is SMA Rule10, and whether or not we decide that this petition for declaratory order should be approved or denied, and from where I stand and what I’ve seen through and if I’m just focusing on that one point I do have a position that I feel that this petition should be denied, but I would like to encourage further discussion on this matter and ultimately come to a motion. Ms. Nogami-Streufert: If the commission is ready, I’ll make a motion. I move to deny the Petition for Declaratory Order Regarding Special Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-6; Project Development Use Permit U-2015-7; Variance Permit V-2015-1; Class IV Zoning Permit ZA-IV-2015-8 for Coco Palms Hui, LLC. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor is to deny the petitions request for declaratory order. Do we have any further discussion? Mr. Hull: I’d like to make a quick statement, Chair, just because I don’t want to speak, once the vote is taken there very well could be an action and then no further discussion, so, I want to make a statement that regardless of where this vote goes, and it’s completely up to this commission of how it decides to handle this petition, but I think right before executive session there were some statements made by the 36 applicants representative that I think were just quite honestly glaring. I think members of this commission, members viewing, myself included were shocked by statements made immediately proceeding the executive session. I don’t think those statements have any bearing, quite honestly on the petition that’s before you folks today, it doesn’t, but it does have quite honestly and quite frankly bearing on whether or not the department needs to now assess based off of those statements whether or not a revocation or modification needs to be proposed, that is separate and apart from this petition, but I myself am still processing those statements. I’m not sure where to go with them, I’m going to have to consult with our attorney’s office, but at a bare minimum it will necessitate us to asses those statements in context of a proposed modification or revocation of these permits, again, that has no bearing on the petition before you folks today, but I wanted to make that statement hearing what was said prior to any action, because I know no further discussion will be had. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And just one final thought, the Commissions Rule 10, is improper vehicle to revocate the permits. There is another Rule, that Rule 1-12-5 and that’s just a final thought. Commissioners, anything else? Ms. Cox: I would just like to thank both of you, and Mr. Hull, Director Hull that the vote today is not the end of the issue from what we’ve heard today. That there are other ways that we can (inaudible). Mr. Ako: I’d like to pick up from where Helen is coming from, that I don’t think this is the end of the issue, I think there’s a lot of, I don’t know, I’m going to call it trust issues that are out there, that if we really want to be part of this community then we have to part of the community because we here are the same people that you’re going to be seeing at your grocery stores, you’re going to see them at the soccer fields, you’re going to see them at your PTA meetings, and I really hope that discussions can continue so that we can somehow reach someplace in between where a resolution may not be agreeable to everybody but something that we can both live in because I know when you live in this community and you pass that Coco Palms place and you pass it with anger and resentment that is not something that is good for our community. I don’t believe in that and because of that, I think for the healing for our community, discussions have to continue on, so someplace in between where we can meet, and with that I thank everybody for your testimonies and for your passion. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Commissioner Ako. Any other final? If not, Mr. Clerk, if we could get a roll call vote. Mr. Hull: Roll call vote. 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? 37 Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. 7:0. Chair DeGracia: The Commission has voted to deny, a written decision and order will be issued. Thank you for appearances today. Mr. Yuen: Thank you very much. Ms. Tico: Thank you, Commissioners. Mr. Hull: Thank you all. Moving on we have no New Business for this agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hull: Upcoming announcements, Topics for future meetings, we do anticipate having meetings for the next February 14th, as well as February 28th. There will be a proposed series of amendments on the next meeting, as well as one use permit that you guys received today via the consent calendar. And we’re working with the various agencies to schedule a briefing on the Office of Economic Development concerning economic planning for the island, that was kind of discussed at the last commission meeting, as well as a briefing by the Housing Director on the housing effects of the County of Kauaʻi. And we are of course open other future proposals that any commissioner has to work with the Chair or myself to get on the agenda, but with that we have no further items, and the next meeting is scheduled for February 14th, 2023, at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lihue, Hawaii 96766. That be it. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment. Ms. Cox: I motion we adjourn. Ms. Otsuka: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor is to adjourn. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Motion passes. 7:0. Meeting is adjourned. Chair DeGracia adjourned the meeting at 1:39 p.m. 38 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 February 14, 2023 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair DeGracia at 9:04 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. Glenda Nogami Streufert Excused or Absent Ms. Lori Otsuka The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Ka`aina Hull, Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Staff Planner Dale Cua, Romio Idica, 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 DeGracia: I’d like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday February 14, 2023, the time is 9:04 a.m. Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Good morning members of the Commission. First order of business is roll call. ROLL CALL Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ako? Commissioner Ako: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Commissioner Cox: Here. D.2. April 11, 2023 2 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Commissioner Ornellas: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? My apologies, Commissioner Otsuka is excused. Commissioner Streufert? Commissioner Nogami Streufert: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Mr. Chair. Next, we have approval of the agenda. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: The department has no recommended changes to the agenda. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners any comments on the agenda? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to approve the agenda. Chair DeGracia: Alright, motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to approve the agenda. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor is to approve the agenda as is. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Hearing none, motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have Agenda Item D. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Mr. Hull: Minutes, we have for your view and action, minutes for the November 15, 2022, meeting, as well as the January 10, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Chair DeGracia: Commissioner, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Cox: I move to approve the minutes of November 15, 2022, and January 10, 2023. Mr. Ako: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor to approve the minutes for November 15, 2022, and January 10, 2023. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have Agenda Item E. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD 3 Mr. Hull: We have no listed receipt of items for the record, but let the records reflect that the Planning Commissioners were each handed this morning, written testimony received by the Planning Department after the agenda was posted, and 24-hours prior to this meeting so, you all have in your possession written testimony from the members of the public, concerning this agenda as well as agency comments for this agenda. These testimonies and agency comments came in, again after the agenda was posted, are also available to the public here at the Planning Commission room, as well as the front counter at the Planning Department office. And with that we’re ready to move on to Hearings and Public Comment. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Chair DeGracia: Okay, before moving on, Commissioners would you like any specific amount of time to go over the written post testimony we just received this morning? I’d be willing to take a recess in order to read. Ms. Cox: I suggest a recess, fairly short, but I would suggest a recess, maybe of 10-minutes. Chair DeGracia: 10-minutes recess, okay. Alright, we’ll take a 10-minute recess and reconvene at 9:20 a.m. Commission went into recess at 9:07 a.m. Commission reconvened from recess at 9:20 a.m. Chair DeGracia: The time is just about 9:20 a.m., I’d like to call the meeting back to order. Mr. Hull: Next on the agenda, Chair, we go into the Agency Hearings. New Agency Hearing Mr. Hull: So, first on the agenda is F.2.a. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-3) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the makai side of Pee Road in Poipu, at the eastern terminus of a cul-de-sac, situated approximately 500 feet south of its intersection with Pee Road and further identified as Lot 4 of the Makahuʻena Estates Subdivision, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021:071, containing a total area of approximately 43,604 square feet= Makahuʻena- Preferred A LLC. Mr. Hull: This is the agency portion, so we’ll get into the actual discussion, review and action subsequent on the agenda, but just for the agency hearing, we don’t have anybody signed up to testify on this agenda item. Is there anyone in the public or audience that would like to testify on this agenda item, if so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to close the agency hearing. Mr. Hull: Sorry, Commissioner, the microphone is for minutes taking but just for the closed captioning, if you could speak just a little louder. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to close the agency hearing. Ms. Cox: I second. 4 Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is to close the agency hearing. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have agency hearing for: CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-8) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-3) to allow deviations from the setback requirement, Section 8-4.3(b) of the Kauai County Code (1987), for the construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Hanalei Plantation Road in Princeville, situated immediately adjacent to and west of property identified as 5219 Hanalei Plantation Road, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-004:016, containing a total area of 838 square feet = Matt Berg [Director's Report Received, 1/24/2023]. Mr. Hull: If there are any members of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item. Are you Mr. Berg? Male from audience: Yes. Mr. Hull: Mr. Berg, this is just the agency hearing portion, so we’ll get into the actual review of the applicant by the commission, subsequent, later on in the agenda. Mr. Berg: Okay. Mr. Hull: We don’t have anybody signed up but if there’s any member of the public, not part of the application that would like to testify on the agenda item, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Ms. Cox: I move we close the agency hearing. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion on the floor is to close the agency hearing. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Hearing none. Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have agency hearing for: AMENDMENT TO CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2006-27), USE PERMIT (U-2006-26), and PROJECT DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT (PDU-2006-25) to allow a modification to Condition No. 10 relating to traffic circulation requirements for a development situated on the western side of Kiahuna Plantation Drive in Po'ipu, situated at the Pau A Laka Street/Kiahuna Plantation Drive intersection and further identified as 5425 Pau A Laka Street, Tax Map Key: 2- 8-014:032, and containing a total area of 27.886 acres = Meridian Pacific (formerly Kiahuna Poipu Golf Resort LLC). Mr. Hull: We have four members of the public signed up to testify at this agency hearing. First, Stephanie Iona. Mr. Hull: So, I’ll just clarify, Ms. Iona the actual review of application will be subsequent when dealing with the application applicant itself. You are allowed (inaudible) to testify as a member of the public, but I just want to clarify that the actual application will be reviewed subsequent on the agenda. Ms. Stephanie Iona: Okay, so maybe I’ll wait till then. 5 Mr. Hull: Okay. If you are part of the application and representative for the applicant, then… Ms. Iona: No. Mr. Hull: If you’re not part of the application and representative, there’s time to speak then as well as during the agency hearing, so just kind of want to make sure you’re aware of that and whichever time choose to speak that is fine. Ms. Iona: Okay. Mr. Hull: Next, we have signed up to testify, Bonnie Lofstedt. Bonnie Lofstedt? No longer present. Next, we have Emily McKeague. Emily McKeague? She left as well. Next, we have Mauna Kea Trask. Ms. Apisa: He just stepped out. Mr. Hull: Mauna Kea Trask. With that, and there will be also be another opportunity to testify on that agenda item. Ms. Nogami Streufert: They’re coming in. He’s coming. They’re all coming in. Mr. Mauna Kea Trask: Can you hear me? Aloha, Chair, honorable Commissioners. I’m sorry for the lateness, I got a scam call. If I may real briefly, may I approach? Mr. Hull: You have something to handout? Mr. Trask: Yeah, just… Mr. Hull: We can hand it out for you. Mr. Trask: Thank you. Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Trask, I would just ask that you make a copy available for the public if anybody would like to look at it, please. Mr. Trask: Thank you, again, honorable Chair and Commissioners. Mauna Kea Trask for the record on behalf of the applicant. I’m available for any questions if you have, I think the application speaks for itself, again, if you’re familiar with this subdivision, it’s previously permitted specifically for development of single-family residences on the 10-lots contained therein, only 9 of which are within the DBA. Mr. Hull: Mr. Trask, just real quickly, the agency hearing is on the Meridian application. Mr. Trask: Oh, I thought…Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Hull: So, we have you signed as well for the Amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2006-27), Use Permit. Mr. Trask: I apologize, I’m wasting your time. Thank you so much. Mr. Hull: So, Mr. Trask, these are just the agency hearing portions, they closed the agency hearing for the Makahuʻena proposal, but then the actual application will be reviewed at a subsequent part of the agenda. 6 Mr. Trask: Understood. Okay. Mr. Hull: Should they hold onto this until… Mr. Trask: Please. Mr. Hull: Okay. Mr. Trask: And for what it’s worth, I as a member of the public native Hawaiian, I got no problem with Meridian. Thank you. Mr. Hull: We have no further individuals signed for the proposed amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2006-27), Use Permit (U-2006-26), and PDU-2006-25, this is a Meridian application. Is there any member of the public that didn’t sign up, but would like to testify on this agency hearing? Seeing none, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to close the agency hearing. Ms. Cox: I second. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is to close agency hearing for this item. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have no Continued Public Hearing. No New Public Hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hull: Consent Calendar was already approved the via the adoption via agenda, however for purposes of public testimony, the Consent Calendar has: Status Reports 2022 Annual Status Report or Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2004- 6, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2004-30, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35, Tax Map Keys: (4) 2-8-015:025-037, 045-074, 081, Poipu, Kauai = Poipu Beach Villas, LLC. Mr. Hull: No one signed up to testify on this agenda item. Is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, we can move directly into General Business Matters. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Mr. Hull: Agenda Item H.1. In the Matter of Planning Director Ka`aina S. Hull's Petition to revoke Applicant Bula Tree House LLC Use Permit U-90-38 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-90-51 (former Mark Daniells art gallery approved in 1990), and Use Permit U-19-78 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-78-28 (former Diane Daniells pre-school approved in 1978) for failure to comply with conditions of approval by the Planning Commission and Issue an Order to Show Cause and Set Hearing; Memorandum in Support of Petition; Declaration of Ka`aina S. Hull; Notice of Meeting; Certificate of Service, TMK (4) 5-5-004: 23, Hanalei, Kaua'i. 7 Mr. Hull: We don’t have anyone signed up for this agenda item. Is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Generally, we would have council on behalf of the department, but we did receive a communication from council represented applicant and they’ve asked for a deferral to March 28, 2023, we actually do not anticipate having a meeting on that date. Just want to make sure I give you guys the right date. So, the department would recommend deferring this agenda item until April 14, 2023. Sorry, I’m looking at the (inaudible), April 11, 2023. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion to defer to April 11. Ms. Apisa: Move to defer… Mr. Hull: You can just state Agenda Item H.1. Ms. Apisa: Agenda Item H.1. to our April 11, 2023, agenda. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Okay, motion on the floor is to defer to the April 11, 2023, agenda. Could I get a roll call, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Motion to defer. 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 Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. Next, we have Agenda Item H.2. Applicant's request to amend Condition No. 7 of Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit (SMA (U)-2021-03) to allow a five (5) year extension of this condition which would result in a change to the time deadlines for commencing and completing construction involving various properties located at 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, Lihu'e to Wailua = County of Kaua'i, Department of Public Works. 8 Mr. Hull: We don’t have anyone signed up to testify on this agenda item. Is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Romio, who’s our staff planner on this application or request to amend. Staff Planner Romio Idica: Good morning, Planning Chair and Commissioners. 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: It should be noted on record that the initial application dated October 13, 2020, contains some inconsistencies, in referencing the correct Tax Map Key numbers, and also it did not include the Tax Map Key for Hanamāʻulu Beach Park, however in the initial maps and the (inaudible) within the original application it was presented within the original application that Hanamāʻulu Beach Park is part of the initial development. Upon revision, the applicant has corrected the TMKs for the proposed project area, the TMKs are in initial application read, 3-7-001:008,159, the revised TMK is 3-5-001:008 & 159. Initial application again, reflected TMK 3-7-005:001-003 & 009, the revised TMK should read, 3-9-005::001- 003,009. Again, the subject permit was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2020. A condition of the permit required the applicant to adhere to the project timelines upon approval of the SMA permit. At this time, I’d like to make a correction on the floor, Condition No.7, as written in the Directors Report should read: The applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit and commence construction within two years of the date of approval of the SMA permit, and complete construction within four years of the date of approval of the building permit. Somehow, it just got jumbled up within the Directors Report and what I stated should have been written in the Directors Report. So, at the time I’d like to stop and ask if the Commissioners have any questions for myself or the applicant. Ms. Nogami Streufert: If I could? Are you then saying that we’re going back to the “shall obtain a necessary building permit within two years?” Mr. Idica: No, no. Ms. Nogami Streufert: It says as we… Mr. Idica: That’s what it was supposed to have been stated within the Directors Report that was given to you for this Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay, so this one now says that it will be, “commence construction by December 8, 2025, and complete construction of the project by December 8, 2029.” Mr. Idica: That is correct. That is the amendment… Ms. Nogami Streufert: …so that is very specific dates? Mr. Idica: …that we are going…Yes, that is correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay, okay. Mr. Hull: The specific dates still hold, it’s just that there was some sin tax issues with the way it was drafted, and it wasn’t verbatim what the condition exists as now, so it needed to reflect verbatim what the condition is as now, with the proposed amendment to those two respective dates. 9 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Could you explain what kind of permits are still needed for this? Mr. Idica: Right now, they're working with SHPD Department and also with State OCCL. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So those are the only two, there’s no land that has to be bought or agreements have to be made. Mr. Idica: That one I would probably defer to the applicant, and maybe he can kind of clarify on that. Ms. Nogami Streufert: The only reason for asking that is to ensure that it can actually be done. Mr. Idica: Okay. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Commence by December 8, 2025. Mr. Idica: Okay. So, I would defer to the applicant on that one. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question too. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: You know in the letter from SSFM, they talk about a completion date, well they’re asking for an extension of five years, with a completion construction date of December 8, 2027. In the recommendation the completion date is December 8, 2029. I am assuming that SSFM has a typo in theirs. Mr. Idica: Yeah, the proposed amendment is within the five-year timeline of the original approval date of the SMA permit. Mr. Ako: Thank you, Romio. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the department? If no further questions, I believe there was a question on the floor for the applicant. Do we have a representative from Public Works? Ms. Jennifer Scheffel: Hi, I’m Jennifer Scheffel, I’m with SSFM. Mr. Wade Lord: For the record, Wade Lord with the Public Works Department. Chair DeGracia: Good morning. Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have a question for you, and I think you heard it earlier. There’s a commencement date of December 8, 2025, and that assumes that you will have all the permits necessary to start on that date. What permits are you waiting for? Mr. Lord: So, we’re waiting for SHPD to give us concurrence on the RSL survey that we did for the culverts, that Romio mentioned, and we’re waiting for OCCL to process our CDUP application, but the CDUP application cannot be submitted until after SHPD gives us their concurrence. Those are the only two pieces on the entitlement side that are left. To answer your question regarding acquisitions, we’ve done all the appraisals and we’ve done all the title reports, and we’re just waiting now, once we get 10 through that phase, then we’ll be looking to federal highways to give us concurrence on the values, and then we’ll be going back to the landowners with proposals. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, do you really, is the commencing by construction by December 8, 2025, is that realistic? Mr. Lord: We believe so. We’re ready to do the proposals for the land acquisition and we also have our, SFFM is working with the design side of it now, so we’re in design. So, we’re confident that we can do that. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant? If not, Romio I’ll welcome your recommendation. Mr. Idica: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based on the circumstances involving this development, the applicants’ reasons to allow the time extension, are justifiable, no problems are foreseen in granting the applicant’s request. The Planning Department suggest an amendment to Condition No.7 is necessary to provide a five-year time extension to complete the project as represented. It is recommended that the Commission approve the extension to allow the completion of the project an that the applicant shall be subjected to applicable requirements. Furthermore Condition No.7 of Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2021-3 be amended to be read as the following: “The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits to commence construction by December 8, 2025, and complete construction of the project by December 8, 2029”. Mr. Idica: The applicant is advised that all applicable conditions of approval shall remain in effect. For a copy of the original conditions of approval letter is in the Directors Report. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Apisa: I would move to approve Agenda Item H.2. to amend Condition No.7 of Special Management Area Use Permit as amended. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Okay, motion on the floor is to approve this request as amended. Commissioners any discussion? Comments? Ms. Cox: I’m looking forward to the path. Chair DeGracia: If not, 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? 11 Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next, we have Agenda Item H.3. Applicant's request for an extension of time to complete construction by amending Condition No. 9 of Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA(U)-2005-5), Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV- 2005-7), Project Development Use Permit (PDU-2005-7), Port Allen, Kaua'i, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-010-062 CPRs 0001-0075 = AHE GROUP (formerly A&B Properties, Inc.) Mr. Hull: Prior to getting into the Directors Report, we don’t have anybody signed up, but is there any member of the public who would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Directors Report. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good morning, Planning Chair, and members of the Commission. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Applicant’s Reasons/Justification, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, nay questions for the department? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have one question for Dale. Dale on page 2, under the Project Data, it says the area is 3.8 acres. Is that a… Mr. Cua: Oh yeah, yeah, it’s a misprint. It should be… Ms. Nogami Streufert: 15.6. Mr. Cua: Yes, correct. Actually, the total area, including the single-family subdivision would have been 17.5, the original representation. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair… Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Sure. 12 Mr. Ako: And I don’t know why I’m asking this question, but I will ask. In Condition No.9, we talk about the applicant shall substantially commence, is this the same as, last week we were talking about substantial progress, is that the same thing? Substantially commence and substantial progress. Mr. Cua: Generally speaking, you would see that language involving substantial progress for projects involving an SMA Use Permit, or in this instance where the requirement required the applicant to commence with the project, basically it just requires the applicant to start up the project, and there’s no determination in terms of what is considered substantial progress. Mr. Ako: Okay, thanks Dale. Ms. Nogami Streufert: But the completion date is set at February 22, 2025. Mr. Cua: Correct, and as mentioned in the Directors Report, there were two facets of the project, you had your single-family residential lot subdivision, and then you had your multi-family project, so the single- family residential subdivision is completed, and you have residents there. The one remaining portion that remains vacant is the multi-family portion of the project. Mr. Ako: So, also in that condition, we talk about that, the applicant shall substantially commence the construction of the project development within one year from the date of full approval. So, full approval we talking about, approval of… Mr. Cua: The permits in 2005. Mr. Ako: As active today? Mr. Cua: Yes. Mr. Ako: No, the… Mr. Cua: The project was considered as a master plan at the time the project was presented to the commission in 2005, so what the intent of the condition was to encourage the applicant to, and it was represented at a time that they would’ve commenced with the project within a year from the time they obtained these permits. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have a technical question, and I’m not sure what this is… Chair DeGracia: Please Commissioner. Ms. Nogami Streufert: The project intent was to allow the subdivision to transfer the surplus of residential density from this single-family development to the multi-family development. How does that work? Is that just normal? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that one before. Mr. Hull: That was…Dale, okay. Mr. Cua: I can give you some backgrounds since I was there in 2005, but basically when you evaluate the project as whole as mentioned, I think it qualified for a total of 156 units, so what the applicant wanted to do was separate the projects into two facets, as I mentioned, you had your subdivision side and then you had your multi-family side. The great portion, in terms of area was encumbered by the residential subdivision, so if you look at the area encumbered by the residential subdivision, there were way less than what’s out there today, but since the project qualified for 156 units, what they wanted to do is the, if you 13 look at the area that’s encumbered by the multi-family, it wouldn’t equate to what was being proposed, so what they wanted to do was transfer some of the density that was encumbered by the subdivision unto the multi-family portion. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, they’re doing the density based upon the 17.5 acres. Mr. Cua: Correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And not on this 15.6. Mr. Cua: Overall it’s still under what was allowed by zoning. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: I’ll also add that, when these permits originally went through there was a definite recognition by the county, from 1972 till about actually till about 2010 or 11, that multi-family and single-family have areas where they should be and where they shouldn’t be. We adjusted that to that say, multi-family and single-family are permissible in all residential districts, but back in 2005-2006 there was some recognition of trying to bifurcate these type of land use patterns apart from each other. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the department? If not, before we hear the director’s recommendation, if we could hear from the applicant. Ms. Makani Maeva: Good morning, Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. Chair DeGracia: Good morning. Ms. Maeva: My name is Makani Maeva, and I am the President of AHE Group. AHE Group is a successor, purchaser to this project that you’re discussing today. We’re an affordable housing developer. We acquired this land to construct affordable housing and have been applying for financing. We were successful in our application in 2022, we were awarded financing in July of 22 and have begun construction on the first 45 units here. We have, no, that’s not true, 48 units. We did not attain financing for the balance of the units, 27. We are attempting to submit an application for financing of the last 27 units, and since financing applications take about 6 months to review, if successful, we would be receiving our financing in July of this year, and then, if I overlay the construction time you'll see that I run out of time to build before my approvals expire in February 22, 2024. So, this is a precautionary measure that I'm hoping you'll consider that will just allow us to represent to the Housing Finance Agency that if they were to give us an award of financing, I would have sufficient time to construct these affordable units, so just the 48. The first 48 units are under construct and will be available and rented to those making less than 60% of the area median income, in about June of this year. So, we'll have another 48 units of affordable housing, and then, if successful, we'll try to roll right into the next 27 units. I’m happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you for your time today. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Ako: Yes, Mr. DeGracia, the request for the extension is for the application for the HHFDC tax credit, yeah? Ms. Maeva: That’s correct. Mr. Ako: What happens if that is not approved? How does that impact the project? 14 Ms. Maeva: Well, it won’t be built. Mr. Ako: It won’t be built. Ms. Maeva: No. We need financing and low-income tax credits are the best way. We are looking towards other programs. We’ve applied for, look we’ll continue to apply, we’re not going to give up, we’ll continue to apply and figure out ways, alternative financing, so that we can deliver this affordable housing, but I have no plan as of this particular moment, besides this one. Mr. Ako: I’m also curious that the project started in 2005, and completed at 2010, that first phase, from 2010 to 2020, what happened to your permits at that time? For that phase, for that Kai 'Olino Phase. Ms. Maeva: Yeah, that was a predecessor entity that was Alexander & Baldwin, I acquired the land in 2020, because our purpose is to build affordable housing, so A&B did whatever they did, they built, I think the single-family homes between 6 and 8, and those were sold and then they waded through the market, as you may recall there was a pretty substantial financial industry disruption in about late 2008, I think it made these luxury condos infeasible, and so ultimately we’re the beneficiary of that work and we acquired the land. Mr. Ako: So, the permit for Kai 'Olino was still in effect after 2010? Mr. Hull: Yes, I have a feeling post Coco Palms going to have a lot of a lot of these permits still active questions. Of course, because all of that single-family dwelling development had been completed, it was determined those permits have vested substantial construction, commencement of construction has occurred and completion of the project has occurred as well. As Ms. Maeva pointed out, the original plan for these apartment complexes were for high-end luxury units, ultimately A&B did not pursue construction of those, and AHE Group ultimately bought the entitlements and instead of pursuing high- end luxury development which we were very appreciative of, Ms. Maeva decided to pursue affordable housing units in it’s entirety throughout the entitlements that exist for the property, but those permits are definitely fully active because of the amount of development that had occurred under Phase I. Ms. Maeva: And additionally, I acquired the land after a lot of the infrastructure had already been completed, so not only the single-family homes were completed but also the foundation work, some of the utilities were there, the pool was dug, we’re not going to have a pool, but it was dug. We’re going to refill it in, but there was a lot of landscaping, a substantial amount of the work had been done on this particular parcel as well, and so, I think that’s why that continued to be available to us. Thankfully. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant or the department? If not, we’ll welcome the director’s recommendation. Mr. Cua: Moving on to the recommendation. It is recommended that the Commission approve the extension of time to allow the completion of the multi-family development of the project and that the Applicant be subjected to the applicable requirements. Furthermore, Condition No. 9 of Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2005-4, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2005-7, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-7 be amended to read as follows: Condition No.9; The Applicant shall substantially commence construction of the project development within one year from the date of full approval and shall complete construction of the project development by February 22, 2025. Applicant is advised that all applicable conditions of approval shall remain in effect. And that concludes the departments recommendation. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Dale. I’ll entertain a motion to approve as amended. 15 Ms. Apisa: I would like to commend the AHE Group for providing more affordable housing, so thank you for that. I move to approve the applicants request for the extension of time to complete construction by amending Condition No.9. Mr. Ornellas: Second. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is to approve as amended. 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? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. Ms. Maeva: Thank you very much. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Ms. Cox: Thank you for what you’re doing. Mr. Hull: We have no additional Communications for this agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Committee Mr. Hull: Next up, we have the Subdivision Committee Report, I’ll turn it over to the Subdivision Committee Chair. Mr. Ako: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The Planning Commission Subdivision Committee Meeting did meet this morning, February 14. Present was Commissioner Apisa, as well as Commissioner Ornellas, and myself. We had one item on the agenda, which was the State of Hawai’i Department of Hawaiian Home 16 Lands, 136 lot subdivision, in its final phase. The motion was put on the floor, it was voted upon, and it passed with a 3:0 vote, and that’s our report. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Could we get a motion to approve the Subdivision Committee Report? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to approve the Subdivision Committee Report. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is to approve the Subdivision Committee Report. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose? Hearing none, motion carries. 6:0. Mr. Hull: There is no Unfinished Business for this agenda. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) Mr. Hull: Moving on to L. New Business. Chair DeGracia: Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. Before we on to New Business, I’d like to take a 10-minute recess. Okay, we’ll reconvene in 10 minutes. Commission went into recess at 10:04 a.m. Commission reconvened from recess at 10:16 a.m. Mr. Hull: Next we have Agenda Item L.1. This is New Business for Action. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-3) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the makai side of Pe'e Road in Poipu, at the eastern terminus of a cul-de-sac, situated approximately 500 feet south of its intersection with Pe'e Road and further identified as Lot 4 of the Makahuʻena Estates Subdivision, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-021:071, containing a total area of approximately 43,604 square feet = Makahuʻena-Preferred A LLC. Mr. Hull: We did close the Agency Hearing for this but being that it’s listed separately on the agenda, is there anyone in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? We have no one signed up. If anybody would like to testify, who has not previously signed up, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, I’ll turn this over to Romio for the Directors Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Idica: Good morning, Planning Chair, Commissioners. 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 will pause at this time for any questions from the Commissioners for myself or the applicant. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions for the department? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have a question. You’ve got the construction of a single-family dwelling, and you’ve got a garage with a bedroom attached, or 480 square foot unit attached to it, above the garage. Do does that count as an ADU or is it ARU? 17 Mr. Idica: That would be considered as a guest house, within the Open Zoning District that is a guest house. Ms. Nogami Streufert: How is that different from an ADU? Mr. Idica: An ADU is allowed for parcels that only have one density, so basically within the CZO it states that, if a parcel qualifies for one single-family dwelling, you may have an additional family dwelling unit or a guest house. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Or a guest house. Mr. Idica: That is correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: For further clarification, so the ADU provision is permissible, like Romio mentioned, for all lots that qualify for only one dwelling unit, but that’s only permissible in the residential district, if you have a lot that only qualifies for one dwelling unit, you qualify for an ADU. You also can qualify in the residential district for an ARU, (inaudible) an association with that primary dwelling unit. For clarification, this property is located within the Open District, so they don’t qualify for ADUs or ARUs, but they do qualify for a guest house. Ms. Apisa: And the guest house cannot exceed 500 square feet? Mr. Hull: That was recently amended by the County Council to upsize, guest houses can be up to 800 square feet. Ms. Apisa: So that did get approved? Mr. Hull: That did get approved. There’s virtually no difference between a guest house and an ARU at this point, with the exception that guest houses are allowed in the open and agricultural districts, ARUs are not. Ms. Apisa: An ARU is limited to 800. Mr. Hull: As well, correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Since this is an VDA, could whomever owns this, and this happens to be an LLC, that owns it, right. Could they rent this unit separately? It is in a VDA, so can you rent the unit above the garage separately from the residence? Essentially having two. Mr. Hull: Yes, regardless of the visitor destination area designation, you can long-term rent a guest house out to a separate party. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Transient vacation? Mr. Hull: Now, speaking within the VDA, you can rent separate units out for vacation rental purposes. There is one lot in Makahuʻena that does not have the provision for a vacation rental, I’m not sure… Mr. Idica: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Hull: Yes, sorry, I don’t believe this is the lot though. 18 Mr. Idica: This is not the lot. Mr. Hull: Yes. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the department? If not, we’ll welcome the applicant or applicant’s representative. Mr. Trask: Aloha, honorable Chair, Commissioners. Mauna Kea Trask, again for the applicant. So, just to follow up on Commissioner Streufert’s question, there’s also a restriction separate and apart for this development on the guest houses. When this was subdivided again, only nine of the ten lots were within the VDA, nine’s excluded, and the reason why that is, is because it got down zoned from twenty-five or twenty-six density, to ten, but because they amended the zoning map to put in the VDA, only nine were allowed in, in order to avoid (inaudible) the affordable housing thing, so given that you only have ten dwelling unit, even though now the county code allows for 800 square feet and a kitchen, Makahuʻena doesn’t because of the housing restrictions, so none of these will have kitchens. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, that’s an HOA kind of thing. Mr. Trask: No, county. It’s an agreement with the County Housing Agency. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Trask: And again, I’ve provided you with, there was some testimony received and attached to the directors’ report. The previous landowner who developed this was a Cook Inlet Island Corporation, a native Alaska Inuit corporation, they were very conscientious developers. They did extensive public outreach with the Koloa community, in fact, Uncle Rupert Rowe actually spoke in favor of their application, the SMA permit process. So, we did though, and the current developer, (inaudible) the principals have really strong ties to the Polynesian community, they did their mission in New Zealand, I believe or Tonga, one of the two. And we just want to note that we did review it, I looked at those concerns extensively, I’ve addressed them, I’d also note though, that the shoreline set back determination that they questioned, that they’re concerned about, actually relates to lot 6, but not this lot, and I can also address the other concerns but again we confident that the Ka Pa`akai was done, it’s (inaudible), and this will not have any significant adverse effects to any culture resources. They’re all preserved in the open space access easement that fronts the entire development. Ms. Nogami Streufert: This is within the Keoneloa Bay, the fishing village area. Mr. Trask: No, that’s actually within the, I don’t know, I think it’s Hilton, The Point at Poipu. Ms. Nogami Streufert: The sign is on that side, towards the point and towards that way, so I’m not quite sure how far it goes. Mr. Trask: So, if you look at the presentation, so beginning on the seventh page, which is the array of six USGS arial photographs, so if you look in those, with reference to let’s say the top middle the 1951, if you look on the bottom right-hand corner, that sand area, that’s where that is, and that corresponds today with The Point at Poipu development, it’s between the buildings and the parking lot as you’re going towards the lookout, in the cul-de-sac over there. And this was actually underneath the Coast Guard Loran station, which is entirely blue rock, very little soil, and in fact, the only soil that is there now is graded to be added in order to build and put in wastewater. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, the skulls that were found that were removed, were not anywhere close to this? 19 Mr. Trask: No, and if you look, so again, so after that, so three pages after that on the slide that’s entitled Ka Pa`akai Analysis Step 1, that’s the TMK map. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. Mr. Trask: And if you look on the right-hand side, you can see that oddly shaped area, that’s SIHP Site No.97, and that’s the burial preserve area and archaeological zone, so it’s about 11 or 12 hundred feet away to the northeast from this specific lot. Ms. Nogami Streufert: You sent a request in to (inaudible), did you get anything from them? Mr. Trask: Yes, on that though, I think the first Makahuʻena single-family residence got approved early last year, and that was Lot 3, we did Lot 3 to Lot 5. I think we may have done Lot 2; this may be the third one, I think at this point. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Isn’t that nine or ten, the one that’s close to the (inaudible). Mr. Trask: Yeah, that’s not in the SMA, so that never got the SMA permit, so initially for Lots 3 and 5, as part of the subdivision entitlement process an archaeological monitoring plan was prepared by Fackler, dated 2015, and the first two lots, the SHPD said that we could use the Fackler 2015, as you know SHPD is notoriously underfunded and understaffed agency and since then the southside has gotten pretty hot, as far as development goes, and so after that because of the increased public concern within entirely unrelated development, SHPD and some turn-over over there, it’s kind of coming ambiguous, so right now we’ve been engaged, and with Romio, he’s been part of it, an ongoing communication with SHPD through their HICRIS online system, and it’s kind of created some confusion and delay, so with regard to that, we’d actually request or we wouldn’t object to this commission specifically stating in the permit, that applicant is to use the Fackler 2015 archaeological monitoring plan for any ground disturbance or construction, because that’s what SHPD is saying, but in order to make it clear in order to make it clear, I think that would help and it would allay some of the communities concerns and of course we would have no problem with it. Ms. Nogami Streufert: If I could ask one last question. You’ve used the term fully developed, three different times in three different ways throughout your application. Could you explain how you’re using it and what the differences are? Mr. Trask: Sure. So, fully developed, alright, so it relates to the constitutional statutory rights of native Hawaiians to exercise traditional customary practices, and that’s part of the, it ties into the Ka Pa`akai Analysis (inaudible) analysis, so essentially what you do is, and I’ve detailed it in the slides, so what you can do is, under the Constitution HRS 1-1, and HRS 7-1, native tenants, maka'ainana, kuleana owners to a certain degree specifically that’s kind of separate, you can exercise traditional customary practices on less than fully developed land, and the reason why is because if it’s open expansive, of course you can go up there, it’s noncommercial, ti-leaf, (inaudible), thatch, all that kind of stuff, fishing, lateral coastal access. However, if the land is fully developed, obviously you can’t go. No native Hawaiian can go into your yard and do what they want, because that’s consistent with traditional Hawaiian customary practices itself. For example, in order to get a kuleana lot, you had to show exclusive possession of that house lot, if someone else was entitled to it, you didn’t get it, and so therefore that right to exercise your practices on someone else’s kuleana was not allowed, and there was swift and severe punishment for stuff like that in ancient Hawaiʻi. And so, what you do is it’s kind of a vague standard, it requires evaluation of facts and circumstances, but essentially, if it’s zoned for residential, used for residential, fence and all necessary structure is put in, therefore it’s fully developed. And the reason why we’re saying this, and Romio said it’s vacant land, it is in that there’s no vertical structure on it, however, it’s been graded, it’s been 20 grubbed, all electric, water, infrastructure is in, the pads are developed, and so if you look on the photo there’s a birds eye view of the subdivision. It’s two after that Makahuʻena 1951-2000 pictures. It shows the whole subdivision is entirely prepped and ready to go, and so at this point public parking lots, on a portion of Lot 9 there’s a rock wall that surrounds the entire development, (inaudible) are in, so people can actually go on the subdivision because the other side of that wall is still those properties but you can go mauka of that wall within the lots, the developed lots. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, the public parking, is that area on the left hand side of that to the top of that? Mr. Trask: Top left, correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And that’s the path for access to the beach? Mr. Trask: It wraps all the way around, and you can walk all the way to Shipwreck. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Could you explain a little bit about…recently we’ve had a lot of rains, that’s not just here but we’ve had some significant storms all over the country, and it’s been getting more severe. You have drainage ditches, drainage pits on each one of these lots, where does it drain to? Mr. Trask: It settles. It just settles in. There’s no outlet, out pipe to the water. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, you’re just having it leach into the ground? Is that what it’s doing? Mr. Trask: So, these drainage (inaudible) were constructed as part of the subdivision application and permit, they were all inspected, there’s engineering reports, extensive engineering reports prepared, and they were built according to that, and signed off by Public Works. I can’t speak to them in detail from an engineering perspective, but all necessary NPDS permits were obtained and all of that kind of stuff, so we’re just following that. Ms. Nogami Streufert: One last thing, the pedestrian access, and the parking easement, is that already available to people? Mr. Trask: That’s that parking lot. Ms. Nogami Streufert: It is available? Mr. Trask: That was actually the first…yeah, you should walk down there it’s really good. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I’ve been down there, I just haven’t gone to that (inaudible), I pass through there. I have some friends in that area, so I see it all the time, so the idea that these buildings are not going to have any impact upon the scenic plain is a little…I don’t quite get that. I can see where it might be less than having the twenty-five units there to just have ten, but that will block a lot of the scenic plain from Pe`e Road. Now if you’re doing it, you’re view was from East to West on the coastal side, and you’re not blocking any view from there, but from Pe`e Road from mauka to makai that will block some of them. Mr. Trask: Yeah, you’re right. So, there will be ten residences between Pe`e and the coast, and during the subdivision process there was a visual studies, I believe I provided the public, as part of the application I’ve attached the CLDC’s public view study, so that’s correct. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair. 21 Chair DeGracia: Sure, Commissioner Ako. Mr. Ako: If I can ask? I’m trying to understand the Ka Pa`akai Analysis that we have here. I know in 2015 that a cultural impact assessment was done, at that time, and I know that 2000, that’s when that Ka Pa`akai decision came out, right, the analysis. Is a cultural impact assessment the same as a Ka Pa`akai Analysis? Or is the Ka Pa`akai Analysis part of the impact assessment process? Mr. Trask: So, what’s now called the Ka Pa`akai Analysis is in reference to that specific case, Ka Pa`akai O Ka‘Aina, and what Ka Pa`akai it just further detailed to assist the decision makers yourselves and how to look at these issues, but essentially the structure of it is, it’s really simple. First, you identify any value, cultural, historical, natural resources, and the extent to which any traditional customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised. So, first it’s an identification, the CIA does that. Second, and they do that from looking at the record, the archaeological record, reviewing past reports, but most, really importantly in speaking with traditional, customary practitioners, so they did that. They spoke with Teddy Blakes, Dela Burgess before they passed, Uncle Rupert, they put it out to Kawaiola, they published the notice, so after you identify any, and in this case the only identified resources were along the coast, so tradition subsistence activities fishing. You identify the extent to which these resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action, so in this case again, it was already entitled to 25 units of density, let’s say somewhere around there, with no open space access, no easements along the coast, anything like that, so when CLDC came in, they said ok, we’re going to take it down to ten, and after speaking with the community, the fisherman, that was their main concern, no heiau or anything in the area, no burials, no caves, that was the, in order to preserve the actual resource, they put that open space and access easement along the coast, and a parking lot to assist because you have to park, right. If the affect of the subdivision what it would potentially impact the access along the coast. Then the third analysist, is what feasible actions can you take to preserve, and that was the open space access easement, and so, with that it was all done. So therefore, when you’re looking specifically at this project, will Lot 4 single-family residence affect those rights? No, and that’s the Ka Pa`akai Analysis. Mr. Ako: So, when was the Ka Pa`akai Analysis done? In 2015, you had the cultural impact assessment, was the process the same at that time, as it was when you did the Ka Pa`akai Analysis? Mr. Trask: They did it first so, there was actually two. The archaeological impact statement that was done in 2011, so that’s the first one you go in and see if there’s anything in the ground or anything like that, and the only resources they found were old concrete blocks in the (inaudible), then you do they cultural impact assessment that was done in 2015, and that’s where you ask, you again look at the literature, you talk to people. Subsequent to that the subdivision itself was built, I thing by 2016 they signed off on all the…it’s in the application (inaudible), but something like that, they cut the whole thing, put the road in, put the water and electric lines, so ever since then this place has been fully developed. People have been going along the coast this whole time, so I would say that there has been no, nothing has been further discovered, and has been established in that area. Mr. Ako: So, we rely on 2015 as a…I guess in my mind there was no Ka Pa`akai Analysis done. Mr. Trask: There was. Mr. Ako: There was. Mr. Trask: In order to… Mr. Ako: After 2000? 22 Mr. Trask: Yeah, in order to, so the Ka Pa`akai had to have been done during the subdivision process. That would require a Ka Pa`akai too, and the result of that was the open space access easement. Now you bring up a good point, the question is, can a cultural impact assessment that performs a Ka Pa`akai Analysis seven years still be valid today? It may be, there are certain circumstances where like this, nothing’s changed, in fact it’s become more developed, so I would say in those cases, yeah, a seven year old one is good. However, there are other circumstances where one could be done on, and there was no subsequent development, and then during the passage of time things were discovered or the existing, what was thought to be there was bigger, or maybe there was some damage to existing ones, in those cases, yeah, it may be appropriate to do another updated cultural assessment, or if something has changed, you should provide yourself with that flexibility, but in this case the entire Pe`e Road area, this whole zone is fully developed, it’s in the VDA, this has been constructed, fully developed. Nothing during the subdivision process found anything whatsoever, so we would say that in this case everything still stands and of course we’re going to follow. Mr. Ako: Okay. I don’t know if this is a fair question or not, Mr. Chair, but I think the project itself started out as a 20, not 63-lot subdivision, and then it got sub-divided down to 25, and then now to 10. What would be the motivation to move from 63 to 10? I think I’m looking at it with you have 63 more homes, as opposed to now you’re down to 10 homes. Mr. Trask: I think it’s just the perspective has changed over generations. I was raised a lot by my grandfather, and he was born 1910, Hawaiian attorney scholar, whatever, he loved development, he used to talk about Coco Palms, we should build that into a…teach everyone how to run a hotel, to him it was…I looked like, tutu you know, you can’t do that anymore and he would yell at me, but perspectives changed. I think now the sentiment is less is better, no development, but then the other side of that is well, the existing inventory then gets super expensive, sugar shacks are $800,000 just to buy them to burn them down, so you can build something else. We may be building ourselves into a corner, I don’t know, but good question, good question, but specifically when CLDC did this one, that’s what the community wanted, they wanted less. Mr. Ako: Thank you. Mr. Trask: Thank you. Mr. Hull: If I could just add briefly to some of the responses Mr. Trask gave to Commissioner Ako. I know it’s coming out of some concerns as the Ka Pa`akai Analysis has become a key striking point for a lot of applications that come before the commission, and I think that you’re trying to possible, maybe I’m mistaking this, but you’re trying, it appears trying navigate the fact that the departments been candid in saying we’ve been requiring the Ka Pa`akai Analysis only recently as of 2020, I can see that kind of in your questions you got from Mr. Trask, and I think what Mr. Trask is getting at is no, this is a constitutional requirement, and he’s absolutely right in that previously was done through CIA, Cultural Impact Assessments, and so, when we have these projects that have previously had CIAs we do go through them and see with the new kind of, not a new criteria but, a somewhat updated approach of looking at protection of TNC rights as reified in the Ka Pa`akai case. Looking at these older CIAs, did they navigate it in a manner that would address our updated processes, if you will, and so Romio going through this CIA he was essentially determining some CIAs may not have made it, and that’s where we like, no we’re going to need to see an updated Ka Pa`akai Analysis that we would like addressing these very specific concerns. In looking at this one, we came to a determination, no this meets that 3-point criteria and threshold that we’ve been generally been laying out as a standard. But at the end of the day it’s really up to this body whether or not it’s adequate, right. At the end of the day it’s the Commissioners and Commission itself that makes that determination, whether or not that Ka Pa`akai threshold met, because you yourselves are making that action, should there by a vote by affirmative, and so when you 23 have things like a Ka Pa`akai Analysis that was done yesterday, or a cultural impact assessment that was done three years ago, even if the department is comfortable moving forward to have it here before this body, should information come up on the floor, testifiers come and say, this was not addressed, these are particular practices that were taking place there previously, they’re not being protected, then it’s (inaudible) search upon the applicant to address those issues for you folks, to determine whether or not they’ve been adequately met. We haven’t received any testimony on this application, so to speak today, but that’s essentially the exercise that, for every application is meant for this body to move forward on, and again we feel the CIA is adequate. We want to make sure you folks understand that ultimately it’s at your discretion. Mr. Trask: Just to add to that, and this is really good because hopefully the public is watching this meting and they do see that you guys know what your responsibilities are and you ask questions about it and you’re diligent about that, that’s good, then the development benefits from that. One of the, so a couple of the comments, and I’ve addressed them in the presentation, this is the third to the last page. (Inaudible) received three emails that vaguely asserted that in 1989, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs opposed the auction of this land. The import being, it was because of traditional customary practices and that’s not true. I actually went online, if you look up OHA Makahuʻena 89, you get the old Kawaiola from 1989, November, Nowemapa 1989, and in that OHA specifically opposed the Makahuʻena, which was owned by the Coast Guard at the time, not on the basis of any burial or cultural resources, it was just the fact that it was public lands, owned by the fed, and they didn’t want the federal government to sell any land until the native Hawaiian land claims were settled. It sold to another native organization and the Hawaiians, I would love if we could get it together to settle those claims and move forward, it’s a political question it’s not happening, but, that’s the only thing and in regard with he nearby burial site, again, it said a few feet away, it’s more than a few feet, it’s more than a thousand feet, and it’s actually in the middle of an existing development, and that’s what that is. Thank you. Ms. Cox: So, I think this question might be more for Kaʻaina, but maybe it’s for you, just to clarify, so basically the CIA in this case was deemed to be able to serve as the Ka Pa`akai Analysis, but then in addition we have this saying, when the subdivision was developed, it would needed wither a CIA or a Ka Pa`akai Analysis, right. And so, we’ve taken care of that, now that area is seen as completely or fully developed, right. So… Ms. Nogami Streufert: From perspective. Ms. Cox: Yeah. Ms. Nogami Streufert: The infrastructures. Ms. Cox: Right because the infrastructures there. Ms. Nogami Streufert: But not for any residence. Ms. Cox: Right. I guess my question is, it seems like if we accept that it’s fully developed, then you wouldn’t even need to do another Ka Pa`akai Analysis, but if it isn’t then we’re saying the CIA is serving as the Ka Pa`akai Analysis. Am I interpreting this correctly? Mr. Trask: Correct, and it’s kind of confusing, but like Kaʻaina said, so three dates, three years you need to know. One, Constitutional Convention 1978, that’s when you had Article 12, Section 7, reaffirm Hawaiian rights, 2000 you have Ka Pa`akai, it details the process, and in this case 2015 you had the cultural impact assessments. So, the cultural impact assessments was fifteen years after Ka Pa`akai, it clearly contained all the necessary information you need. But, you’re right we have no problem talking 24 about it, I love talking about these issues, and I think it’s incumbent upon developers to kind of come to you and give you this information, so you feel comfortable making the decision, and you can make your call. Mr. Hull: And to get to your point to, Commissioner Cox. We have not officially determined that this property is fully developed, we haven’t made that official determination. If we had, we wouldn’t even, we would pause it to you folks, we don’t even need to discuss the CIA and how it meets Ka Pa`akai threshold. I’m not saying it is or isn’t fully developed, but on the abundance of caution, the Ka Pa`akai Analysis is appropriate and we feel that the CIA meets it, but as Mr. Trask pointed out the phrase fully developed is still vague under the courts ruling, and so I think (inaudible), I don’t know if I totally agree with Mr. Trask’s interpretation that infrastructure constitutes fully developed. Ms. Cox: But in the end it’s because the CIA serves the purpose of the Ka Pa`akai we’re ok. Mr. Hull: We feel that, even if interpreted as not fully developed, that indeed the Ka Pa`akai Analysis was met via the CIA. Mr. Trask: I would say on that, Mr. Hull is well advised not to commit to that determination and Ms. Barzilai, I’m sure she’s glad that you said that that way. And I have no objection to it. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have a question. Would it be possible on Condition 8, which is about archaeological, historical resources. Would it be possible to amend that to have a monitor there? Mr. Trask: Well, on that that’s exactly what the 2015 Fackler Plan does, and so it requires monitoring, it requires the presence, it even I think requires a follow up report, and so that’s why the suggestion to say follow the Fackler because it’s specifically geared toward this property and the development of it. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And it would require that you have a monitor there during all ground disturbing. Mr. Trask: It’s in the application, I don’t have it. It’s accepted… Ms. Nogami Streufert: I don’t see that. Mr. Trask: …archaeological monitoring plan with SHPD. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Then would you have any objection to also including it, since it’s already in there. Mr. Trask: No. In fact, we… Ms. Nogami Streufert: Would you have any objection to amending it to put something in there that would indicate we have a monitor, physically on location during ground disturbing activities? Mr. Trask: Yeah, I would just suggest you follow the plan because it’s a comprehensive plan, it’s been accepted by SHPD, and it goes into detail about stuff like that. Just in case you miss something or whatever. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I just want to make sure we have a physical presence there during the ground disturbing, because there is so much concern about it and it is too close to that fishing village, and that whole area also has, it’s a turtle feeding area, there’s a lot of turtles in that area, which I why I’ve gone there quite a few times and that water is very pristine and with the waste water concerns that I have right now, I’d like to make sure that… 25 Mr. Trask: And the applicant has hired exploration associates, as the archaeological monitor for their existing projects, and so that won’t be a problem you’re anticipating. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Your Exhibit R, I’m jumping around right now, which is the right of entry permit. That expired in August 31, 2022. Has that been renewed? Mr. Trask: We’re trying to. So, Mr. Kaiakapu left, (inaudible), Thomas Kaiakapu, he was the head of it, and so we’re just trying to, it’s still existing, we still use it, it’s still good in that respect, but trying to coordinate that stuff takes some time. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, that activity is still continuing? Mr. Trask: It’s an ongoing project, and I get calls frequently from Maka`ala Ka`aumoana, who’s very concerned about birds and cats, and we have trapping agreements and predator control agreements down there. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess I’m more interested in the turtles, but okay. Chair DeGracia: I have a question. Along those lines, you mentioned that monitoring plan, what was the name? Mr. Trask: Fackler. F-A-C-K-L-E-R, I believe. Chair DeGracia: Could you speak what you know about that plan, just going on your mention as far as would be open to an amendment to include that within the condition? Mr. Trask: So, it’s a standard plan per my review, it was specific towards this place. It requires monitoring during ground breaking, if anything is found, you stop, contact SHPD all that kind of stuff, and I do believe it requires a post-development report, and that’s basically what it says. Contract with a firm, licensed and recognized by the State by SHPD to conduct such. You know, you can’t hire anybody, but those kinds of terms. Without it in front of me I don’t want to speak to detail on and mislead you, but it's approves relatively standard. The only thing about it I think is kind of interesting is that, like Commissioner Streufert said, there is a site in an old sandy area, northeast of this place, and the reason why it was there is because it was sand, it was soft, you can dig post holes, you could do stuff, this is entirely blue rock, so there was no one living here, you gotta get a rock drill to pound through this stuff and so, it’s like one of those things it’s like a balloon suspenders, I mean belt and suspenders sort of plan because you’re not going to find (inaudible) but nonetheless it’s good to do it, we have no objection. Chair DeGracia: Okay. I have a question for the department, follow-up along the same lines, I’m not sure if this condition already covers it or if what we mentioned is something that could be included in the conditions? Mr. Hull: I drafted a quick possible condition that may meet Commissioner Streufert concerns and of course for the applicant’s representative to review. I can read it; I didn’t have it typed of course. So, in addition to Condition No.8, the department will be opening to amending the condition to state the following: The applicant shall utilize an archaeological monitor during construction in accordance with the SHPD archaeological monitoring standards. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And that would include a physical presence. Mr. Hull: The monitoring itself, yes. 26 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert, does that meet your concerns? Ms. Nogami Streufert: If there is a physical presence there. There’s a problem when you do groundbreaking or ground disturbing, you’re using heavy equipment and things can, skulls or whatever can get broken and once it’s broken it’s a little difficult to identify after it’s been put in a pile, but if it’s as it’s continuing on you can see that, then it’s more, I would think and I’m not an expert in this, I’ve never done archaeological work but I would imagine it’s easier to identify something that’s in the ground, intact as opposed to something that’s… Mr. Hull: We can adjust the statement to say, the applicant should utilize an in-person archaeological monitor in accordance with SHPD archaeological… Ms. Nogami Streufert: During ground disturbing. Mr. Hull: During construction which will be inclusive of that. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yes. Okay. Mr. Hull: Mr. Trask, do you have any objections to that amendment? Mr. Trask: I definitely don’t have objection to the suggestion, I don’t have an objection to the intent, my only concern is that I think that, and Romio will know, for some reason there’s a lot of confusion going back and forth with SHPD and the County and us, regarding how to implement this stuff. In my experience, whenever we try as non-archaeologist to try to draft these things, the archaeologist will look at it and go, what does this mean and what does that mean, so for me, I know it sounds like I’m trying to get slick but, that plan is comprehensive, either an approved archaeological monitoring plan as approved by SHPD or specifically referencing one that exists for this lot because I think you’re right, when the dozers come in, it’s too late. Now again, I want to stress that this is not Hanalei, this is not Haena, this is not Wailua, it’s not soft, this is rock, Hawaiians did not live there, but it’s important to do, nonetheless. My clients are good stewards, they’re fine. It’s just to avoid confusion in the future which may arise despite of best efforts, that’s the only thing. Mr. Ornellas: Mr. Trask, is there any soil at all on this lot? Mr. Trask: What was placed there, yes. Mr. Ornellas: No original dirt. Mr. Trask: So, the building pads are elevated and graded, you know grubbed. But, before that, if you recall this place, it was all haole koa, (inaudible) it’s volcanic, Koloa flow. Ms. Nogami Streufert: There was a lava tube down there through that property. I don’t know where it was exactly. Mr. Trask: It was in the middle because that’s the big basin comes in, it’s actually a collapsed lava tube from millions of years ago, and that’s why it formed that topography which is why they had to grub and level everything, but they did twelve or more test trenches during the archaeological impact survey, they did all kind of stuff again. You’re looking at Coast Guard infrastructure from the 50’s, concrete blocks and aggregates is all they found. 27 Mr. Ornellas: Thank you. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Before we go on then, can we find out a little more about the Fackler Plan, and what it actually constitutes? Could we take (inaudible) just to… Mr. Trask: I could go run and grab it right now. Mr. Hull: It’s at the Commissioners discretion really. Ms. Nogami Streufert: No? Is that something you all are interested in? Chair DeGracia: Yeah, sure. Mr. Hull: Mr. Trask, you’re going to run to your office and grab it? Mr. Trask: Yeah, I don’t have a copy in my application with me. Mr. Hull: Did you guys want to perhaps…oh, we have it here, okay. Mr. Trask: I think I included it, I’m pretty sure I did. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I don’t see that. I didn’t see that. Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Trask, do you want to take a look? Mr. Trask: Yeah. Ms. Nogami Streufert: There’s a survey but that’s about it. Survey inventory. Mr. Trask: Oh no, I’m sorry, so you’re right, so I just have the AIS and the cultural impact assessment. I go to my office and grab it. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, would you like to a quick recess to recede? Mr. Hull: Did you folks want to move on to the next agenda item and table this one? Ms. Barzilai: (Inaudible) Chair we can have a motion to table this item and then just move on to the next one if that’s ok. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Ms. Barzilai: Give Mr. Trask some time. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion to table this agenda item. Mr. Ornellas: So moved. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion is to table this item. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Motion carries 6:0. 28 Mr. Hull: Next, we have Agenda Item L.2. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2023-8) and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2023-3) to allow deviations from the setback requirement, Section 8-4.3(b) of the Kauai County Code (1987), for the construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Hanalei Plantation Road in Princeville, situated immediately adjacent to and west of property identified as 5219 Hanalei Plantation Road, further identified as Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-004:016, containing a total area of 838 square feet = Matt Berg [Director's Report Received, 1/24/2023). Mr. Hull: We don’t have anybody signed up. We did close the agency hearing. Is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item that did not previously sign up? Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Directors Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: Planning Commissioners, moving onto Action Required by Planning Commission. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Applicant’s Reasons/Justification, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the department? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I have one question. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Ms. Nogami Streufert: On the top of page 9 on your report, 6 lines down, it is further noted that the department does not have any issues with the Applicant providing only one off-street parking stall instead of the required two. Are you requiring an off-street parking? Mr. Cua: Well, the…oh, yeah. Generally speaking the zoning ordinance requires two parking stalls for a residential unit, but since there are spatial limitations we would allow for the one. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, but you are requiring one? Mr. Cua: Yes. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Because that’s not in your conditions. Mr. Cua: Right. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, is that a condition or is that… Mr. Cua: We can make one. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I’m just questioning… Mr. Cua: No, it’s kind of anticipated but we can draft a condition for at least one parking stall, on-site parking. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And will there be space on this lot for that? Mr. Cua: Limited, but I guess depending on the type of vehicle he has, or the applicant has. 29 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Since the permit goes with the land, runs with the land and not with the owner, I’m just questioning whether that’s something that you could put in there or not. Mr. Hull: Unlike, say commercial development which requires paved parking, we just have the applicant for residential proposals, just provide somewhere on the property where they can accommodate (inaudible) parking, paved or not. So, with the space the property has, it is limited but it can accommodate at least one or two vehicles. Just in the space itself, we’re not in the practice of necessarily requiring paved parking. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right, but (inaudible) a requirement for one space. Mr. Hull: Yes. Mr. Ako: So, would the requirement for parking be tied into, because it’s a residence, for the resident or because of the business? Mr. Hull: The home business, the definition of home business in the code, you’re allowed to have a home business in a residential unit, if that home business does not have frequent or uses of customers that access the site. Architects that made draft of their home but meet their clients off site can have a home business, a psychiatrist who may have clients come to their house on frequent visits routinely would not be able to have a home business, they would have to get a use permit for that operation. Because there’s no actual foot traffic with this home business, as required under code, we wouldn’t require another parking stall for the home business itself. Mr. Ako: Meaning that would be one parking? Mr. Hull: It would just be one parking for the residential use itself. Mr. Ako: For the residential use. Mr. Hull: Yes. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the department? If not, we’d like to invite the applicant. Mr. Matt Berg: Good morning, Honorable Director, Chair, and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. My name is Matt Berg, and my efforts today surround this project, which involves the construction of a micro two-story single-family residence. Within my application, I'm seeking a variance permit to the standard setbacks and parking provisions that are listed in the CZO to make the property useful, given its unique size. All my plans within are designed to, one, protect cultural and historical resources while impacting environmental surroundings as little as possible. Two, to improve the value of the area through thoughtful design and architecture, that merges with the native surroundings. Three, to utilize native species or species common to the area, to help screen and provide structures and integrate the site with its surroundings while preserving the agricultural lands. Four, to minimize the impact to the environment using high efficient and green building practices, such as renewable energy, and advanced water treatment systems. Five, to make the building compact and walkable to use public transportation as much as possible, given it’s near a bus route, and to avoid the use of additional cars. And six, to complete the building as an affordable manner as possible, and finally, to provide all of the plans and learning from this project as a public resource, that it can be used towards addressing the affordable housing crisis, on island for any who might be interested. 30 Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Ms. Apisa: I guess a question and a comment. A comment, I congratulate you on your resourcefulness for building on this unique lot, but realistically most households today do have two vehicles, so some where you find a parking for two vehicles or elsewhere would the second one park? Mr. Berg: Thank you for that comment. I love that phrase that constraints breathe creativity, which I think rings true here. For the question about parking, I think, I really don’t like to be in a car, this is going to sound a bit maybe odd, but when I’m there in that region, it’s walkable from the bus route, we take the bus to the Northshore from the airport when we come, go into town when we need to and often bike, and so I really, there’s a very high probability that even one car won’t be in existence, we’ll use bikes and walking everywhere because we can access everything we need in that area and use public transportation, and or sort of supplemental transportation when needed, but I think one car stall would be plenty, which we can fit on the lot and just to reiterate there’s no foot traffic from business activity. All my work is digital in nature. Mr. Ako: What type of work do you do? Mr. Berg: I run a software-based business. Mr. Ako: Software. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I must admit that I’m really intrigued by the way that you’re using that lot, that is great. It’s really very creative, but I do believe that there should be at least one stall parking. I’m not sure how long you would be there, but for the neighborhood, you probably want to have at least one car, and I wouldn’t require two, I don’t think any space for that, but it’s intriguing and I’m glad that you have the environment, that you’re very concerned about the environment as well as the, sharing your experiences so that we can build better small homes in different places. So, thank you very much for that, but I do think that one stall, whether that’s, and I don’t think you can determine whether it’s paved or not, it’s just to make sure that there is space for one. Mr. Berg: Thank you for that comment, and just to address that, we can fit one car on the lot right now, it could be paved or unpaved, there’s definitely space for at least one stall, so I’d be very happy to honor that wish, and I think one of the things in researching this over the last two years, learning about the island, one of the things that’s been really troubling is the cost to build a modest, single-family residence and so, a big thing in my world is, open sourcing (inaudible) information and providing that, so we’re not sure exactly what form factor that will take right now, but something where it can live probably on the internet and sort of keep all the learnings made available public and really try and push the build cost down as close to economically affordable as we can, so that it can be something that is within reach for many. And we’re also trying use of very, I would say, reusable design or timeless design practices. Ms. Nogami Streufert: When you’re talking about open sourcing, how does that actually work to help bring down costs? Mr. Berg: Well, everything that will go into the process, in terms of all of our learnings and how we source materials and everything from that perspective. Just being real transparent about that whole process and so, if someone wanted to say, follow in that sort of saying, line of footsteps and we we’re about to do it say, at a very, call it maybe a fourth of the cost of a typical home build here, for a single- family residence, we could really work to compress that. We’re looking at some ways we can do that. We would just share all those findings so that it could be reproducible and recreatable. 31 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Cox: Are you talking to anybody locally on island about this? I only ask this because there are some other organizations that are trying to look at the same thing and I commend you for your plans and having things available for others. I was just wondering if you worked collaboratively with anyone else on the island. Mr. Berg: We’ve had preliminary conversations with a few groups. Some of the folks over at Waipa, for example, but we haven’t gotten much further than that. I think we’d love to lock arms with another group or just share findings, I’m very happy to do that, if there’s anyone, I’d love to follow up with you afterwards and maybe get some context. Ms. Cox: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berg: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, anything further? I just have a comment, did you do a lot of the heavy lifting on this application? Mr. Berg: I did it myself. Chair DeGracia: Good job. Mr. Berg: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: And then just to echo, Commissioner Streuferts concerns about the parking, I know that you guys are going to be good caretakers of the property and have all of these good intentions, but the entitlements do run with the land, so I think that is proper to have that, concern about the parking. Other than that, good job of threading the needle on this one. Mr. Berg: Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, anything further, any follow up questions for the department? Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, could we have something as a condition for one off street parking? Mr. Cua: Yes, I actually drafted one at the end of the discussion. What you have in the departments recommendation right now in the Directors Report is a total of 9 Conditions, I’ve drafted a preliminary Condition 10, right now it would read: The applicant shall make provisions for one on-site parking stall for the proposed residence. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Off street parking. Mr. Cua: One on-site. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Oh, on-site okay. That sounds great. That sounds fine. Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Berg: Yes, yes, I would be glad to do that, and again intentionally I think we’re keep the space available, but we likely won’t even utilize it, but we’re happy to do it. Ms. Cox: That’s even better. 32 Mr. Berg: Yeah, less cars on the island is better, I think. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, if no further questions, then we’ll welcome the departments recommendation. Mr. Cua: As previously mentioned the department has a total of 9 conditions, and with the inclusion of number 10, would you like me to read them or if you have any questions. Chair DeGracia: I don’t think you have to read it. Mr. Cua: Okay. Chair DeGracia: We’re good. Mr. Cua: Okay. Chair DeGracia: But with the amended, with one amendment, right. Mr. Cua: Right, so there will be an inclusion of Condition No.10. Chair DeGracia: Okay. With that Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Apisa: I move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-8, and Variance Permit V-202-3, with the amended conditions. Ms. Cox: I second that. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is to approve this item with the addition of Condition 10. Could I 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? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? 33 Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Congratulations. Mr. Berg: Thank you, Committee. Mr. Hull: Next we have Agenda Item L.3. AMENDMENT TO CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2006-27), USE PERMIT (U-2006-26), and PROJECT DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT (PDU-2006-25) to allow a modification to Condition No.10 relating to traffic circulation requirements for a development situated on the western side of Kiahuna Plantation Drive in Po'ipu, situated at the Pau A Laka Street/Kiahuna Plantation Drive intersection and further identified as 5425 Pau A Laka Street, Tax Map Key: 2- 8-014:032, and containing a total area of 27.886 acres= Meridian Pacific (formerly Kiahuna Poipu Golf Resort LLC). Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Clerk, sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Trask has returned to the room, if we would like to take Makahuʻena, or shall we proceed? Mr. Hull: I was under the impression that it got tabled till the end of the agenda. Ms. Barzilai: Table to the end. Mr. Hull: That was my understanding, sorry. It’s really at the Commissioners discretion. Ms. Cox: Do we have other people waiting? Ms. Barzilai: We have one more application. Mr. Trask: I’m really sorry, I just gotta meet my wife. Mr. Hull: It’s up the commission. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Mr. Ornellas: I believe I made the motion; my intent was not to table till the end of the meeting. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Mr. Ornellas: Only until his return. Chair DeGracia: Please, Mr. Trask, continue. Mr. Trask: Thank you. So, (inaudible) I have a copy of the Fackler 2015 here, I also have a copy of SHPDs comments on the Lot 3 application, and on the second page they inform the county, SHPD hereby informs the County that the permit issuance process may proceed with the understanding that the archaeological monitoring will be conducted for all ground disturbing activities in accordance with the SHPD approved AMP Fackler (inaudible) May 2015 Plan, that’s what this is, and then to your question, Commissioner Nogami Streufert, so the archaeological monitoring has a bunch of components, so on-site archaeological monitoring is recommended for all construction activities that have potential to encounter 34 previously unidentified significant cultural resources. Portions of the parcel will undergo ground disturbing activities that include grubbing, grading, sub-surface excavation, etc. During ground disturbing activities an archaeological monitor will be present to observe each activity, and it just goes on. Ms. Nogami Streufert: But is says recommended. It doesn’t say that it’s required. Mr. Trask: Well, I think that’s like a very voluntold recommended sort of thing. And so, that’s what they recommend, the SHPD approved it and they said that archaeological monitoring will be conducted for all ground disturbing activities in accordance with this, so I think that that kind of covers it. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. I’m not a lawyer and I still don’t understand the difference between a will and a shall, so, I’m not sure what recommended means as opposed to required. Mr. Trask: Okay so, during ground disturbing activities an archaeological monitor will be present and to observe each activity and if multiple activities are taking place concurrently additional monitors will be present when a single individual cannot observe simultaneous work in divergent. If a monitor is not present the activity should not be formed. I think that’s… Ms. Nogami Streufert: That’s pretty clear. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, I gotta get up to speed. Did we get the departments recommendation on this already? Mr. Hull: The recommendation stands as proposed, with the additional language of Commissioner Streufert still… Ms. Nogami Streufert: I’m okay with it, as long as there’s a physical monitor and based upon Mr. Trasks statements that there will be one available, or there will be one on-site. I don’t have a problem with it, I’m just really, I was really concerned because it is a Hawaiian fishing village and it is close to a turtle feeding area, there’s a lot of turtles down there, and it is a very rich area, and I also found a bottle with a note in it at one point and time. So, I know that that’s where a lot of things come in. I’m satisfied with the fact that we have this report, and this report according to Mr. Trask does indicate that there will be a physical monitor there, so I’m satisfied with this. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Ms. Nogami Streufert: As long as it is in there that it says the Fackler report. Chair DeGracia: Okay, so I guess the question is for the department or Commissioner, does the present condition cover what we just discussed, or we need any suggested amendments? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Can we understand that it does include the Fackler report in there? Mr. Trask: I suggest maybe, If I could suggest the department would say, archaeological monitoring will be conducted for all ground disturbing activities in accordance with the SHPD AMP, just copy the last sentence in the SHPD zone. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Under Condition 8? Mr. Trask: Under Condition 8. If I could approach I’ll just give you that. Ms. Barzilai: Yes, please. 35 Mr. Hull: Okay, I can read it into the… Chair DeGracia: Mr. Clerk, if we could hear your recommendation on Condition 8. Mr. Hull: The updated Condition 8 would read with an additional statement to follow to state; The applicant shall utilize and archaeological monitor during groundbreaking activity in accordance with the respective SHPD approved AMP. Chair DeGracia: With that, Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to approve SMA Permit U-2023-3, and Class III Zoning Permit Z-III- 2023-2, with the amended conditions. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Okay Commissioners, motion on the floor is to approve this item, with the amendment to Condition No.8. If we could get a roll call, Mr. Clerk. Ms. Apisa: And we added No.10, no I’m sorry, that’s the other one. 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 Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. Mr. Trask: Thank you all. Mr. Hull: Now on to Agenda Item L.3. 36 AMENDMENT TO CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2006-27), USE PERMIT (U-2006-26), and PROJECT DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT (PDU-2006-25) to allow a modification to Condition No.10 relating to traffic circulation requirements for a development situated on the western side of Kiahuna Plantation Drive in Po'ipu, situated at the Pau A Laka Street/Kiahuna Plantation Drive intersection and further identified as 5425 Pau A Laka Street, Tax Map Key: 2- 8-014:032, and containing a total area of 27.886 acres= Meridian Pacific (formerly Kiahuna Poipu Golf Resort LLC). Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Directors Report. Oh, I apologize, we had members of the public signed up to testify on this agenda item, so I believe Mrs. Iona wanted to reserve her right to speak at this time, so at this time we can call Stephanie Iona. Ms. Stephanie Iona: Good morning, Chair, Commissioners, and Director. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of this amendment. I am Stephanie Iona, I am the Kekaha Agricultural Association Manager and Community Outreach. I’m here on behalf of Josh Uehara, President of the Board of Directors of KAA, we are in, in his words, on behalf of the Board and members of the Kekaha Ag Association, we would like to express our support for the amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2006-27. We feel that the proposed amendment is a common sense solution that will cut unnecessary complications out of the process and it’ll provide related infrastructure improvements in a timely manner, and I would like to personally comment that the reason why you might be asking, why is our Ag. Association here on behalf of a project in Koloa, and I would like to just state that back in 2016, I was one of the representatives of the ag farms that supported the late Teddy Blake and the cleaning of the Hapa Trail that came across to this project. We also worked in conjunction with St. Raphael Church, and the Knudsen family represented my (inaudible) to clean that property, and making sure that everything was okay, it was at that time that we we're engaged with conversations with the late Teddy Blake on the property and we're in discussions on how we could support it. Since then, Kekaha Ag. has been in partnership with Meridian Pacific on several projects that have resulted as the covid situation affected our island. We have been partners with him in several projects of feeding our community as well as assisting with health care issues for sanitary products for seniors and keiki. I wanted to say that, so that you will understand that the relationship that we have with the Meridian leadership for Kekaha has been very strong, and the leader and principal is, in (inaudible) and we have shared opportunities of cultural practices that affect agriculture in the hope that if this project comes all the way to fruition, we would like to take part in helping them with the gardening and landscaping for the community and that is what I had committed to Mr. Blake when he was alive, that we would do that, and I intend to keep that promise if I’m alive, when this happens, but I do want to come on record that that is the reason why I’m here as Kekaha Ag. Association, and I'm willing to take any questions that you might have with regard to our relationship. Other than that, thank you very much. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Ms. Iona: Happy Valentine’s Day everyone. Aloha. Mr. Hull: We don’t have anybody else signed up, but if there’s anybody as a member of the public, not part of the application but as a member of the public that would like to testify on the agenda item, you may approach the microphone. If you could state your name for the record, and you have three minutes for testimony. Mr. Ricky Cassidy: Out of respect for your okoles, you can start now. It’s real quick, Ricky Cassidy, I’m an independent housing researcher, trustee of the Mary Lucas Estate, relative of Teddy Blake, and I’m a lineal descendant of this area. In my testimony I said that this tax entity is unwelded, difficult thing to deal with, it has unintended consequences if go down it and I’m standing up only to say hi, and if you 37 have any questions, I’ll answer them. As a sidebar, this has been very educational and (inaudible) questions are really gratifying, so thank you for that. I end my testimony and I’ll let your okoles go if you have no further questions. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Cassidy: My stepson sat on the city council of Honolulu for eight years. His okole was very practiced. Thank you for your service because I know exactly how much you get paid. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else who’s not previously testified on this agenda item that would like to testify as a member of the public? Seeing none, I’ll turn it over to Dale for the Directors Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Cua: Moving on to the Directors Report. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Applicant’s Reasons/Justification, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the department? Hearing none, we’ll welcome the applicant. Ms. Laurel Loo: Thank you, Chair DeGracia, and Commissioners, Mr. Hull, and Ms. Barzilai. Laurel Loo on behalf of the applicant. We’re hear to any questions, I tried to keep our amendment request as simple as possible even though it’s sort of a complicated idea, but to simplify it, we acknowledged that we are responsible for our share of traffic improvements in the area and to pay for it, we’d just like to write a check. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess one, the 29%, I think that’s in here. That was based upon the expected traffic (inaudible). Ms. Loo: Correct. I have with me our Vice President of Development, Kanani Fu, and our Vice President of Construction, Cullen Thomas, and we’ve all been working with Michael Mull of DPW and reached that number with him in the last few weeks, as a fair number that we could all agree on. Mr. Ako: (Inaudible) anticipated cost? Sorry, should the cost go up, this is a fixed amount that you would pay. Ms. Loo: It would be a fixed amount that we will pay. Ms. Apisa: I would just like to emphasize Condition No.3, relating to employment of Kauaʻi residents in the construction and permanent hotel related jobs that would be met. Ms. Loo: We’re striving as much as possible to hire within our ability to find them Kauaʻi laborers. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Will the funding be done now, is that what you’re (inaudible). Ms. Loo: With the funding? 38 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Would the check writing be done now as opposed to at the…it says in here it’s at the time of adoption, is that considered to be now or… Ms. Loo: I think we’re going to defer to when Public Works feels like they need it and also we’re going to have discussions with the Planning Director and his attorney about the timing of those. For example, for our housing portion we pay as we go, as we build more units, we pay for our affordable housing exaction, so hopefully some combination of that, but we’re very open to working with the county. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess that goes back to Mr. Akos comment of, I can see the percentage, but I’m not sure about the costs that he was referring to. Ms. Loo: We haven’t finalized the procedure with Mr. Mull or Mr. Hull. Mr. Hull: Ultimately though the leverage that the county has in this is the building permit, so we have to receive it before the building permit, after building permits have been approved, I mean there is ways to seek it out, but that’s the easiest way to leverage those type of monies. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have one question that’s not related to the permit itself, but you know inside of the report, there’s six parking stalls along Kiahuna Plantation designated for the Hapa Trail for the public to use. Kiahuna Plantation Drive, that’s a private road or public road? Mr. Cua: It’s a private roadway. Mr. Ako: Private roadway? Mr. Cua: Yes. Mr. Ako: Okay. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions? If not, we’ll welcome the department’s recommendation. Mr. Cua: Sure. Moving on to the recommendation. It is recommended that the Commission approve the proposed modification to Condition No. 10 of the subject permits involving the construction of a 200-unit multi-family resort residential project. Furthermore, Condition No. 10 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2006-27, Use Permit U-2006-26, and Project Development Use Permit PDU-2006-25 would be amended to read as follows. I’m going to skip to the affected portion of the condition which is under sub-section b.1. the amendment involves…an amendment to sub-section b.1. where it eliminates the last portion of the sentence and is shown in the Directors Report in brackets, and the language is stricken, also the amendment involves a revision to Condition No.2 where certain portions of the require is shown in bracket and stricken as well. If you want, I’ll read the condition, where the amended condition would read; sub-section b would read: prior to building application, the Applicant shall execute with the County of Kauai (Planning Department, Department of Public Works, and OCA Transportation Agency, the Mayor, County Attorney's and the County Council), and record with the Bureau of Conveyances on the deed for the subject property, an agreement has herein described: Condition No.1, sub-section 1, As represented, the Applicant or its successors in interest to the property shall contribute its reasonable and fair share of funding, in conjunction with other developers and government agencies, of any K61oa- Po'ip0-Kukui'ula transportation or circulation measures and/or improvements which may include but shall not be limited to construction plans and environmental studies for and construction of Capital Improvements such as roads, intersection improvements ,traffic signals, sidewalks, bike paths, off-street parking areas or structures, and traffic calming devices, and may include Traffic Demand Management 39 measure such as increase bus service, shuttles, car-pooling, ride-sharing, flex-time work hours, bus/shuttle use incentives, car-pooling incentives, and other measures, as approved, adopted or designated by the County of Kauai. Sub-section 2 would read; The share attributable to each development shall be determined at the time of adoption of any implementing funding ordinance adopted, including but not limited to an Impact Fee, or Improvement District. Such commitment and responsibility to contribute shall run with the land. And that concludes the amendment to Condition No.10. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion regarding the proposed amendment. Ms. Apisa: I move to approve amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-27, Use Permit U-2006- 26, and Project Development Use Permit PDU-2006-25, as amended. Ms. Cox: I second the motion. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Commissioners, motion on the floor is to approve as amended. Can I get a roll call vote? 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 Streufert? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 6:0. With that, we move on to Announcements. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hull: Topics for Future Meetings we have a couple more Makahuʻena applications actually that we’re probably looking at in April, a couple more of the homes in there are coming up for their SMA Permits. We’re tentatively working on having the Housing Director give his presentation to the Commission, concerning the Kauaʻi Housing Program. Hopefully the February meeting, if not then in the April meetings. We do not anticipate having any meetings in the month of March. All the applications and timeline requirements as far as submittals, we didn’t get anything during that window, so looks like March we have a reprieve. And then we’ll also have some updates from our Long Range Division 40 concerning Long Range Plans, the Time and Adaptation Plans, and the implementation of the General Plan in April as well. There’s other future topics that we’re still working with OED to see when they might be able to give their presentation concerning Economic Development training and the labor pool, if you will for the County of Kauaʻi that came up in our January meeting, but we’re setting the housing presentation before that. If there’s any other requests for future presentations you definitely can reach out to myself, the Chair, or our staff. And then, just a correction, the following scheduled Planning Commission meeting on our agenda stated for February 24th, that actually should state February 28, we’;; definitely fix that, online as well, so it’s scheduled for February 28, 2023, here in Moikeha Building in Līhuʻe, Kauaʻi to commence at approximately 9 a.m. With that, I think we’re ready for adjournment, Mr. Chair. Chair DeGracia: Can I get a motion to adjourn? Ms. Cox: So moved. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion is to adjourn. Let’s take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Hearing none, motion carries. 6:0. Meeting is adjourned. Chair DeGracia adjourned the meeting at 11:47 a.m. 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 February 28, 2023 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair DeGracia at 9:00 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 Excused or Absent Ms. Lori Otsuka Ms. Glenda Nogami-Streufert The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaʻaina Hull, Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Staff Planner Dale Cua, Romio Idica, Kenny Estes, 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 Francis DeGracia: Time is 9 o’clock, I’d like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, February 28, 2023. Roll call please, Mr. Clerk. Planning Director Kaʻaina Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Commissioner Ako: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Commissioner Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Commissioner Ornellas: Here. 2 Mr. Hull: Commissioners Otsuka and Streufert are both excused. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Mr. Chair. Next up we have the approval of the agenda. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hull: The department would recommend amending the agenda, so that Item L directly precedes Item F. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, seeking a motion to amend the agenda took take Item L immediately after Item F. Ms. Cox: I move that we move the agenda as suggested. Mr. Ako: Second. Chair DeGracia: We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Opposed. Hearing none, motion carries. 5:0. Mr. Hull: Next, we have no minutes for the past meetings. Receipt of Items for the Record, we don’t have anything officially transmitted to the Commission, but we can state that agency comments and written testimony were received this morning and transmitted to you folks as they are also publicly available here at the meeting room for the public as well as the front desk, and this both were concerning, Agency Comments and Public Testimony concerning the Peter Whalley Trust application for this Special Management Area Permit. Moving on, we have no Continued Agency Hearing. We’ll move to New Agency Hearing. New Agency Hearing SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-4) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Moanakai Road in Kapa'a, situated approximately 300 feet north of its intersection with Panini Road and further identified as 1127 Moanakai Road, Tax Map Key: (4)4-5-002:003, Unit 1, affecting an area of approximately 10,124 square feet = Vel Rajagopal and Sonja Ronning. Mr. Hull: We don’t have anybody signed up to testify on this agency hearing. Is there any member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Ms. Cox: I move we close the agency hearing. Mr. Ornellas: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made and seconded. Motion is to close the agency hearing for this item. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Hearing none, motion carries. 5:0. 3 Mr. Hull: Next up we have the agency hearing for: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-5) to allow a development involving the construction of two (2) single-family dwelling units, driveway and associated site improvements on a parcel situated along the makai side of Kuhio Highway and along Kamoa Road in Kapa'a, situated approximately 400 feet east of its intersection with Kuhio Highway and further identified as 4460 Kamoa Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 4-3-007:008, Units 1 & 2, affecting an area of approximately 11,308 square feet = Peter Whalley, Trustee of the Peter Whalley Trust. Mr. Hull: We have one person signed up for the agency hearing. Jonah Kaauwai, you may approach the microphone, sir, and you have three minutes for testimony. Mr. Jonah Kaauwai: Mahalo, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Commission. Good morning, my name is Jonah Kaauwai, third generation on Kamoa Road, well we have many generations there, and we’re not opposed to the application, we just want everyone to be mindful. I grew up on the dirt roads of Kamoa Road and we’ve seen a lot of development in the area, especially as the addition of Village Manor when I was young, single digits still, when the Mokihana, now the ISO, as the years all of that has changed along the way, and we know that the Bull Shed exists there as well. And my mom was a major advocate being both the manager for Village Manor and as the matriarch of our family to make sure that the traffic control on Kamoa Road was recognized, and so just to bless her and all of the families that are going to be using this roadway, the kupuna, and the keiki use this roadway. We working on the fourth generation in our family, we not planning on going anywhere on that road, we welcome and say aloha to the families that will be moving in to 4460, but as a recommendation, I think we should consider, well since that bike pathway now creates a one-way on the canal side, that more speedbumps be put on that road because I telling you, with those lifted trucks, they fly over those bumps. We got little bumps, we asked for big bumps, but we’re happy that we got bumps, nonetheless. We know with the school there and the people traversing, we have older, elderly people now living in Village Manor, so we feel like, since we’ve been there the longest it’s kind of our part in our community to advocate for the safety of our kupuna and our keiki who live in that neighborhood, and of course the people who go to the Bull Shed and stay at the ISO, once the Mokihana Castle Resort. So, on behalf of my family, and the people, and the long time that we’ve lived in that neighborhood and the kupuna, we know that iwi exist on that property as well, and for them, my family, we come here to at least say our part today so that you guys can see that there is an interest in the continued safety, because we know they’re probably going to develop the property on the other side of us as well, and we never know what we’re going to do with our property at the same time, but we know that the keiki, third generation, keiki fourth generation may be (inaudible) unto Ke Akua comes back that the will be on this property, and interest stuff for everyone’s safety. Mahalo. Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: We don’t have anyone else signed up for testimony on this agency hearing. Is there anyone in the public that would like to testify, who didn’t sign up, but would like to testify on this agency hearing? Seeing none, the department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Ms. Apisa: I’ll move, but I just wanted to add a comment. Thank you very much for your testimony, it was really a wonderful, aloha attitude you have toward it, so thank you, and I move to close to the Special Management Area Use Permit SMA-2023-5. 4 Mr. Hull: Well, it would just be for the agency hearing. Ms. Apisa: Or Agency Hearing, I’m sorry. New Agency Hearing. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made and seconded to close this item. Let’s take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Hearing none, motion carries. 5:0. Mr. Hull: No Continued Public Hearing, no New Public Hearings, we’ll go directly into New Business with the amended agenda. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-4) to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Moanakai Road in Kapa'a, situated approximately 300 feet north of its intersection with Panini Road and further identified as 1127 Moanakai Road, Tax Map Key: (4)4-5-002:003, Unit 1, affecting an area of approximately 10,124 square feet= Vel Rajagopal and Sonja Ronning. Mr. Hull: I will turn it over to Romio for the Directors Report pertaining to this matter. Staff Planner Romio Idica: Good morning, Planning Chair and Commissioners. 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’ll pause right now for any questions from the Commissioners for myself or the applicant. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions? Ms. Apisa: No questions. Chair DeGracia: If there’s no questions, could we hear from the applicant or their representative. Ms. Loo: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Planning Commissioners, Laurel Loo, on behalf of the applicants. I’m here to answer any questions. We appreciate working with Romio, he’s been great, and we have no comments or revisions to the proposed recommendations. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Looks like we have no questions. Any further questions for the department, no? If not, Romio I’ll entertain you’re… Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask, I don’t know, I don’t have any problem with the application itself, I just wanted to ask some questions about Sea Level Rise, I’m not really clear about what Sea Level Rise means and what it is, and I know we have two applications today that deal with Sea Level Rise, so I’m not sure whether we want to ask now or, but it has nothing to do with the application itself, just about Sea Level Rise. 5 Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai: Commissioner Ako, I think that Romio’s prepared to discuss that right now. Mr. Ako: Okay. Mr. Hull: And so, one of the recommended conditions of approval from the department, it just recognizes the Sea Level Rise district that the subject property is within and the requirements that this will have to do among others in order to meet the Sea Level Rise constraint district regulations. So, real briefly, thank you for giving a heads up, you wanted to have some questions about it. If could Romio possibly pull up the map for the Commissioners to see for the Sea Level Rise constraint district. Ms. Apisa: I guess just to add my two-sense as a realtor, we get a lot of input about that and the University of Hawaiʻi came up with these maps, and I’m sure it’ll be subject to change, but I personally, definitely see the effects of seal level rise and king tides and it is a serious concern. Mr. Hull: Romio, if you could zoom out for one second on this map. Maybe so you can see the constraint district. Mr. Idica: Is that too far? Mr. Hull: Hold on, let’s see if the…no it’s perfect. So, kind of going into the maps that Commissioner Apisa just mentioned, so several years ago, no not several, in 2017, the University of Hawaiʻi finished modeling maps for the State of Hawaiʻi with a projected 3.2 feet of sea level rise to occur withing this century, that’s pretty much accepted by all of the academic and scientific institutions, NOAA, as well as off of, I want to say some of the United Nations projections and standards of what was, at least in 2007 (inaudible) what was anticipated to happen by 2100, and they took the fact that Hawaiʻi in the pacific Region would be looking at 3.2 feet of sea level rise within this century given the current climate impacts and the melting of sea ice, and so, when we say we’re going to be subjected to 3.2 feet of sea level rise, it’s not exactly like a bath tub model, in which the ocean just rises 3.2 feet, so now we’ve got 3.2 feet all around the respective islands coastlines , the modeling that UH had to go through and spend a couple years doing is essentially taking into account the water tables levels, differences in tides, differences in currents, highway runup, so that in some areas 3.2 feet of sea level rise, right on the coastline, may result in only a foot depth of erosion, say, or some passive flooding scenarios of six or seven feet high. It just depends on the topography of the terrain, the water table that’s current with it, so with 3.2 feet of sea level rise to occur within the century the (inaudible) created these maps called, the Sea Level Exposure Area, and what they model off of that 3.2 feet, is essentially three different types of hazards associated with sea level rise. The first one, is coastal erosion and this is by far is the scariest hazard when talking about sea level rise that will happen for our state because coastal erosion means with that 3.2 feet of sea level rise, this map area of coastal erosion line means this is what’s going to be under water in perpetuity once the 3.2 feet is hit, and that line varies depending on the coastal area, whether or not it’s a rocky shoreline or a sandy shoreline. The other two areas or hazards that were modeled by UH, were passive flooding and that essentially happens with high tide and the water table as our oceans rise, and so, that is water that is temporal in nature, unlike the coastal erosion hazard that water will recede during, when there’s king tides, so to speak or there’s very strong tide activity occurring, and the other hazard that they model is highway runup, which is with certain high wave events where the waves will be crashing and reaching more mauka up the land. We saw some of that activity happening in Po`ipū last month, where some of the roads were cleaned out. Public Works had to go in there and restore the roads. That water also unlike the coastal erosion water is temporal in nature, that is a high wave once a year is projected with sea level rise to now be crawling this much further up land, but it will ultimately recede, and so when we got these hazards from the University of Hawaiʻi back in 2017, all of the county started scratching their heads to 6 say, okay we’ve got these model projections of what 3.2 feet of sea level rise will look like, what do we do with it now, and while we’re granting all of these permits for structures that are now being projected to be impacted by these hazards, how do we in good conscience still continue to allow these structures to be permitted, and so, the County of Kauaʻi spent about two years, one, searching the nation to try and figure out if there’s modeling going around the nation, somebody has to be doing something with this data and science, and we didn’t find anybody. A lot of places have model data about what sea level rise will look like within this century but there’s no real regulations put there. We came across one in Boston and they essentially took the 3.2 feet and going back to my earlier comment about what does 3.2 feet look like and how should we model that with other flood data or what’s going to happen to our build environment, and they essentially took their flood ordinance and added 3.2 feet to it, so saying, we expect to be 3.2 feet, we’re going to just add 3.2 feet to our existing flood ordinance. We knew that our data was a little more sophisticated, we know in some places there’s going to be 6 feet of passive flooding associated with 3.2 feet of sea level rise, so just adding 3.2 feet won’t necessarily be adequate to meet that hazard, but at the same time we also know in some area it’s not going to be as impactful, 3.2 feet in some areas might actually result in 1 foot of depth of passive flooding waters or highway runup water, so necessitating a full 3.2 feet may over shoot what is necessary, based on our (inaudible) bit more sophisticated level of modeling, and s we spent about a year basically looking at the data, looking at the models and trying to come with a regulatory regime framework that could be implemented on the build environment. And so, what we came up with, and it was ultimately adopted last year, is taking what is very standard flood ordinance language and regulations…feel free to stop me any time, let me know if I’m rambling and going on. When you look at our existing flood ordinance, as mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Act, and the Federal Insurance Rate program, at the federal level, they look at historical flood activities, one of the historical floods of a particular region and now you need to elevated any type of habitable structures above historical flood depths or elevations, if in the past 100 years this area has experienced flooding of 6 feet in elevation of water, you’re going to have to elevate that structure a foot or two above that 6 foot historical depth of water that moves around the area. The existing flood ordinance, the Federal Insurance Agency doesn’t not require municipalities to model what sea level rise impacts will have on flood waters, and to also associate those flood waters, excuse me, those sea level rise induced flood waters, or increase flood waters to be accounted for the build environment, and so we essentially took the existing flood ordinance and built our own (inaudible) maps if you will, which is the Sea Level Rise Constraints districts that essentially look at the modeled and projected areas of hazards created by sea level rise and require these structures to be elevated to accommodate for those waters, so if and then if (inaudible) some very much in the way FEMA does, if a habitable structure is being proposed in an area that’s projected to be hit by sea level rise, it’s going to have to elevate that structure 2 feet, a habitable structure, 2 feet above the sea level rise depth, and if it’s a non-habitable structure, it’s going to have to elevate that structure 1 foot above the sea level rise depth. So, if you have any portion of your structure being proposed, in say, a sea level rise constraint district hazard where it’s looking at 3 feet of water that will be moving through your property, then you’re going have to elevate that habitable structure 5 feet above grade to account for that water or if it’s a non-habitable structure, 4 feet above that flood waters. And that’s kind of it in a nutshell. I think there has been some discussion as we implement this ordinance and these regulations, is it really the government’s responsibility to be requiring these elevations to be placed on a homeowner. And these aren’t storm floods to be clear, storms floods are a totally different thing. This is a county for the gradual (inaudible) of sea level rise, and the impact within this century. Since 2017, the numbers have been adjusted, it’s no longer 3.2 feet we’re anticipated to have, we’re actually projected to have 3.9 feet within this century, and it keeps on going exponentially the more the clock ticks, if you will. So, when you talk about the lifeguards, and the firefighters that are out there during the (inaudible) that we had, there isn’t going to be too much emergency response to the (inaudible) of sea level rise, so while that aspect is not necessarily there, these will still be homes, the build environment, the structures, infrastructure, that will be impacted by sea level rise, and to a certain 7 degree, it’s almost like, well if they’re will to take all of there opala that’s going to be created by these waters that are going to hit their structures, so it’s not going into the landfill, that we have a limited capacity on, that may be an argument for that. But to a certain degree the responsibility to ensure that these structures, in their lifespan, because say by the end of the century, isn’t that a bit much. By the end of the century is 70 to 80 years, a little less that 80 years, the lifespan of structures that re being built today, is 70 to 100 years, so the structure being built today, that will be impacted by these waters, all the sea level district says, account for the waters, elevate the structures, a nominal amount above these waters, and have a nice day. But that’s kind of, I know a ramble, that’s kind of it in a nutshell. Mr. Ako: Spatially, I’m very challenged, so I’m trying to figure out, we’re talking sea level rise, if I’m at the waters edge today then at a certain point in time, say 80 years from now, instead of the water being at my foot, it’ll be at my waist level. Is that kind of like… Mr. Hull: It depends, so the (inaudible) is that within the regulatory regime, that we created the Sea Level Rise District, it addressed the two temporal waters, the passive flooding, and the highway runup. The Coastal erosion waters, where the water will be in perpetuity, those are actually addressed pretty much, the vast majority, not all of the vast majority is addressed within our existing shoreline setback ordinance, and says you have to build the structures further away from the shoreline. And so when you’re at the waters edge and you’re going to have 3.2 feet of sea level rise, it depends what the current and geomorphology of that particular, it could mean you’re going to be 3 feet above your waist, but you know by the time or3 feet above the oceans line or the rocky shoreline that you’re standing on or it may not be, so what we have mapped, sorry Romio, if you look at the map we have right now, that’s actually a confluence of both the passive flooding and highway runup, so this is the area that the subject application is being proposed on, and Romio, if you just click on maybe some of those depths to show the Commissioners how the depth charts works. It’s covered by some of the Zoom stuff, but once you click on one of those it will indicate in this area between those red spots, you’re looking at 5 or 6 feet of highway runup occurring or you’re looking at some of those lighter blue spots 2-3 feet of depth, and so if you’re proposing a structure in any of those areas, then you’re going to have to elevate above the highest depth that the structure is covering. Mr. Ako: So, if we’re talking about coastal erosion, as the sea level rises, somehow, we I guess get extrapolated through that map, how the water goes inland. Mr. Hull: Yes. Mr. Ako: So, when we’re talking about a 3 foot, let’s assume it’s 3-foot, seal level rise for a building, does that mean that in 80 years, the water will hit that 3 foot level? Mr. Hull: No. Mr. Ako: It will be at the ground level? Mr. Hull: It just depends on the property and the topography and the currents fronting it, so 3 feet of sea level rise for the overall ocean will impact an island differently depending on an array of different factors. Mr. Ako: Let me ask this way then maybe, the 3 feet rise, plus 2, the purpose of that is to protect the interior of the living area? Mr. Hull: Correct. 8 Mr. Ako: So, if I have a garage under there, my garage could be flooded? Mr. Hull: The garage could be flooded. Mr. Ako: But I can get into, swim into my house. Mr. Hull: Romio, if you could maybe pull up the (inaudible) website, and just a portion of Kauaʻi showing the coastal erosion line, because I think that’s where some of this discussion seems to be going, is differentiating between the coastal erosion waters and temporary highway runup or passive flooding waters. Romio, you just wanna open a new window so you don’t close this one or what is the, are you having slow internet service? Mr. Idica: I’m just having slow internet service. Ms. Cox: So, since Romio has slow internet service, I just want to take a moment to really commend Kauaʻi and Kaʻaina for we are really leaders on recognizing what is going to happen, and as Kaʻaina mentioned in passing, but I want to call attention to, if anything since 2017, which is the data that was used to come up with this constraint district, the data suggests it’s actually going to be worse and that’s because, frankly not only is the data showing that but we haven’t made significant changes in our behavior to stop it, so I just really want to commend you, Kaʻaina. Mr. Ako: So, as the sea level rise varies from district to district, some it gets to be less than 3.9, and some it could be more, the total height still needs to be at 30 feet of the building of a single dwelling building? Meaning that the height… Mr. Hull: Overall height cannot exceed for a residential structure cannot exceed 35 feet. Mr. Ako: So, the physical dimensions of the dwelling itself needs to be less if the sea level rise is projected to be high. Ms. Apisa: That’s from your threshold of your front door to the roof, it’s not from the ground, right. Mr. Hull: The height limitations for the zoning code is going to be from, technically it’s measured from the front door but from that front door measuring from grade, so the highest a residential structure can be is 35 feet per the zoning code for a single-family dwelling, multi-family dwellings can be a little bit higher, they can go up to 50 feet, but the…Romio, if you could turn on the erosion line, hazard line. The, I think what the question is, Commissioner Ako is if you’re being required to elevate a structure higher and higher, say there are some situations you may need to elevate up to 5 feet in height, and you have a 35 foot height envelope, do you get more buffer because you’re not elevating. In the existing code for sea level rise flooding, no, we’re definitely open, if the commission sees that that’s an issue of allowing additional heights to accommodate for sea level rise (inaudible) waters, under the zoning code, say for the Northshore, which has a very limited height restriction of 25 feet, the height is allowed to go higher to accommodate for historical FEMA type floods, which is why you have some structures right in Hanalei that are elevated 25 feet in the air. The highest, I think sea level rise flood elevation were looking at was 5, maybe 6 feet, so we’re not looking at a massive amount, say with historical storm flood activity, so that is not provided currently in the ordinance. So, if you guys can take a look at the Neat board right here, Romio can you zoom in a little bit so they can see? So, that red line is the coastal erosion line, so that’s what the data is showing what will happen within the century. That is where the ocean’s edge will be in perpetuity, and you see all that blue behind it, those are wither passive flooding or highway runup, that’s mostly that’s going to be highway runup. Romio, can you click the top of those on and off to see if that’s 9 highway runup or passive flooding? So, but whenever the public sees these maps and they see all that blue on the inlet part, and there’s very much of a chicken little response, wait a minute, all that’s going under water, no, no, no, no, that is all not going under water in perpetuity. The red line is what we’re looking at is going under water in perpetuity, if you look at that, you see that’s across the road and there are some issues there, infrastructure wise, that is a huge concern, but not all of Kapaʻa town is projected to be under water in perpetuity with 3.2 feet of sea level rise. We need to account for that, we need to address for that, but as in with the property being discussed today that on the agenda, this one in particular, the red line is no where near the house that’s being proposed, if it was being proposed makai of that red line then there would be serious issues and concerns because you’re about to build a house that’s projected to be makai of the shoreline within the lifespan of that structure. That’s not what’s happening with this house. What we’re seeing is, the house is definitely mauka of where the ocean will be within this century, at least off of the data we have so far, but it will still be subject to temporary flooding waters associated with sea level rise, which is what the ordinance says, okay, good job you’re outside of the erosion line, but you’re within this area for passive flooding and highway runup, so elevate the structure “x” amount of feet to accommodate those temporary flood waters associated with sea level rise. Does that make sense? Mr. Ako: Thanks for your presentation. I finally got it. Now I get it. Okay, that red line is where the water’s edge is going to be. Mr. Hull: Yes. Mr. Ornellas: You know it’s (inaudible) area, Kapaʻa is somewhat unique, in that Wailua, Olohena, Waipouli, Kapaʻa, is actually, sits on a series of sand dunes and prior to the building of the canals in Kapaʻa, which took place around 1948, if you look at all the bridges as you drive through Kapaʻa, they’re all marked about 1950 were built. You also have to deal with inundation in back of the town itself, all of that was wetlands prior to the canals being done. Kapaʻa would flood on a regular basis prior to that, so we’re dealing with a double whammy, and I think one of the pictures you showed illustrated that, it’s almost like an island. Mr. Hull: Yes. Mr. Ornellas: You got water coming from both sides, so it’s a unique area, in that it’s kind of a double whammy. Mr. Hull: Romio, I’m not sure how bad the internet connection, but if you want to try zoom out to get to Commissioner Ornellas’ point, the sea level rise project is actually modeling a lot of passive flooding increases mauka of the Eastsides built environment, right there, we’re like, wait, wait, wait how can that happen, but it’s directly to Commissioner Ornellas’ point, with the canals and the wetlands, with passive flooding, water going back in there with sea level rise, is well as the water table coming up, we will experience a fair amount of passive flooding associated with sea level rise, and not even storm events, this isn’t when the storms hit, the storms starts hitting we’ll definitely have other types of flooding hazards, but just from sea level rise alone, that’s the area that’s being looked as will experience persistent flooding within this century. Ms. Cox: Since this seems to be such an educational moment, and I really appreciate it, I think it’s really important. You were in perpetuity. I just want to point out, that’s absolutely, that yes, it be the, not the passive flooding but the shoreline erosion, will be under water at that point if the projections are correct, but it’s not going to stop there if we don’t change our behaviors, so I just wanted to point that out. I think 10 that Kauaʻi has done a great job of recognizing by the end of the century this is where we’re going to be, it's not where we’re going to be if we don’t make any changes. Mr. Hull: Yes. And in fact, with the data to Commissioner Coxs point, with the data that’s just come out from NOAA and International Organizations monitoring this, the 3.2 feet was accepted back in 2014, when they started the sea level rise study for Hawaiʻi, that was completed in 2017. Those same organizations have now said, it’s looking like a moderate modeling approach would anticipate 3.9 feet by the end of this century and 3.2 feet, which all our data is based off of right now, is more than likely going to happen within 50-70 years, as oppose to 80-90 years. And so, with the 2022 numbers now looking at 3.9 feet, Dr. Fletcher and his team are actually recalibrating and going back into the field to update the studies based off of this new information. As the climate changes and polar melting occurs at different rates but increasing in (inaudible) scenario, it’s a weird situation but for land use approaches for coastal areas, unless somethings on a global scale, altered or addressed, we’re going to have to be constantly updating these sea level rise district regimes and paradigms. Two or three more years, we might be back with a new map. Mr. Ako: Well, Mr. Clerk, I thank you. Clarity is a very free feeling. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions for the department? Mr. Ornellas: I call (inaudible) question. Mr. Hull: We may want to just, I know the agency hearing was opened and closed for this but (inaudible) we may want to see if there’s any public testimony again. Chair DeGracia: Okay, sure. Do we have any further public testimony for this item? Anybody in the audience? If not, we’ll welcome the department’s recommendation. Mr. Idica: Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recommended proposed development involving the construction of a single-family residents through Special Management Are Use Permit SMA-U-2023-4 be approved, subject to the following conditions as outlined in the Directors Report. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Commissioners. I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Cox: I move we approve Special Management Area Use Permit SMA-U-2023-4, as recommended by the department. Mr. Ako: Second. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made and seconded to approve. Could we get a roll call vote, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? 11 Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 5:0. Moving onto Agenda Item L.2. Ms. Cox: Before we move on, can I just ask the notes, the testimony that was given about the speed bumps and so, will that be taken back to wherever is appropriate? Mr. Hull: Those, that is for the upcoming… Ms. Cox: Oh, you’re right. Sorry. I got confused. Sorry. Mr. Hull: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2023-5) to allow a development involving the construction of two (2) single-family dwelling units, driveway and associated site improvements on a parcel situated along the makai side of Kuhio Highway and along Kamoa Road in Kapa'a, situated approximately 400 feet east of its intersection with Kuhio Highway and further identified as 4460 Kamoa Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 4-3-007:008, Units 1 & 2, affecting an area of approximately 11,308 square feet= Peter Whalley, Trustee of the Peter Whalley Trust. Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Romio who also has the Directors Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Idica: Good morning, Planning Chair and Commissioners. 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’ll stop there. That concludes my report. Any questions for myself or the applicant? Mr. Hull: I’ll also note again that this is the agenda item that we received testimony that was transmitted to you folks this morning and is publicly available. One from, a member of the public, (inaudible) Kaauwai, and another from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Commissioners, before we move on to the applicant. Do you guys have any questions for the department? Ms. Apisa: No questions. 12 Chair DeGracia: We love to hear from you. Mr. Ian Jung: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Ian Jung, on behalf of Mr. Whalley, and the applicant, who’s here with me to my right. We stand on the report that Romio prepared. As discussed in both the application and in the report, this property is subject to some constraints that we have to navigate around, so what was done, it was previously a 4-unit condominium property regime, we amended the condo map to bring it down to 2, and then also reduce the overall project, from 4 dwelling units to 2 dwelling units, to accommodate for the constraints and what was noted in the burial treatment plan to identify iwi on the property site, which have been relocated to the western boundary of the property and have been installed based on what the reinternment was, that was approved by the Kauaʻi Island Burial Council. So, the proposed project is R-20, so it’s only about 41% land coverage, which is the allowed 90%, so it’s significantly reduced. One of the comments that we got from the general public and Mr. Kaauwai, is that the speed humps are going to be requested on Kamoa Road and Mr. Whalley would help support Mr. Kaauwai in his endeavor with the County to support that and whatever he can do to help make that happen, similar to what was done on the first one on Weke Road. With that I’ll leave it there. I’m open to any questions you folks may have, it’s modern Hawaiian architecture, so very modest homes that are going to be going on there. Two-story, we are aware of the new sea level constraint district, so we had a (inaudible) to make sure that the elevation requirements would be compliant with the 3.2 foot modeling plus 2 feet. One of the issues we’re working through is that it’s a split zoned, sorry, split flood zone, so it’s AE along the canal section of the property and X along the backside of the property, so just a small sliver of house on the east would be in the flood zone, so there is going to be an elevation requirement, but the elevation requirement for that particular flood zone would higher than the potential 5.2 foot sea level rise constraint requirement. So, the (inaudible) sort of reconciled and our elevation requirement would be compliant there. So, we’re working on trying to create, when the problem we’re faced with is elevation certificates, with flood zones, it identifies the base flood elevation, and one plus freeboard now. We’re trying to create a program with a survey as to identify this new flood constraint to show an additional layer of the 5.2-foot model for sea level rise constraint. So, we have one set for another project but we’re working on it for this project, and we’ll comply with the proposed Condition No.2 on that. So, happy to answer any questions, Mr. Whalley’s open to any questions as well. Ms. Apisa: Not really a question, but I think it was really wise, thank you for reducing from 4 to 2 because it’s a relatively modest sized lot, and I couldn’t even envision how you would put four houses on there, but I guess 90% lot coverage. Mr. Jung: Yes, well it’s zoned R-20, so the density is there, but because of the archaeological constraints we had to modify the plan. And one of the other elements that isn’t shown currently on the site plan which we’ll probably submit a post site plan, because the above ground septic system is something new that was recommended, and Mr. Whalley was open to, to limit ground disturbance on the property. Ms. Apisa: Thank you. Ms. Cox: As you know we got testimony from OHA and one of things they asked about was, that apparently earlier one of the ohana had asked Kauaʻi Cultural Monitoring, I’m wondering, based on the fact that iwi were found on the property and apparently OHA said that perhaps where the current footprint is, maybe has not had testing done on it. I’m wondering, are you open to having cultural monitoring, because I don’t see that in recommendation No.4. Mr. Jung: So, what, Ms. McMahon with Exploration Associates, is our architect Director on this one, and what she submitted to SHPD is an amended litigation plan, so what that will require is monitoring at the time of any ground disturbance, and so what’s a little confusing about this particular about this project, is 13 the original 2006, archaeological inventory survey that was for 2 lots, parcels 8 and 9. There were ten test trenches done over both those parcels. Parcel 8, had 8 of the test trenches, parcel 9, which is not subject to this application, it had only 2. So, the areas that had the test trench covered the proposed footprint of these two projects. So, anytime we move forward with any ground disturbance, we’ll have to have an archaeological monitor and have a monitoring plan on site. It’s required under the CCR’s now to that will record against the property for the burial treatment plan for the two sites. In 2006, all this was reconciled, it’s just this new project they did amended mitigation and monitoring plan, which will require monitoring at the time of any ground disturbance. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Currently, it looks like there’s it looks like a project because there’s equipment there, that’s Mr. Estrella of Estrella Enterprises, he’s just storing his equipment for the canal excavation that’s going on right now. So, we will have a monitor on that site, and it’s just that there’s no monitor there because just equipment’s being stored there. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Mr. Ako: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Chair DeGracia: Sure. Mr. Ako: You know this property here is within the visitors destination area, meaning that it could be used as a temporary vacation rental. Because of the way it’s structured right now because they have living residence at the top, garage, and a patio at the bottom, and it’s within the sea level rise constraints. Is it possible in the future to enclose the bottom and use it as a rental? Mr. Jung: The lower part is a garage. Mr. Ako: Right. Mr. Jung: And then there’s a patio on the side. Mr. Ako: So, I’m kind of wondering whether, in the future, is it possible to enclose the bottom and use that as rental? Ms. Apisa: The garage, it will be enclosed. Mr. Jung: The garage is enclosed. Mr. Ako: Yeah, but to be used as TVR. Mr. Jung: In theory, it could be, but we’d have to check the flood zone requirement because if the lower floor touches the flood zone or even the new Sea Level Rise Constraint District, then they would have to build up the floor, but that’s just not proposed. Mr. Hull: Yeah, and under the FEMA Flood Ordinance that Kauaʻi has, subscribes to, as well as the Sea Level Rise Constraint District, one’s an engineering standard, one’s a planning standard. The Sea Level 14 Rise Constraint District is actually a bit more restricted on what you can do physically with your elevated area, and under the Sea Level Rise Constraint District you wouldn’t be able to enclose that area. Mr. Jung: So, in the plans there’s no plans to, and then I think Condition No.1 says, constructed as represented, so if we try to modify it we may have to come back (inaudible). Mr. Ako: Thank you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Ms. Cox: So, this is a question more for, I guess, for the Planning Department, because we have heard that the applicant is willing to work with our testifier to make sure that we at least ask for the speed bumps, what is that process? Mr. Hull: The testimony received here concerning speed bumps and say, there’s a couple different approaches, the applicant and the testifier or the community could work together to further petition the Engineering Division to put those speed bumps in at a higher level than they’re at right now, or there is a possibility that this Commission could impose it as a condition of approval to the proposal. Whether or not that meets the proportional nexus analysis required to impose that type of condition, I think the County Attorney is ready to discuss that today. Engineering has not provided comments at this point, so if there was any desire to look at and analyze the speed bump or hump increase improvement as a condition of approval, one, you can definitely feel free to ask the applicant if they’re open to that, and two, I think the department would ask for a deferral so that we could get comments from Engineering that are generated to that particular issue. Ms. Cox: I just wanted to know the process, I’m not sure that it makes sense that this applicant takes on the full cost of putting in the speed bumps that are for the entire road. I just wanted to know what the process was. Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Cox, at this point it would require a study and that would require a deferral. Ms. Cox: You mean if we put it in as… Ms. Barzilai: If you wanted to pursue that. Ms. Cox: As a condition? Ms. Barzilai: We would have to defer because we don’t have a study on the matter. Ms. Cox: Right, but we can still ask that we applaud the fact that the applicant and Mr. Kaauwai, are interested in pursuing this, so they can still pursue it without us deferring, correct? Ms. Barzilai: (Inaudible). Ms. Cox: Yes. Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Yeah, I would not support it as a condition because it’s really out of our expertise or our specialty, that would be an engineering matter, as our attorney has said, you’d really need to study it. I know sometimes for emergency vehicles, they don’t like speed bumps too high because it impacts getting 15 there in a hurry and stuff. There are a lot of conditions that would have to be looked at, so I would not support it being a condition. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, any further questions, comments for the department and or the applicant? If not, I’ll entertain a motion. Mr. Hull: (Inaudible), but the agency hearing was closed on this, but because this is an agenda item subject to (inaudible), you may want to ask if anybody from the public would like to testify. Chair DeGracia: Okay. Before moving forward, is there anybody from the public who would like to testify on this agenda item? Mr. Hull: Sorry, Mr. Kaauwai, if you can approach the microphone, and just for the record and for our minute keeping process, if you could state your name for the record again. You have three minutes for testimony. Mr. Kaauwai: Yeah, Jonah Kaauwai, for the record we not intending on slowing their application process, so I would ask that you guys, if we have to work with the engineers, we’ll work with the engineers, but we didn’t come here to slow this process of this application down, so I just want to put that on the record. Thank you. Chair DeGracia: Thank you, Mr. Kaauwai. I’ll welcome the department’s recommendation. Mr. Idica: Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended that the proposed development involving the construction of 2 single-family dwellings and associated site improvements through Special Management Area Use Permit SMA-U-2023-5 be approved. Subject to the following conditions as outlined in the Directors Report. Mr. Hull: And I would state because there was some discussion focusing on engineering improvements that, if approved as proposed by the departments recommended conditions of approval, the Condition 1, that starts as represented, the department would be looking during building permit review for documentation demonstrating the applicant working with the neighbors to petition engineering to look at and asses whether or not these speed bumps, humps or other traffic improvements, traffic (inaudible) measures can be put in this place, so we can see that we’re not putting it as a condition of approval, I think the member of the public said, he wasn’t looking to slow it up, but we’ll still be looking for documentation for a concerted and genuine effort to resolve this issue with Engineering. Ms. Cox: Thank you. With that, I would actually move that we approve Special Management Area Use Permit SMA-U-2023-5, as recommended by the department. And I just want to add that I hope I wasn’t misunderstood, I really was just asking for the process. I didn’t think that it should be included as a recommendation. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Motion has been made and seconded to approve this agenda time. Could we get a roll call vote, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ako? Mr. Ako: Aye. 16 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas? Mr. Ornellas: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 5:0. With that we will return back to the original agenda, which… Ms. Barzilai: Mr. Clerk, we’re at G. Mr. Hull: We have no Consent Calendar items. Moving on to H. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Attached Stipulation for Dismissal as to all Claims and all Parties as it relates to MOLOAA FARMS LLC, EL PASO INVESTMENTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BOCA HOLDINGS, LLC and ROBERT B. LINDNER, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE ABL FAMILY LEGACY TRUST U/A/D DECEMBER 20, 2012, Plaintiffs v. KAUA'I PLANNING COMMISSION; COUNTY OF KAUA'I, et. al., United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i Civil Case No. CV-20-00020 HG-KJM. Mr. Hull: I believe you folks may want to entertain going into executive session to discuss this matter. EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair DeGracia: Pursuant of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), the purpose of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal counsel on questions, issues, status, and procedural matters. This consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to the following matters: Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Attached Stipulation for Dismissal as to all Claims and all Parties as it relates to MOLOAA FARMS LLC, EL PASO INVESTMENTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BOCA HOLDINGS, LLC and ROBERT B. LINDNER, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE ABL FAMILY LEGACY TRUST U/A/D DECEMBER 20, 2012, Plaintiffs v. KAUA'I PLANNING COMMISSION; COUNTY OF KAUA'I, et. al., United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i Civil Case No. CV-20-00020 HG-KJM. Chair DeGracia: With that, Commissioners, I’ll entertain a motion to go into executive session. Ms. Cox: I move we go into executive session for this stated reason. 17 Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair DeGracia: Okay, Commissioners, the motion on the floor is to go into executive session. We’ll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Hearing none, motion carries. 5:0. Commission went into Executive Session at 10:02 a.m. Commission reconvened from Executive Session at 11:04 a.m. Chair DeGracia: Planning Commission meeting back in session, the time is 11:04 a.m. Ms. Barzilai: Chair, at this time I would recommend a motion to ratify the decision reached in Executive Session. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, seeking a motion to ratify. Ms. Apisa: I move that we ratify the decision reached in Executive Session. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, motion on the floor is a motion to ratify the decision reached in Executive Session. If we could get a roll call vote? 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: Chair DeGracia? Chair DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 5:0. Chair DeGracia: Thank you. Mr. Hull: We have no further agenda items, no Communications or Committee Reports for this meeting, no Unfinished Business. ANNOUNCEMENTS 18 Mr. Hull: Topics for Future Meetings, we do not anticipate having any meetings in the month of March, so looking at the next meeting actually being held on April 11, 2023. We anticipate having six agenda items, at a minimum on that agenda, several Makahuʻena single-family dwelling permit applications, you have seen a few in the past year or past four or five months. We also have Kauaʻi Community College is coming in for their petition for zoning amendment to formally upzone tot eh university district, and I believe we have one or two other single-family dwelling proposals, as well as the housing, tentatively speaking, but the Housing Directors presentation on April 11. If there’s anything else the commissioners… Ms. Cox: I thought we were moving the housing one, we’re not moving. Mr. Hull: Oh, that’s right, somebody’s gonna miss it. Ms. Cox: I’m missing it. Mr. Hull: That’s right. That’s why I said tentatively, (inaudible) moving it to the second meeting in April. Ms. Cox: Okay. Mr. Hull: My apologies. Thanks for that catch. We don’t have anything else to announce for future meetings, Mr. Chair. Chair DeGracia: Commissioners, seeking a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ornellas: So moved. Ms. Cox: Second. Chair DeGracia: Let’s take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Oppose. Motion carries. 5:0. Chair DeGracia adjourned the meeting at 11:06 a.m. 19 Respectfully submitted by: _________________________ Lisa Oyama, Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated _______________. ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of ______________ meeting. F.2.a. April 11, 2023 Check One: Paper Plans Electronic Plans DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Zoning Intake By: Use Variance Intake Date: SMA PDU Acceptance Date/By: TOTAL FEE: Additional Fees: Receipt Number Building Permit No. Associated Permits (e.g. SSD) Complete Information Below Tax Map Key Number Condominium Number Applicant Name(s) Property Address Mailing Address Parcel Area Contact Phone Zoning Designation Contact Email (if applicable) Applicant Declarations (incorrect responses may slow your permit review) Please place an “X” under Yes or No under the following: YES NO Staff Verification 1 Is this property located in the Special Management Area (SMA)? 2 Is this property part of a Condominium Property Regime (CPR)? 3 Is this property within 500 feet of the shoreline? 4 Is this property within the Agriculture Zoning District? 5 Is there a structure on the property that is 50 years old or older? 6 Do you have an Additional Dwelling Unit Certificate? 7 Is this a permit for an after-the-fact construction or activity? 8 I hold at least a 100% property interest in the property. 9 Are you an agent for the property owner? 10 Has a similar application been previously denied? 11 Is this an application for an agriculture structure under 200 square feet 12 Are there known burials on the site? 13 Are you using water not provided by a domestic water system? 14 Does existing grade under building footprint change by 2’ or more in any direction? 15 The proposed residential unit is a Multi-Family Dwelling Unit? 16 Is this a conversion of a legally existing single-family dwelling unit into a multi- family two dwelling unit? 17 Is this structure a guest house? 18 Does guest house contain a kitchen? This application shall be fil led 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. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STANDARD ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION One (1) original; If providing plans, five (5) 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. Permitting fees may be made via cash or check. All checks shall be made out to: 'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH X (4)2-8-021-073 n/a Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. n/a P.O. Box 1205 Lihue HI, 96766 1.103 acres (808) 521-9297 Open mtrask@cades.com x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x F.2.b. April 11, 2023 COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT I. Part A APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Address:Phone: Applicant’s Status: (Check one) 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 provide a Letter of Authorization. Authorized Agent Attach Letter of Authorization Contact Person:Address: Phone: Email: PROJECT INFORMATION (attach additional sheets if necessary) Site Address:Tax Map Key: Lot Area: State Land Use District:County Zoning: General Plan Designation: Nature of Development: *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: (Estimate Attached) Date of Application: Makahuena - Preferred A LLC et al. P.O. Box 1205, Lihue, HI 96766 (808) 521-9297 P.O. Box 1205, Lihue, HI 96766 Mauna Kea Trask (808) 521-9297 mtrask@cades.com N/A Urban Resort Over $500,000.00 December 30, 2022 c/o Cades Schutte ✔ (4) 2-8-21-73 1.103 acres Open Two-story Single-Family Dwelling Unit, pool, driveway, walkways, lanais, landscaping and associated improvements. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 2 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 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. 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. 5.Project Assessment: a.Description of the area and environment involved including flora and fauna, and other features; b.Description of the existing land uses of the project site and surrounding areas; 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 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: See attached. See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 3 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO ii.Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion: YES NO iii.Conflicts with the County’s or the State’s long-term environmental policies or goals; Discussion: YES NO iv.Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion: YES NO v.Substantially affects the economics or social welfare and activities or the community, County or State; Discussion: YES NO vi.In itself has no significant adverse effect but cumulatively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; Discussion: YES NO vii.Substantially affect a rare threatened, or endangered species of animal or plant, or its habitat; Discussion: ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 4 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO viii.Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise levels; or Discussion: YES NO ix.Affects an environmentally sensitive area, such as flood plain, shoreline, tsunami zone, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water or coastal water; Discussion: YES NO x.May have a major effect on the quality of the environment or affect the economic or social welfare of the area;and Discussion: YES NO xi.Would possibly be contrary to the policies and guidelines of the Rules and Regulations, the County’s General Plan, Development Plans, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Discussion: d.Evaluation of the proposed development relative to the objective and policies as contained in Chapter 205A, HRS; and Section 3.0 of the Special Management Area (SMA) Rules and Regulations: (complete following questionnaire) RECREATIONAL RESOURCES: Objective Provide coastal recreation opportunities accessible to the public. 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. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. See attached. ✔ ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 5 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 1.Will the proposed development adversely affect coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas? Discussion: YES NO 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: YES NO 3.Is the project site near a State or County Park? Discussion: YES NO 4.Will the proposed development affect an existing public access to or along the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 5.Will the proposed development provide public access to and/or along the shoreline? Discussion: ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 6 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 6.Will the proposed development encourage expanded recreational use of County, State, or federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and waters having recreational value? Discussion: YES NO 7.Will the development generate point or non-point sources of pollution that will affect recreation value of coastal area? Discussion: HISTORICAL RESOURCES: Objective 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. YES NO 1.Is the project site within a Federal, State and/or County designated historical/cultural district? Discussion: YES NO 2.Is the project site listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places? Discussion: YES NO 3.Does the project site include land(s) which have not been previously surveyed by an archaeologist? ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. See attached. ✔ ✔ See attached. ✔ COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 7 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 Discussion: YES NO 4.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: YES NO 5.Has any site survey revealed any information on historic or archaeological resources? (Please provide a copy or reference of survey) Discussion: YES NO 6.Is the project site within or near a Hawaiian fishpond? Discussion: YES NO 7.Is the project located within or near a historic settlement area? (Cemeteries, burials, heiaus, etc.) Discussion: SCENIC & OPEN SPACE RESOURCES: Objective 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. See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 8 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 1.Does the project site abut or affect a valued scenic resources or landmark within the SMA? Discussion: YES NO 2.Does the proposed development affect existing shoreline open space and scenic resources? Discussion: YES NO 3.Does the proposed development involve alteration to natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 4.Is the project compatible with the visual environment? Discussion: YES NO 5.Does the proposed action involve the construction of structures visible between the nearest coastal roadway and the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 6.Is the project site within the Shoreline Setback Area (20 or 40 feet inland from the shoreline)? Discussion: ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 9 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS: Objective Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. 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. YES NO 1.Is the project site a habitat for endangered species of flora and fauna? Discussion: YES NO 2.Will the proposed development adversely affect valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance? Discussion: YES NO 3.Will the proposed involve disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems through stream diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses? Discussion: YES NO 4.Will the proposed development include the construction of special waste treatment facilities, such as injection wells, discharge pipes, septic tank systems or cesspools? Discussion: YES NO 5.Is there a wetland on the project site? Discussion: ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 10 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 6.Is the project site situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary? Discussion: ECONOMIC USES: 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. YES NO 1.Does the project involve a harbor or port? Discussion: YES NO 2.Is the proposed development related to or near to an existing major hotel, multi-family, or condominium project? Discussion: YES NO 3.Does the project site include agricultural lands designated for such use? Discussion: YES NO 4.Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion: ✔ However, there are nesting sites for wedge-tailed shear waters nearby. See attached. ✔ See attached. ✔ The proposed development is bordered by the "Point at Poipu" hotel to the east, and the "Makahuena at Poipu" and the "Poipu Palms" developments to the west. ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 11 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 5.Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion: COASTAL HAZARDS: Objective 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. YES NO 1.Is the project site within a potential tsunami inundated area as depicted on the National Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM)? Discussion: YES NO 2.Is the project site within a potential flood inundation area according to a FIRM? Discussion: YES NO 3.Does the project comply with the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program? Discussion: YES NO 4.Has the project site or nearby shoreline areas experienced shoreline erosion? Discussion: ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. See attached. ✔ ✔ See attached. ✔ See attached. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 12 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 5.Have any seawalls/revetments/etc. been constructed or exist in the immediate vicinity? Discussion: PROJECT ASSESSMENT: e.Evaluation of the impacts which cannot be avoided and mitigating measures proposed to minimize that impact: Discussion: f.Evaluation of the proposed development relative to Section 4.0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations in accordance with the following aspects: i.Substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects; Discussion: 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: iii.Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the County General Plan, Development Plan, and Zoning Ordinances. Discussion: [name], [title] Date MAUNA KEA TRASK, Authorized Agent 12/30/2022 ✔ See attached. See attached. See attached. See attached. See attached. 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 6 of Makahuena Estates Subdivision, Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021:073. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT SMA(U)-2023-_____________ 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 .................................................................................... 3 h. Flood Zone ................................................................................................. 3 i. Shoreline Setback ....................................................................................... 3 j. Violations ................................................................................................... 3 k. Visitor Destination Area ............................................................................ 3 l. Soils............................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Prior Land Use Permits .......................................................................................... 4 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 ................................................................................................... 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page ii SECTION 5. PERMITS REQUESTED AND REQUIRED ....................................................... 7 5.1 Class III Zoning Permit .......................................................................................... 7 5.2 SMA Use Permit .................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 6. IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................... 7 6.1 Botanical Resources ............................................................................................... 7 6.2 Historical Resources .............................................................................................. 8 6.3 Air Quality/Noise ................................................................................................... 9 6.4 Flooding and Drainage ........................................................................................... 9 6.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................. 10 a. Potable Water ........................................................................................... 10 b. Electric/Communications ......................................................................... 10 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ................................................................... 10 6.7 Solid waste Disposal ............................................................................................ 10 6.8 Governmental Services ........................................................................................ 11 a. Fire & Police Services ............................................................................. 11 b. Schools ..................................................................................................... 11 6.9 Economics ............................................................................................................ 11 a. Jobs .......................................................................................................... 11 b. Housing .................................................................................................... 11 c. Property Values ........................................................................................ 11 6.10 Population ............................................................................................................ 11 6.11 Traffic Circulation ............................................................................................... 11 6.12 Heritage Resources .............................................................................................. 12 SECTION 7. SLUC CONSIDERATIONS. ............................................................................... 12 7.1 SLUC Urban District ........................................................................................... 12 SECTION 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 12 8.1 Kauai General Plan Visions and Goals ................................................................ 12 a. Goal # 1: A Sustainable Island................................................................. 12 b. Goal # 2: A Unique and Beautiful Place .................................................. 12 c. Goal # 3: A Healthy and Resilient People ............................................... 13 d. Goal # 4: An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All ......................... 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page iii 8.2 Kauai General Plan Policies to Guide Growth .................................................... 14 a. Policy # 1: Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character ........................ 14 b. Policy # 3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts ............................................................................................. 15 c. Policy # 4: Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods ..................... 15 d. Policy # 7: Build a Balanced Multimodal Transportation System .......... 15 e. Policy # 8: Protecting Kauai’s Scenic Beauty ......................................... 16 f. Policy # 9: Uphold Kaua’i as a Unique Visitor Destination Area ........... 16 g. Policy # 14: Prepare for Climate Change ................................................ 16 h. Policy # 15: Respect Native Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana ................ 17 i. Policy # 16: Protect Access to Kauai’s Treasured Places ........................ 17 8.3 Kauai General Plan Resort Use Designation ....................................................... 17 8.4 Project Compliance with Kauai General Plan Standards ..................................... 18 SECTION 9. CZO OPEN DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS. .................................................. 18 9.1 CZO Open District ............................................................................................... 18 9.2 Development’s Compliance with CZO Open District Standards ........................ 18 9.3 Sea Level Rise District Considerations ................................................................ 19 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 ............................................................................................... 20 11.3 Scenic and Open Space Resources ...................................................................... 20 11.4 Coastal Ecosystems .............................................................................................. 21 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page iv 11.11 Significant Adverse Effect to the SMA ............................................................... 25 11.12 Compliance with SMA Guidelines ...................................................................... 25 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 .............................................................................. 27 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 infra (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 6 of the Makahuena Estates subdivision, and further identified as Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021:073 (the “Property” or “Lot 6”). 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. Until the passage of Ordinance 1134 (October 2022), the Property was located within the Constraint Shoreline District (S-SH). Ordinance No. 1134 replaced the Constraint Shoreline District with the Constraint Sea Level Rise District (S-SLR). All lands subject to annual high wave flooding and passive flooding impacts projected by the Kauai Sea Level Rise Constraint District Viewer (with 3.2 feet of sea level rise anticipated to occur within this century) are included within the Constraint Sea Level Rise District. CZO §8- 12.5(b)(1). No part of the property is subject to annual high wave flooding and passive flooding impacts projected by the Kauai Sea Level Rise Constraint District Viewer (with 3.2 feet of sea level rise anticipated to occur within this century), and only the most makai sliver of the property located within the open space and public access easements discussed below are within the 1-2 ft. 3 annual high wave run up elevations as shown on the Kauai Sea Level Rise Constraint District Viewer. See, Exhibit “C-7”. Thus, Ordinance 1134 is not applicable to the project. g. Heritage Resources. As shown in 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”. 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 a small makai portion of the Property within SFHA Zone VE (EL 24). See, Exhibit “C-9”. 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 44 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”. 4 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 and Rock outcrop (rRO). See, Exhibit “C-13”. 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: 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 5 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 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. Further, there are currently houses and accessory structures being built on neighboring lots within the subdivision. 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 with a guest house (no kitchen), pool, associated driveway, walkways, and lanais. See, Exhibit “H”. Applicants will also landscape the Property. See, Exhibit “I”. 6 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 6 at 1.103 acres with a maximum lot coverage of 4,805 sf. See, Exhibit “D”. The final approved subdivision map indicates the size of Lot 6 is consistent with the aforementioned Commission approval of 1.103 acres. See, Exhibit “G-1”. The land coverage of the proposed development is as follows: Structure Size Percentage of Square footage Two-Story House 3,175 sq. ft. 6.5% Garage 864 sq. ft. 1.7% Pool 531 sq. ft. 1.1% Covered Lanai 170 sq. ft. 0.35% Misc. 50 sq. ft. .1% Total 4,790 sq. ft. 9.9% See, Exhibit “H”, at SP01. Applicant notes that according to the plans, a gravel driveway and motor court 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. 7 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 and vacation rentals (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 and open space easements which are located on the makai portion of the Makahuena Estates subdivision lots 1-9. 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 Class III zoning permit from the County of Kauai Planning Department. See, CZO §§ 8-9.4(b) and 8-8.4(c). 5.2 SMA Use Permit. Applicant is proposing to develop a two-story SFR with a guest house (no kitchen), 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 8 “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 (“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 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 subsurface 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 SHPD. Id. Initially, 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. However, three years later SHPD clarified that an archaeological monitoring plan (“AMP”) needed to be submitted for review and acceptance because significant deposits 9 and burials were found on the adjacent property (August 25, 2015; Log No. 2015.02649, Doc. No. 1508MN13). Per SHPD’s request, an AMP was prepared by Fackler and Haun. See, Exhibit L-1. SHPD accepted the AMP on March 31, 2015 (Log No. 2015.00914, Doc No. 1503MN20). On December 27, 2022, Applicant’s counsel conferred with SHPD Kauai lead archaeologist David Buckley. In their conference, Applicant’s counsel asked if the Fackler & Haun AMP could be used as the archeological monitoring plan for the instant development. Mr. Buckley said that SHPD would allow the Fackler & Haun AMP to be used for the instant development, subject to certain updated conditions that SHPD would suggest during the review process. Applicant submits that pursuant to the previously mentioned historic and archaeological studies and subject to SHPD’s review and approval, that the Project will not significantly or adversely affect historic resources. 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 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 10 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”. 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. 11 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. 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. 12 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 6 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 6. See, General Plan at 33. The development of the proposed single family dwelling unit on Lot 6 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 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 13 point. Id. at 34. Applicant’s proposed Development maintains the perpetual protection of the natural coastal ecosystem on the makai portion of Lot 6. 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 6 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. 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 14 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 6 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. 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. 15 b. Policy # 3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts. The proposed SFR on Lot 6 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 6 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 6 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 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 6 will not interfere with these opportunities and is consistent with Policy #7. 16 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 6 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 6. 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. 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 6 to the pre-approved building envelope, the proposed SFR will not be affected by any coastal hazards. Further, the makai rock wall fronting Lot 6 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. 17 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 6, 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 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. 18 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 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. 19 9.3 Sea Level Rise District Considerations. As stated supra, no part of the property is subject to annual high wave flooding and passive flooding impacts projected by the Kauai Sea Level Rise Constraint District Viewer (with 3.2 feet of sea level rise anticipated to occur within this century). See, Exhibit “C-7”. Thus, the development will not affect public health and safety due to sea level rise that increases the impacts of annual high wave run up and passive flooding. 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 20 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 with 128 features, all of which were the remnants of U.S. federal government navigation-related infrastructure in operation 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 various remnant concrete structures associated with Site Nos. 2139 and 2137, including concrete pads, guide wire anchors, and other wiring anchors were removed during the subdivision process. Thus, there are no known historic resources on the Property, and the Project is not anticipated to have any significant adverse effect to any historic resources. Nonetheless, as discussed supra, Applicant will follow the terms of the Fackler and Haun AMP during construction, and any subsequent conditions added by SHPD, so as to ensure that no adverse effects are caused by the inadvertent discovery of historic resources during the construction process. See, Exhibit L-1. 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 Bronze colored roofing materials, black fiberglass window trimmings, coral stone veneer walls, and tropical 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 6 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 approved, including the necessary drainage basin, the development will not have any significant 1 Exhibit “O-6” contains a copy of a survey of the Makahuena Estates subdivision and four (4) pictures. The survey itself indicates where pictures 1-4 were taken, and pictures 1-4 contain a computer image of the potential visual impact of the proposed development. 22 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 the Department of Land and Natural Resources – Division of Fish and Wildlife (“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 DOFAW have 23 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. 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 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 total value of the development is estimated to be $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. 27 SECTION 13. IMPACTS TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES. 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. 28 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 "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 29 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 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 6 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, December 30, 2022 . CADES SCHUTTE LLP -c :-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 6 Tax Map C-2 Lot 6 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 6 Special Management Area Map C-7 Sea Level Rise District (S-SLR) Map C-8 Kauai County General Plan South Kauai Heritage Resource Map C-9 Lot 6 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 6 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 6 House Plans (check 10%) I Lot 6 Landscape Plans J Lot 6 Construction Estimate K Lot 6 Photo Exhibit L Archaeological Inventory Survey L-1 Haun AMP 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 6 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 December 30, 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) 2-8-021:073), 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 235KKKōōōoaoloaPoPoʻʻppppipūūKKauummuualiʻʻiHHwwyyKaKalāāheoheoʻŌʻŌmamaʻʻooKukui‘ulaKukui‘ulaLLLāāā‘wawa‘wa‘iWaita ReservoirWaita ReservoirKalawai ParkKalawai ParkPo‘ipPo‘ipƻƻBeachPark Beach ParkMauhia RdMaluhia RdAA laKKKKinnooikk i RR dd ʻʻŌŌŌŌ mm aʻooooRRRddddPapPaapPPapālina Rdlina RdLLāāwwa‘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$UHD60$6HSWHPEHUPLNPEXHIBIT C-6 EXHIBIT C-7 EXHIBIT C-8 5.3 HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPS | 5.0 POLICY MAPS 247 Weliweli MĈhĈঘulepƻ LĈwaঘi Kal Ĉheo PĈঘĈ Kƃloa e Halewili RdKaumualiʻiHwyKalāheo Kalawai Park Lāwa‘i ‘Ōma‘o Kōloa Po‘ipū Po‘ipƻ Beach Park Al aK i n oi ki RdWaita Reservoir Maluhia RdKukui‘ula Papālina R dFigure 5-11 South Kaua‘i Heritage Resource Map Registered Historic Sites State"J National"J State & National"J Cultural Features Priority Public Access Points#* Ahupuaʻa Boundaries Wetlands Coral Reefs State & County Parks Preserves Planning District Boundary Fish Ponds$ò Kōloa Scenic Byway Trails Regulated Fishing Areas Major Roads Streams & Waterbodies Roads Reservoirs Traditional Cultivation Areas Open Space Acquisition Priorities Critical Habitat Threatened & Endangered SpeciesHigh DensityVery High Density Sand Dunes N 01.530.75 Miles 1 in = 2 miles ONLINE VERSIONONLINE VERSION ONLINE VERSION EXHIBIT C-8 EXHIBIT C-9 EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT C-10 EXHIBIT C-10 Page 47 11-09-17 12/09/201412/09/201412/09/ 2 0 1 4 12/09/201403/31/197219261927Poʻipū.DXD LVKRUHOLQHFKDQJH5HVRXUFH0DSSLQJ+DZDLL0D[DU.DXD LWUDQVHFWVKLVWRULFDOVKRUHOLQHFKDQJHUDWHVIW\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 12/29/2022 Page 1 of 324183202418340241836024183802418400241842024184402418460241848024185002418320241834024183602418380241840024184202418440241846024184802418500454070454090454110454130454150454170454190454210 454070 454090 454110 454130 454150 454170 454190 454210 21° 52' 11'' N 159° 26' 40'' W21° 52' 11'' N159° 26' 35'' W21° 52' 5'' N 159° 26' 40'' W21° 52' 5'' N 159° 26' 35'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 4N WGS84 0 45 90 180 270Feet 0 10 20 40 60Meters Map Scale: 1:937 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. EXHIBIT 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 17, Aug 30, 2022 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 12/29/2022 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 0.9 63.7% rRO Rock outcrop 0.5 31.8% Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/29/2022 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 DN 38' 39' 40' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 46' 46' 47' 48' 38' 39' 40' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 46' 46' 47' 48' 35' 35' 35' 36' 36' 36' 37' 37' 37' 38' 38' 38' 39' 40' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 46' 47' 48' 49' 35' 35' 35' 36' 36' 36' 37' 37' 37' 38' 38' 38' 39' 40' 41' 42' 43' 44' 45' 46' 47' 48' 49' LOT COVERAGEMAIN LEVEL:3175 SFPOOL 531 SFGARAGE 864 SFCOVERED LANAL 170 SFMISC. 50 SFTOTAL4790 SFLOT AREA = 1.103 AC 48200 SFGARAGE &GUESTHOUSEMAIN HOUSEPOOLGRAVELMOTORCOURTGRAVEL DRIVEPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKREAR SETBACK (50' FROM WALL)VIEW EASEMENTVIEW EASEMENTLAVA ROCK WALLTRAIL EASEMENTPROPERTY LINE20' SETBACKCONC. DRIVEAPRONSIDEWALK10' - 0"10' - 0"50' - 0"48' - 0"HOUSE SFMAIN LEVEL3175 SFUPPER LEVEL1907 SF (60%)GARAGE 864 SFGUEST 500 SFNORTHScaleProject numberDateAs indicated12/30/2022 10:41:00 AMSP01SITE PLAN00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1" = 10'-0"1SITE PLAN1" = 40'-0"2SITE VIEW DNUPUPFreezerRangeFreezerDryerDryerUPRefrigeratorDNKITCHENGREATROOMPOOL3-CARGARAGE& GUEST ABOVEBRIDGE & UPPER LANAI ABOVEENTRY35' - 0"23' - 0"8' - 4"13' - 0"9' - 0"12' - 4"DINING3' - 9"5' - 10"5' - 0"6' - 3"5' - 2"5' - 9"3' - 5"15' - 11"15' - 0"4' - 3"20' - 0"18' - 0"27' - 0"6' - 1"19' - 1"12' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 9"14' - 7"2' - 1"5' - 0"2' - 1"4' - 10"6' - 7"PANTRYLAUNDRYPWDRGUEST 1OUTDOORSHOWERMASTER 1OUTDOORSHOWER48' - 4"47' - 7"46' - 8"2A6211ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"12/19/2022 5:12:34 PMA1MAIN LEVEL00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HI3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVELNo.DescriptionDate DNDNDNDN6' - 7"12' - 5"14' - 0"14' - 6"25' - 0"20' - 2"MASTER 2GUEST 2BUNK ROOMOPENBELOW16' - 11"18' - 0"10' - 8"8' - 6"14' - 1"12' - 0"3' - 11"4' - 0"9' - 11"10' - 0"ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"12/19/2022 5:12:50 PMA2UPPERLEVEL00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVEL ScaleProject numberDate12/19/2022 4:37:28 PMA3VIEWS00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1AERIAL 12AERIAL 2 MAIN LEVEL48' -6"GARAGE46' -6"UPPER LEVEL59' -6"GUESTHOUSE56' -6"GUEST ROOF65' -6"3A620' BEARING68' -6"MAIN LEVEL48' -6"GARAGE46' -6"UPPER LEVEL59' -6"GUESTHOUSE56' -6"MAX ROOF78' -6"20' BEARING68' -6"ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"12/19/2022 4:37:55 PMA5ELEVATIONS& FINISHES00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATIONCORAL STONEVENNER WALLSKWP "SIERRA RUSTIC"FINSHED ENGINEERED WOODSTANDING SEAM ROOFAND ACCENT WALLSDARK WALNUTWOOD STAIN FASCIAAND COLUMNSDARK WALNUT STAINEDSOFFITS3/16" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL48' -6"UPPER LEVEL59' -6"MAX ROOF78' -6"3A620' BEARING68' -6"MAIN LEVEL48' -6"ROOF PLAN58' -6"GARAGE46' -6"UPPER LEVEL59' -6"GUESTHOUSE56' -6"MAX ROOF78' -6"20' BEARING68' -6"MAIN LEVEL48' -6"UPPER LEVEL59' -6"MAX ROOF78' -6"20' BEARING68' -6"ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"12/19/2022 4:38:02 PMA6EXTERIORELEVATIONS00MAKAHUENALOT 6Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 8460412-17-2022TMK: (4)2-8-021:073Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"3Section 1 EXHIBIT I DN49' - 0"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"48' - 6"48' - 6 "48' - 5 "43' - 0 "42' - 2 "47' - 0 "46' - 0 "48' - 3 "48' - 3 "48' - 5 "48' - 5 "48' - 6 "46' - 6 "42' - 9 "41' - 11 "43' - 1 "43' - 0 "PaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaRiRi Ri RiRiRiCmCmCmCmCmCm RiRiRiRiAY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY CrCrCrCrCrCrCrCrCrCrPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaRiRiTREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMENORONHIA EMARGINATA / MADAGASCAR OLIVEPLUMERIA OBTUSA `SINGAPORE` / SINGAPORE PLUMERIAMATURE SIZEH:15` X W:15'PLUMERIA OBTUSA 'DWARF SINGAPORE PINK' / DWARF SINGAPORE PINK PLUMERIAH:8' X W:8'VITEX TRIFOLIA / ARABIAN LILACPLANT SCHEDULEPALM TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECOCOS NUCIFERA / COCONUT PALMMATURE SIZEH:50` X W:25`DICTYOSPERMA ALBUM / PRINCESS PALMMATURE SIZEH:33` X W:14`LANDSCAPE ZONE: SIDE, REARLICUALA GRANDIS / LICUALA PALMH: 8' X W: 5'PHOENIX ROEBELENII / PYGMY DATE PALMSABAL PALMETTO / CABBAGE PALMETTOSHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMEALLAMANDA CATHARTICA / GOLDEN TRUMPETALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOEBOUGAINVILLEA X BUTTIANA 'MISS MANILA' / MISS MANILA BOUGAINVILLEACARISSA MACROCARPA 'PROSTRATA' / PROSTRATE NATAL PLUMCHRYSOBALANUS ICACO 'RED TIP' / RED TIP COCOPLUMCRINUM ASIATICUM / CRINUM LILYCRINUM AUGUSTUM 'QUEEN EMMA' / QUEEN EMMA CRINUM LILYDRACAENA REFLEXA 'SONG OF JAMAICA' / SONG OF JAMAICAGARDENIA TAITENSIS 'DOUBLE' / DOUBLE TAHITIAN GARDENIANEOREGELIA X 'SHOCKING PINK' / SHOCKING PINK BROMELIADPLUMBAGO CAPENSIS / CAPE PLUMBAGOPSEUDERANTHEMUM ATROPURPUREUM / FALSE ERANTHEMUMRHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA / INDIAN HAWTHORNSCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS / BEACH NAUPAKAAYCmCrPaRiGROUND COVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMEBACOPA MONNIERI / HERB OF GRACEFICUS MICROCARPA VAR. CRASSIFOLIA / WAX FICUSIPOMOEA PES-CAPRAE / BEACH MORNING GLORYMICROSORUM SCOLOPENDRIA / WART FERNTRADESCANTIA PALLIDA / WANDERING JEWWEDELIA TRILOBATA / CREEPING WEDELIAZOYSIA JAPONICA `EL TORO` / KOREAN GRASSROCK MULCHBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME3" DEPTH MEXICAN BEACH PEBBLEOVERALLLANDSCAPEPLANn0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LANDSCAPE DESIGN NOTE:THIS LANDSCAPE WAS DESIGNED BY ORUNDER THE DIRECTION OFCORY SHUPEA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INTHE STATE OF UTAHTHE STAMP IS UNDERKEVIN D. HORNA LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OFHAWAIILP101TRADEWINDSsummer sunrisesummer sunset winter sunrisewinter sunsetn DN49' - 0"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"48' - 6"48' - 6 "48' - 5 "43' - 0 "42' - 2 "47' - 0 "46' - 0 "48' - 3 "48' - 3 "48' - 5 "48' - 5 "48' - 6 "46' - 6 "42' - 9 "41' - 11 "43' - 1 "43' - 0 "LANDSCAPEGRADINGPLANn0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LP201LANDSCAPE DRAIN PIPE,DAYLIGHT TO RETENTION, TYP.LANDSCAPE DRAININLET, TYP.RETENTION BASIN TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALQTYNORONHIA EMARGINATA / MADAGASCAR OLIVE25 GAL. 8-12` HT1PLUMERIA OBTUSA `SINGAPORE` / SINGAPORE PLUMERIA25 GAL. 6-8` HT2MATURE SIZEH:15` X W:15'PLUMERIA OBTUSA 'DWARF SINGAPORE PINK' / DWARF SINGAPORE PINK PLUMERIA25 GAL. 6-8` HT9H:8' X W:8'VITEX TRIFOLIA / ARABIAN LILAC25 GAL. 8-12` HT2PALM TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALQTYCOCOS NUCIFERA / COCONUT PALM50 GAL. 20-25` HT1MATURE SIZEH:50` X W:25`DICTYOSPERMA ALBUM / PRINCESS PALM50 GAL. 8-12` HT3MATURE SIZEH:33` X W:14`LANDSCAPE ZONE: SIDE, REARLICUALA GRANDIS / LICUALA PALM10 GAL.7H: 8' X W: 5'PHOENIX ROEBELENII / PYGMY DATE PALM10 GAL. 6` HT MIN.11SABAL PALMETTO / CABBAGE PALMETTO25 GAL. 12-15` HT2SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTALLAMANDA CATHARTICA / GOLDEN TRUMPET5 GAL4ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE5 GAL16BOUGAINVILLEA X BUTTIANA 'MISS MANILA' / MISS MANILA BOUGAINVILLEA5 GAL11CARISSA MACROCARPA 'PROSTRATA' / PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM5 GAL6CHRYSOBALANUS ICACO 'RED TIP' / RED TIP COCOPLUM5 GAL10CRINUM ASIATICUM / CRINUM LILY5 GAL18CRINUM AUGUSTUM 'QUEEN EMMA' / QUEEN EMMA CRINUM LILY5 GAL16DRACAENA REFLEXA 'SONG OF JAMAICA' / SONG OF JAMAICA5 GAL6GARDENIA TAITENSIS 'DOUBLE' / DOUBLE TAHITIAN GARDENIA5 GAL18NEOREGELIA X 'SHOCKING PINK' / SHOCKING PINK BROMELIAD5 GAL22PLUMBAGO CAPENSIS / CAPE PLUMBAGO5 GAL26PSEUDERANTHEMUM ATROPURPUREUM / FALSE ERANTHEMUM5 GAL37RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA / INDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL12SCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS / BEACH NAUPAKA5 GAL54AYCmCrPaRiPLANT SCHEDULEGROUND COVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTSPACINGBACOPA MONNIERI / HERB OF GRACE1 GAL212 SFFICUS MICROCARPA VAR. CRASSIFOLIA / WAX FICUS1 GAL36" o.c. 49IPOMOEA PES-CAPRAE / BEACH MORNING GLORY1 GAL24" o.c. 289MICROSORUM SCOLOPENDRIA / WART FERN1 GAL24" o.c. 170TRADESCANTIA PALLIDA / WANDERING JEW1 GAL14" o.c. 153WEDELIA TRILOBATA / CREEPING WEDELIA1 GAL24" o.c. 191ZOYSIA JAPONICA `EL TORO` / KOREAN GRASSSOD10,555 SFROCK MULCHBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTSPACING3" DEPTH MEXICAN BEACH PEBBLE3" DEPTH278 SFOVERALLLANDSCAPEPLANDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LP501LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST CITY AND STATESTANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND SHALL ADHERE TO THE MAKAHU'ENA ESTATES DESIGN GUIDELINES.2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GROWN IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THELOCALITY OF THIS WORK AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK,ANSI Z60.1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDE TREES OF NORMAL GROWTH AND UNIFORMHEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO SPECIES, WITH STRAIGHT TRUNKS AND WELL DEVELOPED LEADERS,LATERALS, AND ROOTS.3. EXISTING UTILITIES, EASEMENTS, AND STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE INACCORDANCE WITH AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION,SIZE, TYPE, AND STRUCTURES TO BE ENCOUNTERED ON THE PROJECT PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION ANDCONSTRUCTION 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 TO LEGALLY AND RESPONSIBLY COMPLETE THE WORK.5. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL, DISPOSAL, OR RELOCATION OF ALLOBSTRUCTIONS AND DEBRIS WITHIN THE DELINEATED CONSTRUCTION AREA PRIOR TO STARTING NEWCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ANYDEBRIS RESULTING FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION.6. DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS OR TO ANY PORTION OF THE PROJECT'S SURROUNDINGAREA DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.7. ALL COMPACTED AREAS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PROPOSED LANDSCAPEAREAS SHALL BE SCARIFIED AND LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE ANDIRRIGATION 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 APPROVAL MAY RESULT IN RE-WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONALCOST TO THE OWNER.10. ALL AREAS WITHIN AND AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. POSITIVEDRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO DIRECT STORMWATER AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES.11. ALL CLARIFICATIONS OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE SITE SHALL BEBROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK.12. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM (SEEIRRIGATION PLAN).13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 2" TOP DRESSING OF GRAVEL MULCH AS APPROVED BY OWNER.TREES WITHIN LAWN AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A MIN. 5' DIA. ORGANIC MULCH RING.14. ALL LAWN AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A MIN. 4" DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVEA MIN. 6" DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. CONTRACTOR MAY USE AVAILABLE EXISTING TOPSOIL ON SITE IFSUITABLE. IF NOT SUITABLE OR SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY QUANTITY, THECONTRACTOR SHALL IMPORT ADDITIONAL TOPSOIL.15. LANDSCAPE EDGER: BENDA BOARD (BROWN COLOR) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERRECOMMENDATIONS.TREE PLANTING - FLEX STRAPNOT TO SCALE4' ABOVE GRADE DIAMETER SHALL BE2 TIMES SIZE OF ROOTBALLJAIN FLEXSTRAP TREE TIE ORAPPROVED EQUALSTAKE DECIDUOUS TREES WITH 2 - 2"DIA. LODGE POLE PINE STAKES AT 180DEGREES. FOR TREES LARGER THAN 2"CALIPER OR IN WINDY CONDITIONS,STAKE WITH 3 - 2" DIA. LODGE POLEPINE STAKES AT 120 DEGREES. EMBEDMIN. 3' INTO GROUND. DRIVE FIRMLYINTO SUBGRADE. REMOVE STAKESAFTER ONE YEAR.FINISH GRADESOIL - SUBGRADEPROVIDE MIN. 1'-6" RADIUS MULCH(4" DEPTH) COLLAR WHEN TREESARE PLANTED IN SOD. DO NOTPLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITHTREE TRUNK.PREPARED BACKFILL MIX - 30%EXISTING SOIL, 50% LOAMYTOPSOIL, AND 20% CLEAN SAND.WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIRPOCKETS. BRING LEVEL TO FINISHGRADE. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.ROOTBALL- PLANT ONUNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL.REMOVE ALL WIRE, ENTIREBASKET, NYLON TIES, TWINE,ROPE, AND 2/3 BURLAP.NATIVE SOILPLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOTBALLIS 2" ABOVE FINISHED GRADESUCH THAT THE TRUNK FLARE ISVISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THEROOTBALL. DO NOT COVER THETOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH 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 TREETIE - ONE CONTINUOUSSTRAP.2" DIA.LODGEPOLESTAKE PINESTAKES, TYP.2" DIA. LODGEPOLE STAKEPINE STAKES, TYP.ROOFING NAILROOFING NAIL2SHRUB DETAILNOT TO SCALENOTES:1. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" ABOVEFINISHED GRADEMULCH (3" DEPTH)FORM SAUCER -NATIVE AREASONLYSCARIFY SIDES OFPLANTING PITUNEXCAVATED ORCOMPACTEDBACKFILL BELOWROOTBALL TO BE1/2 DEPTH OFROOTBALL (6" MIN).EXISTING SOILBACKFILL MIX - 30%EXISTING SOIL,50% LOAMYTOPSOIL, AND 20%CLEAN SAND.WATER AND TAMPTO REMOVE AIRPOCKETS. BRINGLEVEL TO FINISHGRADE.REMOVE STRING &BURLAP FROM TOP2/3 OF BALL WHENB&B.MIN. 2X BALL DIA.3 DN49' - 0"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"48' - 6"48' - 6 "48' - 5 "43' - 0 "42' - 2 "47' - 0 "46' - 0 "48' - 3 "48' - 3 "48' - 5 "48' - 5 "48' - 6 "46' - 6 "42' - 9 "41' - 11 "43' - 1 "43' - 0 "POCBFDN49' - 0"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"46' - 6"48' - 6"48' - 6 "48' - 5 "43' - 0 "42' - 2 "47' - 0 "46' - 0 "48' - 3 "48' - 3 "48' - 5 "48' - 5 "48' - 6 "46' - 6 "42' - 9 "41' - 11 "43' - 1 "43' - 0 "SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONRAIN 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.RAIN 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.RAIN 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.RAIN 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.RAIN 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.SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/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)FHTQ8888Q T H F01010101QT H TT TQ F212121212121Q T H TT TQ F51515151515108HE-VAN 12HE-VAN10HE-VAN 15HE-VAN8012151IRRIGATION SCHEDULE2.0 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 40BFCRIRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC SCHEDULE 40PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40SIZE: TWICE (2X) DIAMETER OF PIPE WITHIN, MIN. 4". LIMITONE PIPE PER SLEEVEValve NumberValve FlowValve SizeValve Callout###"OVERALLIRRIGATIONPLANn0 10520 30Scale: 1" = 10'-0"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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LANDSCAPE DESIGN NOTE:THIS LANDSCAPE WAS DESIGNED BY ORUNDER THE DIRECTION OFCORY SHUPEA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INTHE STATE OF UTAHTHE STAMP IS UNDERKEVIN D. HORNA LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OFHAWAIILI101POP UP SPRAY IRRIGATION, TYP.DRIP IRRIGATION, TYP.IRRIGATION MAINLINE, TYP. IRRIGATIONNOTES &DETAILSDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LI5011. 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.18. CONTRACTOR IS REMINDED THAT THE 10 FT WIDE STREET PARKWAYFRONTING THEIR LOT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THAT SPECIFIC LOTSPRIVATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MUST BE IRRIGATED AND MAINTAINEDAS PART OF THE LOT LANDSCAPING. THEREFORE, THE ASSOCIATION'SEXISTING NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN WILL SIMPLY BECOME A "PASSTHROUGH" SYSTEM SERVING TO IRRIGATE OTHER AREAS ON EITHERSIDE OF THE LOT.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 MOUNT132654 IRRIGATIONDETAILSDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDRD11.28.2022CS22-240MAKAHUENA LOT 6 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LI502DFDFSCALE: 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 6 1645 Pee rd Koloa, HI 96756 TOTAL:3,700,300.00 Item Description Total Soft Costs 236,000.00 Plans and Engineering 60,200.00 Permits and Fees 23,100.00 Overhead Office work and management.115,700.00 Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.37,000.00 Hard Costs 3,464,300.00 GRADING & BACKFILL Post & Beam 95,700.00 SEPTIC & PERCULATION 92,600.00 CONCRETE WORK Foundation, retaining walls, flatwork 138,000.00 FRAMING MAT'LS 230,000.00 FRAMING LABOR 212,900.00 PLUMBING 97,200.00 PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 29,600.00 ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 103,700.00 ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 29,600.00 HVAC 87,900.00 ROOFING Standing seam 115,700.00 SIDING MAT'LS 55,500.00 EXTERIOR DOORS Multi‐slides, and hinged doors 171,200.00 INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 24,100.00 WINDOWS 88,900.00 INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 85,200.00 RAILING 41,700.00 FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 82,400.00 FINISH CARPENTRY 203,600.00 CABINETS Kitchen, laundry, bathrooms 74,100.00 COUNTERTOPS Quartzite 41,700.00 PAINT 879,400.00 GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.32,400.00 WINDOW COVERINGS 27,800.00 GUTTERS 27,800.00 APPLIANCES Stainless Steel 55,500.00 LANDSCAPE 106,400.00 POOL Infinity Edge and spa 138,300.00 FENCE & STONEWORK 37,000.00 DUMPSTER 9,300.00 CONSTRUCTION TOILET 3,700.00 SITE CLEANUP 9,300.00 UTILITIES 3,700.00 MISC SHIPPING 27,800.00 MAT'L STORAGE 4,600.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Main Residence Floor Areas: Living Space 5,082 SF/ Walks & Lanais 220 SF/ Pool 561 SF EXHIBIT J Lot 6 1645 Pee rd Koloa, HI 96756 TOTAL:485,860.00 Item Description Total Soft Costs 34,400.00 Plans and Engineering 8,800.00 Permits and Fees 3,400.00 Overhead Office work and management.16,800.00 Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.5,400.00 Hard Costs 468,000.00 SEPTIC & PERCULATION 13,400.00 FRAMING MAT'LS 36,900.00 FRAMING LABOR 30,800.00 PLUMBING 14,100.00 PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 4,300.00 ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 15,000.00 ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 4,300.00 HVAC 12,800.00 ROOFING Standing seam and membrane 16,800.00 SIDING MAT'LS 8,100.00 EXTERIOR DOORS multi‐slides and hinged doors 24,800.00 INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 3,500.00 WINDOWS 12,900.00 GARAGE DOORS 15,500.00 INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 12,400.00 RAILING 6,100.00 FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 12,000.00 FINISH CARPENTRY 29,500.00 CABINETS kitchenette & bathrooms 10,800.00 COUNTERTOPS Quartzite 6,100.00 PAINT 127,300.00 GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.4,700.00 WINDOW COVERINGS 4,100.00 GUTTERS 4,100.00 APPLIANCES Stainless Steel 8,100.00 LANDSCAPE 15,400.00 FENCE & STONEWORK 5,400.00 DUMPSTER 1,400.00 CONSTRUCTION TOILET 600.00 SITE CLEANUP 1,400.00 UTILITIES 600.00 MISC SHIPPING 4,100.00 MAT'L STORAGE 700.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Ohana Garage 864 SF/ Guest House 500 SF 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 L-1 1096-052815 FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN MAKAHUʻENA POINT RESIDENTIAL LOTS WELIWELI AHUPUA‘A KOLOA DISTRICT KAUAʻI ISLAND TMK: (4) 2-8-021: 041 and 044–068 Haun & Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services 73-1168 Kahuna A‘o Road, Kailua-Kona HI 96740 Phone: 808-325-2402 Fax: 808-325-1520 EXHIBIT L-1 Report 1096-052815 FINAL Archaeological Monitoring Plan Makahuʻena Point Residential Lots Weliweli Ahupua‘a Koloa District Kauaʻi Island TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041 and 044–068 Prepared by: Shawn G. Fackler, M.A. and Alan E. Haun, Ph.D. Prepared for: CIRI Land Development Company 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99503 January 2015 Revised May 2015 Haun & Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services 73-1168 Kahuna A‘o Road, Kailua-Kona HI 96740 Phone: 808-325-2402 Fax: 808-325-1520 TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | L Management Summary Project Proponent: This Archaeological Monitoring Plan was prepared at the request of CIRI Land Development Company. Project Description: Monitoring of ground-altering construction activities during development of a 13.078- acre parcel into ten residential lots, 50-foot-wide road, 3-foot-high rock retention wall, and easement for public parking and pedestrian access. Project Location: TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041 and 044–068, Poʻipu, Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Koloa District, Kauaʻi Island. Project Acreage: 13.078 acres Previous Sites: Eighteen sites identified as remnants of the U.S. Coast Guard Long Range Navigation (LORAN) station that operated from 1951 to 1979. The 18 sites are comprised of 128 features significant solely under Hawaii Register of Historic Places (HRHP) Criterion "d" for their information content. The State Historic Preservation Division previously determined that the sites have been adequately documented and require "no further work or preservation". The sites include State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) 50-30-10-2130 through -2147. Plan Proposal: The sites within the project area have been adequately documented and no further work or preservation is recommended; however, the State Historic Preservation Division concurred with the recommendation 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. This plan proposes to provide qualified archaeological monitoring for ground-altering activities in the project area. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | LL Contents Management Summary ...................................................................................................................... i Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Project Area Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Development ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Cultural Resources Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of Monitoring............................................................................................................................................... 8 Archaeological Monitoring Provisions .................................................................................................8 Anticipated Historic Properties.................................................................................................................................. 8 Archaeological Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Coordination with Development Partners ................................................................................................................. 9 Monitoring Objectives and Procedures ............................................................................................. 10 Documentation Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10 Treatment of Human Remains ................................................................................................................................ 11 Authority .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Coordination ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Laboratory and Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Schedule of Report Preparation .............................................................................................................................. 12 Curation ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 References ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix A –SHPD Letter ................................................................................................................. 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Portion of U.S. Geological Survey 1999 Kaloa 7.5' Quadrangle showing project area. .................................. 2 Figure 2. TMK (4) 2-8-21, highlighting project. .............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Satellite imagery of project area (Google Earth: imagery date December 16, 2013). .................................... 4 Figure 4. Makahuena Point preliminary lot layout and concept plan. .......................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Archaeological site map (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa 2011). ......................................................................... 7 List of Tables Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological sites in project area................................................................................. 6 TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Introduction Haun & Associates prepared this Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) at the request of CIRI Land Development Company for residential development of the proposed Makahuʻena Point subdivision in Poʻipu, Weliweli Ahupuaʻa, Koloa District, Kauaʻi Island (Figure 1). Work will be confined to Tax Map Key (TMK): (4) 2-8-021: 041 and 044–068 (Figure 2). This plan was prepared in accordance with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) standards for archaeological monitoring and in compliance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-279. Project Area Environment The project area is an irregularly shaped approximately 13-acre area at at Makahuena Point bordered by resort developments to the west (Makahuena at Po‘ipū) and northeast (The Point at Po‘ipū). The project area is accessed by Pe‘e Road running parallel to its northern boundary. The project area varies in elevation from approximately 10 to 64 feet above mean sea level. Rainfall in the project area vicinity ranges from 30–40 inches per year (Juvik and Juvik 1998:56). A large oval-shaped collapsed crater that encompasses approximately two acres is in the western portion of the project area. This depression is 138 meters long (north-northwest by south-southeast), 82 meters wide and approximately 10 meters deep. Additionally, the modern Makahuena Point Light Station is located on the southern coastal portion of the project area, confined within TMK: (4) 2-8- 021:043. The soil in the parcel is comprised of Koloa stony-silty-clay on 15–25 percent slopes with a medium runoff potential and a moderate-to-severe erosion hazard. It developed from weathered igneous rock reaching to depths up to 20 inches over pahoehoe lava 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, an area of exposed bedrock that covers more than 90 percent of surface (Foote et al. 1972:119). The vegetation throughout the parcel primarily consists of beach naupaka (Scaevola sericea Vahl). Vegetation in the collapsed crater consists of koa haole (Leucaena glauca), bougainvillea (Boerhavia spectabilis Willd.), panini cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica), plumeria (Plumeria acuminata Ait.), lantana (Lantana camara L.) and various grasses and vines. Lastly, a line of ironwood trees (Casuarine equisetifolia L.) grows along the northern project boundary paralleling Pe‘e Road. Project Development Project development involves consolidating the existing 25+ pre-existing lots of record and subdividing the project area to create ten residential lots, a rock retaining wall, open space, public access and public parking areas (Figure 4). TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Figure 1. Portion of U.S. Geological Survey 1999 Kaloa 7.5' Quadrangle showing project area. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Figure 2. TMK (4) 2-8-21, highlighting project. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Figure 3. Satellite imagery of project area (Google Earth: imagery date December 16, 2013). TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Figure 4. Makahuena Point preliminary lot layout and concept plan. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Cultural Resources Summary Haun & Associates previously performed and archaeological inventory survey (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa 2011) and cultural impact assessment (Kailihiwa and Haun 2011) for the project area. The archaeological survey documented 18 sites designated State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) 50-30- 10-2130 through -2147 that are comprised of 128 features—all remnants of the U.S. Coast Guard Long Range Navigation (LORAN) station that operated from 1951 to 1979 (Table 1, Figure 5). The 128 features consist of 98 concrete pads, seven concrete blocks, four artifact scatters, four posts, three terraces, three slabs, two paths, two walls, and one ditch, road, staircase, utility box, and walled slab. Functions consist of utility, foundation, marker, transportation, boundary, disposal, recreation, soil retention, water diversion, and indeterminate functions. All 18 sites were assessed significant solely under Hawaii Register of Historic Places (HRHP) Criterion "d" for their information content and have yielded information important for historical research. Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological sites in project area. SIHP 50-30-10-Formal Type Function No. of Features Significance Criterion 2130 Complex Foundation, Transportation, Utility, Boundary, Marker, Water division, and Indeterminate 15 "d" 2131 Complex Foundation and Indeterminate 6 "d" 2132 Complex Foundation 2 "d" 2133 Complex Foundation 3 "d" 2134 Concrete Post Foundation 1 "d" 2135 Complex Foundation, Marker, Indeterminate 4 "d" 2136 Complex Foundation 2 "d" 2137 Complex Foundation 2 "d" 2138 Artifact Scatter Foundation 1 "d" 2139 Complex Foundation and Utility 4 "d" 2140 Concrete Block Foundation 1 "d" 2141 Concrete Pad Foundation 1 "d" 2142 Concrete Pad Foundation 1 "d" 2143 Complex Foundation, Utility, and Soil retention 3 "d" 2144 Complex Foundation and Marker 5 "d" 2145 Complex Foundation 2 "d" 2146 Complex Foundation 2 "d" 2147 Complex Utility 73 "d" Subsurface testing consisting of twenty 50×50-centimeter test units revealed 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 while one unit contained a sand lens that yielded a small quantity of marine shell and a bird bone. Extensive subsurface testing did not identify subsurface cultural deposits or burials. All 18 sites have been adequately documented and no further work or preservation was recommended; however, archaeological monitoring was recommended during initial site work for any future development- related land disturbance because significant deposits and sand dune burials were found in the vicinity (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa 2011:69). TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Figure 5. Archaeological site map (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa 2011). TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | In addition to the archaeological inventory survey, the cultural impact assessment (CIA) relied upon consultation with knowledgeable individuals and archival research that focused on historical documents, previous archaeological studies, and previous cultural studies prepared for lands inland of the project area (Kailihiwa and Haun 2011). The CIA revealed there are no valued cultural or natural resources within the study area, traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights associated with marine subsistence are practiced along the shoreline. Tourists and residents use the project area recreationally and local fishermen continue to gather and catch a variety of fish and marine invertebrate species for subsistence. The CIA concluded that, "Future development of the property has the potential to adversely affect the exercise of these traditional practices. This adverse effect can be mitigated by including explicit plans to ensure, and potentially enhance access to the shoreline for traditional subsistence-related marine exploitation" (Kailihiwa and Haun 2011:26). Purpose of Monitoring In a letter, SHPD determined that the sites were adequately documented and agreed with the significance assessments and treatment recommendations (LOG NO: 2011.1830, DOC NO: 1208SL181; Appendix A). Because known burials are in the vicinity, archaeological monitoring is required. The purpose of this Archaeological Monitoring Plan is to guide monitoring procedures during construction activities that have the potential to uncover cultural resources or human remains, pursuant to HAR §13- 279. Archaeological Monitoring Provisions Archaeological monitoring is a mitigation measure that facilitates the proper treatment of undetected significant cultural resources. An AMP is prudent for the implementation of archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing construction activities of the proposed subdivision, ensuring identification and appropriate treatment of cultural resources encountered during parcel development pursuant to HAR §13-279. Anticipated Historic Properties As previously stated, the 18 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 was recommended that any future development-related land disturbance be archaeologically monitored during the initial site work because significant deposits and sand dune burials (Haun, Henry, and Kailihiwa 2011:13) were encountered on an adjacent property. Archaeological Fieldwork On-site archaeological monitoring is recommended for all construction activities that have the potential to encounter previously unidentified significant cultural resources. Portions of the parcel will undergo ground-disturbing activities that include grubbing, grading, and subsurface excavation or landscaping when such excavation is not entirely confined to fill. During ground-disturbing activities, an archaeological monitor will be present to observe each activity and if multiple activities are taking place TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | concurrently, additional monitors will be present when a single individual cannot observe simultaneous work in divergent locations. If a monitor is not present, the activities should not be performed. Archaeological monitors have the authority to suspend all construction work near inadvertent discoveries to complete the documentation process and consult with SHPD regarding discovery treatment. Notification of the discovery shall include the appropriate construction supervisor(s), owners, or on-site representative(s) for the project proponent, and the permitted archaeologist. Inadvertent discoveries of previously undocumented sites will necessitate archaeological examination and assessment. SHPD personnel must be contacted immediately and advised of the circumstances of the find, its location, and the presence or absence of associated cultural resources. If cultural resources or human remains are present, SHPD will resolve their treatment in accordance with HAR §13-280 Rules Governing General Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Historic Properties During a Project Covered by the Historic Preservation Review Process or with HAR §13-300-40 Rules of Practice and Procedure Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains. Placement of temporary construction buffer zones will be determined in consultation with SHPD. Inadvertent discovery of human remains and associated cultural material will be preserved in place until provisions of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-43.6 Inadvertent Discovery of Burial Sites and HAR §3-300-40 are met. No archaeological work, beyond obtaining location and descriptive information, will be conducted in the event that human remains are discovered during construction, unless specifically requested by SHPD. All associated temporary construction buffer zones, back dirt screening, excavation or targeted testing will be determined in consultation with SHPD. Penalties for cultural resources violations can be severe and are listed in HRS §6E-11. Coordination with Development Partners Prior to the initiation of any construction activity in the parcel, the archaeological monitor is required to brief the construction team and representatives of the project proponent to ensure that all project participants understand the implementation procedures of this plan. The archaeologist will advise personnel of the monitor’s responsibilities to document construction activities, documentation requirements that ensue if significant cultural remains are identified, and the ability to temporarily stop construction to investigate potential cultural remains. The archaeologist will stress that any cultural material (e.g., food debris such as shells and bones, artifacts such as basalt tools and historic bottles, and human remains) encountered during development are the property of the landowner and may not be removed by anyone except the archaeologist. All participants will be provided a cell phone contact number for the archaeological monitor in the event that cultural material is observed while construction is in progress. Lastly, the archaeologist will describe the potential to encounter undocumented sites, potential site types, extreme sensitivity regarding human remains in a construction context, and inadvertent discovery procedures. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Monitoring Objectives and Procedures The primary objective of this plan is to prevent adverse effects to undocumented significant sites. This will be accomplished by having one or more archaeologists on location whenever construction activities are undertaken that have the potential to encounter previously unidentified sites. Construction activities that will require the presence of an archaeological monitor include vegetation clearing, grubbing, and any subsurface excavation associated with the development of the project area. Monitoring procedures will consist of: xNotifying the SHPD Kauaʻi office via email at the onset and completion of monitoring. xExplicitly notifying construction supervisors of the purpose of archaeological monitoring and the archaeologist’s authority. xInforming personnel of procedures for inadvertent discovery of human remains and/or cultural resources. Notifications will be provided during a pre-construction briefing and in periodic briefings during construction, if warranted. xEnsuring the project proponent and SHPD personnel are notified upon discovery of any potentially significant cultural resources in order to consult with SHPD prior to determining the significance of such resources. SHPD will determine the nature and extent of any necessary data recovery or preservation measures. xAnalyzing field data and collected materials. xPreparing an archaeological monitoring report and documenting previously undetected cultural resources. The report will meet the SHPD requirements and will be submitted for review within 180 days of the completion of monitoring. Documentation Methodology Archaeological monitoring personnel will normally consist of one qualified archaeologist for every piece of heavy equipment. An archaeologist will be present whenever any mechanical ground disturbance is in progress that has the potential to encounter previously unidentified cultural remains. The archaeologist will monitor such work within the project area to identify any undocumented cultural remains. Additional archaeologists will be mobilized if the scale of documentation increases and/or data recovery is warranted. If cultural remains are identified during the course of monitoring, an archaeologist will document and collect the remains, if appropriate. Human remains will be covered and left in place. When subsurface cultural remains are exposed during excavation, all mechanical activity in the immediate vicinity will cease. The extent and characteristics of the discovery will be determined by hand excavation, if appropriate. Initial documentation procedures will include plan-view mapping and profiling, photographing (except burials), detailed written descriptions, circumstances of discovery, and collection of the cultural resource. Significance of the subsurface material will be evaluated based on criteria outlined in HAR §13-284-6 and in consultation with SHPD. If potentially significant remains are encountered, the archaeologist will consult with SHPD. Based on the nature and extent of the find, SHPD will determine if any additional data recovery is needed beyond TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | location and descriptive documentation. Potentially, field methods could include hand excavating to bedrock and screening sediment through a 1/8-inch mesh, completion of stratigraphic layer and level excavation forms, collection of portable remains in paper bags labeled with provenience information, recovery of charcoal samples, preparing section drawings depicting stratigraphy, and/or additional photo-documentation. Recovered cultural remains and field records will be transported from the field for analysis. A report on data recovered for the project will comply with the requirements established by the SHPD for reporting archaeological monitoring results. Treatment of Human Remains If human remains are inadvertently discovered during construction, all work in the vicinity of the find will cease and the proper authorities, including the project proponent, SHPD, and potentially the county coroner, will be contacted immediately. Procedures will follow the HRS §6E-43. Construction near the remains may not resume until the protocols described under HAR Sec 13-300-40 have been completed." Authority The archaeologist conducting the monitoring has the authority to suspend construction in the immediate area of the find in order to carry out the plan. Construction near the find may not proceed until the archaeologist has completed all documentation requirements and has notified the project proponent and construction supervisor that work in the area may proceed. Coordination Haun & Associates personnel will schedule a meeting between the archaeological monitor and construction crew to reiterate the objectives, stipulations, and requirements of this AMP. The meeting will be held prior to initiation of construction activities and will be repeated, if necessary, as personnel changes dictate. Laboratory and Analysis Proposed laboratory methods consist of qualitative and quantitative analysis of all recovered artifacts and food remains. This includes tabulated by provenience (i.e., by feature, unit, layer, and level) all cultural material and analyzing artifacts to determine morphological type (i.e., using standard typological classifications), condition/degree of completion, material, modifications, and their metric measurements. The project accession record will be included in the final report. If lithics are present, then their analysis will use standard terminology to describe the assemblage, use-wear patterns, and inferred tool function. Food remains will be identified to the family level, or to the genus and species level when possible. Quantitative analysis will include a determination of total weight and total number of identified fragments (TNF) per taxon. Assemblages will be identified using standard bibliographic references and pertinent faunal reference collections. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Charcoal samples will be submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for dating. Single fragments of charcoal will be chosen for analysis to minimize the potential of analyzing fragments of various ages. Beta Analytic data sheet calibrations will be provided in the final report. Geomorphological context will be documented for all subsurface cultural deposits. Geomorphological analysis will use standard terminology to describe sediments, soils and contextual processes. Munsell soil color notations, texture, and inclusion content will be described for each soil layer. Schedule of Report Preparation An acceptable report documenting the findings of the monitoring activities will be prepared and submitted to SHPD for review 180 days following completion of the archaeological monitoring. Curation All recovered materials from the monitoring project, except for any human burial associated findings, will be temporarily curated at the archaeological monitoring company. Following completion and acceptance of the monitoring report, arrangements for permanent curation will be arranged in consultation with SHPD. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | References 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. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University Hawai‘i Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Haun, A.E., D. Henry, S. H. Kailihiwa 2011 Archaeological Inventory Survey, TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041, Makahuena Point, Weliweli Ahupuaʻa, Koloa District, Island of Kauaʻi. Report 810-111312. Haun & Associates, Kailua-Kona. Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik (editors) 1998 Atlas of Hawaii, Third Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kailihiwa, S.H. and A.E. Haun 2011 Cultural Impact Assessment, TMK: (4) 2-8-021:041, Makahuena Point, Weliweli Ahupuaʻa, Koloa District, Island of Kauaʻi. Report 811-062411. Haun & Associates, Kailua-Kona. TMK:(4) 2-8-021:041and 044–068 Report No.1096-052815 Haun & Associates | Appendix A –SHPD Letter 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 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 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 Bougainvillea cult . bougainvillea Om u POLYGONACEAE Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. sea-grape Om R 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 Nat R Nat AA Nat u Nat R1 lnd A 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. 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. Check One: Paper Plans Electronic Plans DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Zoning Intake By: Use Variance Intake Date: SMA PDU Acceptance Date/By: TOTAL FEE: Additional Fees: Receipt Number Building Permit No. Associated Permits (e.g. SSD) Complete Information Below Tax Map Key Number Condominium Number Applicant Name(s) Property Address Mailing Address Parcel Area Contact Phone Zoning Designation Contact Email (if applicable) Applicant Declarations (incorrect responses may slow your permit review) Please place an “X” under Yes or No under the following: YES NO Staff Verification 1 Is this property located in the Special Management Area (SMA)? 2 Is this property part of a Condominium Property Regime (CPR)? 3 Is this property within 500 feet of the shoreline? 4 Is this property within the Agriculture Zoning District? 5 Is there a structure on the property that is 50 years old or older? 6 Do you have an Additional Dwelling Unit Certificate? 7 Is this a permit for an after-the-fact construction or activity? 8 I hold at least a 100% property interest in the property. 9 Are you an agent for the property owner? 10 Has a similar application been previously denied? 11 Is this an application for an agriculture structure under 200 square feet 12 Are there known burials on the site? 13 Are you using water not provided by a domestic water system? 14 Does existing grade under building footprint change by 2’ or more in any direction? 15 The proposed residential unit is a Multi-Family Dwelling Unit? 16 Is this a conversion of a legally existing single-family dwelling unit into a multi- family two dwelling unit? 17 Is this structure a guest house? 18 Does guest house contain a kitchen? This application shall be fil led 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. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STANDARD ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION One (1) original; If providing plans, five (5) 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. Permitting fees may be made via cash or check. All checks shall be made out to: 'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH X (4)2-8-021-069 n/a Makahuena-Preferred A LLC et al. n/a P.O. Box 1205 Lihue, HI 96766 1.027 acres (808) 521-9297 Open mtrask@cades.com x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x F.2.c. April 11, 2023 COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT I. Part A APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Address: Phone: Applicant’s Status: (Check one) 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 provide a Letter of Authorization. Authorized Agent Attach Letter of Authorization Contact Person: Address: Phone: Email: PROJECT INFORMATION (attach additional sheets if necessary) Site Address: Tax Map Key: Lot Area: State Land Use District: County Zoning: General Plan Designation: Nature of Development: * 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: (Estimate Attached) Date of Application: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 2 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 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. 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. 5. Project Assessment: a. Description of the area and environment involved including flora and fauna, and other features; b. Description of the existing land uses of the project site and surrounding areas; 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 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: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 3 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO ii. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion: YES NO iii. Conflicts with the County’s or the State’s long-term environmental policies or goals; Discussion: YES NO iv. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; Discussion: YES NO v. Substantially affects the economics or social welfare and activities or the community, County or State; Discussion: YES NO vi. In itself has no significant adverse effect but cumulatively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; Discussion: YES NO vii. Substantially affect a rare threatened, or endangered species of animal or plant, or its habitat; Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 4 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO viii. Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise levels; or Discussion: YES NO ix. Affects an environmentally sensitive area, such as flood plain, shoreline, tsunami zone, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water or coastal water; Discussion: YES NO x. May have a major effect on the quality of the environment or affect the economic or social welfare of the area; and Discussion: YES NO xi. Would possibly be contrary to the policies and guidelines of the Rules and Regulations, the County’s General Plan, Development Plans, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Discussion: d. Evaluation of the proposed development relative to the objective and policies as contained in Chapter 205A, HRS; and Section 3.0 of the Special Management Area (SMA) Rules and Regulations: (complete following questionnaire) RECREATIONAL RESOURCES: Objective Provide coastal recreation opportunities accessible to the public. 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. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 5 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 1. Will the proposed development adversely affect coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas? Discussion: YES NO 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: YES NO 3. Is the project site near a State or County Park? Discussion: YES NO 4. Will the proposed development affect an existing public access to or along the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 5. Will the proposed development provide public access to and/or along the shoreline? Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 6 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 6. Will the proposed development encourage expanded recreational use of County, State, or federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and waters having recreational value? Discussion: YES NO 7. Will the development generate point or non-point sources of pollution that will affect recreation value of coastal area? Discussion: HISTORICAL RESOURCES: Objective 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. YES NO 1. Is the project site within a Federal, State and/or County designated historical/cultural district? Discussion: YES NO 2. Is the project site listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places? Discussion: YES NO 3. Does the project site include land(s) which have not been previously surveyed by an archaeologist? COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 7 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 Discussion: YES NO 4. 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: YES NO 5. Has any site survey revealed any information on historic or archaeological resources? (Please provide a copy or reference of survey) Discussion: YES NO 6. Is the project site within or near a Hawaiian fishpond? Discussion: YES NO 7. Is the project located within or near a historic settlement area? (Cemeteries, burials, heiaus, etc.) Discussion: SCENIC & OPEN SPACE RESOURCES: Objective 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. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 8 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 1. Does the project site abut or affect a valued scenic resources or landmark within the SMA? Discussion: YES NO 2. Does the proposed development affect existing shoreline open space and scenic resources? Discussion: YES NO 3. Does the proposed development involve alteration to natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 4. Is the project compatible with the visual environment? Discussion: YES NO 5. Does the proposed action involve the construction of structures visible between the nearest coastal roadway and the shoreline? Discussion: YES NO 6. Is the project site within the Shoreline Setback Area (20 or 40 feet inland from the shoreline)? Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 9 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS: Objective Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. 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. YES NO 1. Is the project site a habitat for endangered species of flora and fauna? Discussion: YES NO 2. Will the proposed development adversely affect valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance? Discussion: YES NO 3. Will the proposed involve disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems through stream diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses? Discussion: YES NO 4. Will the proposed development include the construction of special waste treatment facilities, such as injection wells, discharge pipes, septic tank systems or cesspools? Discussion: YES NO 5. Is there a wetland on the project site? Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 10 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 6. Is the project site situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary? Discussion: ECONOMIC USES: 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. YES NO 1. Does the project involve a harbor or port? Discussion: YES NO 2. Is the proposed development related to or near to an existing major hotel, multi-family, or condominium project? Discussion: YES NO 3. Does the project site include agricultural lands designated for such use? Discussion: YES NO 4. Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 11 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 5. Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or seafood production? Discussion: COASTAL HAZARDS: Objective 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. YES NO 1. Is the project site within a potential tsunami inundated area as depicted on the National Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM)? Discussion: YES NO 2. Is the project site within a potential flood inundation area according to a FIRM? Discussion: YES NO 3. Does the project comply with the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program? Discussion: YES NO 4. Has the project site or nearby shoreline areas experienced shoreline erosion? Discussion: COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT - 12 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 YES NO 5. Have any seawalls/revetments/etc. been constructed or exist in the immediate vicinity? Discussion: PROJECT ASSESSMENT: e. Evaluation of the impacts which cannot be avoided and mitigating measures proposed to minimize that impact: Discussion: f. Evaluation of the proposed development relative to Section 4.0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations in accordance with the following aspects: i. Substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects; Discussion: 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: iii. Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the County General Plan, Development Plan, and Zoning Ordinances. Discussion: [name], [title] Date 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 2 of Makahuena Estates Subdivision, Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021:069. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT SMA(U)-2021-_____________ 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 .......................................................................................... 4 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 ....................................................... 7 5.1 Class III Zoning Permit .......................................................................................... 7 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 ........................................................................................... 9 6.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 9 a. Potable Water ............................................................................................. 9 b. Electric/Communications ........................................................................... 9 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ................................................................... 10 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 ........................................................................................ 11 6.10 Population ............................................................................................................ 11 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 .......... 15 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 ................................................................................................... 24 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 ................................................................. 25 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 ...................................... 26 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 .............................................................................. 27 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. 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 2 of the Makahuena Estates subdivision, and further identified as Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-8-021-069 (the “Property” or “Lot 2”). 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. Initially, FEMA FIRM Panel map 1500020352F, panel; effective date November 26, 2010, included a majority of the Property, including the project site, within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone VE (EL 10), with small mauka portions of the Property within SFHAS Zone AE (EL 10) and Non-Special Flood Hazard Zone XS. 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; 3 and 19-09-1672A, dated June 26, 2019, removed a significant portion of the buildable area of Lot 2 from the SFHA Zones VE and AE 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 28 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. 4 2.3 Prior Land Use Permits. The Property is subject to the following land use permits and conditions: 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 discussed above. 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 5 structures. The use of the station, known as LORSTA Kauai, ceased in 1979, following which 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 2 at 1.061 acres/46,217 sf. See, Exhibit “D”. However, the final approved subdivision map indicates Lot 2 is 1.027 acres/44,756 sf. See, Exhibit “G-1”. The land coverage of the proposed development is as follows: 6 Structure Size Percentage of Square footage Two-Story House 2,620 sq. ft. 5.8% Covered Lanais 103 sq. ft. 0.2% Pool 523 sq. ft. 1.2% Garage 750 sq. ft. 1.7% Guesthouse 478 sq. ft. 1.0% Total 4,474 sq. ft. 9.9% 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. 7 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 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 $3,041,395.50. 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 8 (“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 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 9 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. A majority of the proposed development is within the Non-Special Flood Hazard Area Zone X. See, Exhibit “C-9”. However, a small portion remains in the SFHA Zone V. Id. The development will meet all of the requirements of the Flood Plain Management Ordinance of the County of Kauai, as contained in 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. 10 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. Applicants will install a private individual wastewater system (septic tank(s) and leach field(s)) as 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”. 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. 11 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. 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 2 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 12 to protect the natural coastal systems that support life, air, water, soil, and living organisms on the makai portion of Lot 2. See, General Plan at 33. The development of the proposed single family dwelling unit on Lot 2 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 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 2. 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 2 of Makahuena Estates is consistent with these principles and will not interfere with the community’s use of the coastal access area. This 13 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. 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 2 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 14 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. 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 2 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 2 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 2 is part of a low-density, compact and walkable neighborhood that maintains coastal access opportunities consistent with Policy # 4. 15 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 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 2 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 2 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 2. 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 16 and ensure that such uses do not encroach upon the dedicated open space coastal access easement area. 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 2 to the pre-approved building envelope, the proposed SFR will not be affected by any coastal hazards. Further, the makai rock wall fronting Lot 2 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 2, 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 17 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 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 18 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 a coastal access easement held by the County of Kaua’i that provides 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 2 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 19 of the ocean waters or underlying lands; and (F) that other facilities are unavailable to the applicant. 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 & 20 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 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 none of the documented historic sites or features were located within Lot 2. It appears that Site 2142 was located within the neighboring Lot 4, 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 21 not block the line-of-sight towards the ocean from public view planes as the 10-lot subdivision 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 2 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 1 Exhibit “O-6” contains a copy of a survey of the Makahuena Estates subdivision and four (4) pictures. The survey itself indicates where pictures 1-4 were taken, and pictures 1-4 contain a computer image of the potential visual impact of the proposed development. Lot 2 is not visible from Pe’e Road because of the neighboring development The Point at Po‘ipū. 22 of Public Works (Exhibit “”G”). Because all subdivision infrastructure has been constructed and 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 23 Z-III-2015-1, and consistent with condition 1 (i) of S-2015-14, Applicant and DLNR/DOFAW 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. 24 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 28 ft. above sea level. See, 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 $3,041,395.50 as shown in the construction estimate attached as Exhibit “J”. 25 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 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. 26 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 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 27 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. 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. If property is deemed "fully developed," i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always "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. 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 28 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 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 2 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 29 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. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit Exhibit Description A Applicant Authorization B Deed C-1 Lot 2 Tax Map C-2 Lot 2 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 2 Special Management Area Map C-7 County Constraint District Map C-8 Kauai County General Plan South Kauai Heritage Resource Map C-9 Lot 2 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 2 Soil Survey Map D SMA (U) 2015-1 E Z-III-2015-1 F S-2015-14 G Certification of Completion Makahuena Point Subdivision H Lot 2 House Plans I Lot 2 Landscape Plans 2 J Lot 2 Construction Estimate K Lot 2 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 2 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 February_, 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) 2-8-021:069), 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 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C-1 Developed by Parcel ID 280210690000 Acreage 1.027 Class RESIDENTIAL Situs/Physical Address PEE RD Mailing Address MAKAHUENA-PREFERRED A LLC 111 E BROADWAY STE 100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Total Market Value $3,020,300 Total Assessed Value $3,020,300 Total Exemptions $0 Total Net Taxable Value $3,020,300 Last 2 Sales Date Price Reason n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a Brief Tax Description LOT 2 POR GR 1416 FP 354 MAKAHUENA TRACT 1.027 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: 1/19/2022 Last Data Uploaded: 1/19/2022 3:36:51 AM 295 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 235KKKōōōoaoloaPoPoʻʻppppipūūKKauummuualiʻʻiHHwwyyKaKalāāheoheoʻŌʻŌmamaʻʻooKukui‘ulaKukui‘ulaLLLāāā‘wawa‘wa‘iWaita ReservoirWaita ReservoirKalawai ParkKalawai ParkPo‘ipPo‘ipƻƻBeachPark Beach ParkMauhia RdMaluhia RdAA laKKKKinnooikk i RR dd ʻʻŌŌŌŌ mm aʻooooRRRddddPapPaapPPapālina Rdlina RdLLāāwwa‘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$UHD60$6HSWHPEHUPLNPEXHIBIT C-6 EXHIBIT C-7 EXHIBIT C-7 EXHIBIT C-8 5.3 HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPS | 5.0 POLICY MAPS 247 Weliweli MĈhĈঘulepƻ LĈwaঘi Kal Ĉheo PĈঘĈ Kƃloa e Halewili RdKaumualiʻiHwyKalāheo Kalawai Park Lāwa‘i ‘Ōma‘o Kōloa Po‘ipū Po‘ipƻ Beach Park Al aK i n oi ki RdWaita Reservoir Maluhia RdKukui‘ula Papālina R dFigure 5-11 South Kaua‘i Heritage Resource Map Registered Historic Sites State"J National"J State & National"J Cultural Features Priority Public Access Points#* Ahupuaʻa Boundaries Wetlands Coral Reefs State & County Parks Preserves Planning District Boundary Fish Ponds$ò Kōloa Scenic Byway Trails Regulated Fishing Areas Major Roads Streams & Waterbodies Roads Reservoirs Traditional Cultivation Areas Open Space Acquisition Priorities Critical Habitat Threatened & Endangered SpeciesHigh DensityVery 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 flood (100- year), also know as the base flood, is the flood 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 flood. Mandatory flood 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 flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. Zone V: Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); no BFE determined. Zone VE: Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); BFE determined. Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE. The floodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without increasing the BFE. NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - An area in a low-to-moderate risk flood zone. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng communiƟes. Zone XS (X shaded): Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood 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 flood. Zone X: Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. OTHER FLOOD AREAS Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undeter- mined, but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood 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) 2-8-021:069 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 43 11-09-17 12/09/201412/09/201412/09/ 2 0 1 4 12/09/201403/31/197219261927Poʻipū.DXD LVKRUHOLQHFKDQJH5HVRXUFH0DSSLQJ+DZDLL0D[DU.DXD LWUDQVHFWVKLVWRULFDOVKRUHOLQHFKDQJHUDWHVIW\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 1/19/2022 Page 1 of 32418500241851024185202418530241854024185502418560241857024185002418510241852024185302418540241855024185602418570454200454210454220454230454240454250454260454270454280454290454300454310454320 454200 454210 454220 454230 454240 454250 454260 454270 454280 454290 454300 454310 454320 21° 52' 14'' N 159° 26' 35'' W21° 52' 14'' N159° 26' 31'' W21° 52' 11'' N 159° 26' 35'' W21° 52' 11'' N 159° 26' 31'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 4N WGS84 0 25 50 100 150Feet 0 5 10 20 30Meters Map Scale: 1:590 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") 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 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 H 19' 20' 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' 29' 33' 34' 35' 36' 30' 31' 32' 37' 30' 31' 32' 33' 34' 35' 36' 26' 27' 28' 29' 30' 31' 32' 33' 34' 35' 36' 37' 38' 28' 2 8 ' 28' 28' 29' 19' 20' 21' 22' 23' 24' SITE COVERAGE:HOUSE2620 SF5.8%COVERED LANAI 103 SF0.2%POOL 523 SF1.2%GARAGE 750 SF1.7%GUESTHOUSE 478 SF1.0%TOTAL COVERAGE4474 SF 9.9%SITE AREA44,756 SFFLOOR AREA:MAIN LEVEL2620 SFUPPER LEVEL 950 SFOPEN LANAIS1859 SFCOVERED LANAI 103 SFPOOL 523 SFGARAGE 750 SFGUESTHOUSE 478 SFPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKEASEMENT LINESPECIAL SETBACKVIEW EASEMENT10' S E TB A C K P R O P E R T Y L IN E20' SETBACKPROPERTY LINEWALKMAKASTREETVIEW EASEMENTSPECIAL SETBACKSHARED GRAVEL DRIVEGRAVELDRIVEWAYPOOLGARAGEMAIN HOUSEGUESTHOUSE25' - 0"1 5 ' - 0 "20' - 8"1 5 ' - 0 "14' - 0"16' - 7"LAWN STRIPGUTTERCONC.UTILITYBOXES31' - 0"30' - 11"32' - 11"29' - 3"EL. = 32'-0"EL. = 32'-0"EL. = 29'-0"3 9 ' - 0 "EXISTING STONE WALLEXISTINGDETENTION31' - 11"31' - 11"31' - 11"28' - 11"31' - 0"29' - 8"EXISTINGEXISTING29' - 5"29' - 6"25' - 0"31' - 11"29' - 6"29' - 6"SEPTIC10' - 0"SIDE YARDScaleProject numberDateAs indicated2/7/2022 12:00:05 PMSP01SITE PLAN1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1" = 10'-0"1SITE PLAN1" = 100'-0"2SITE VIEWSPROPOSED SEPTIC UPDryerWasherRangeRefrigeratorWineStorageMWave31' - 11"31' - 11"29' - 0"16' - 11"23' - 1"8' - 0"28' - 0"21' - 1"3 3 ' - 6 "1 ' - 1 "1 0 ' - 2 "1 ' - 1 "1 ' - 6 "1 8 ' - 2 "1 ' - 6 "17' - 8"6"3 ' - 0 "2 ' - 0 "5 ' - 0 "4 ' - 6 "13' - 0"3' - 0"7' - 2"8' - 0"CLOSETBATH12'-6" X 8'-8"BEDROOM 112'-0" X 12'-6"LAUND10'-0" X 5'-6"GREAT ROOM25'-6" X 27'-0"DINING11'-0" X 20'-0"KITCHEN10'-6" X 20'-0"PANTRY6'-6" X 10'-9"MECH6'-6" X 5'-0"ENTRYBAHASPAPOOLMASTER15'-9" X 14'-3"BATH16'-0" X 12'-6"CLOSETGUESTHOUSE16'-8" X 18'-0"BATH9'-6" X 9'-6"CLOSPLANTER 10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINESPECIAL SETBACKVIEW EASEM EN T20' SETBACKSPECIAL SETBACKGARAGE23'-0" X 33'-0"R 8' - 0"R 8' - 0"12' - 10"GARDENSHOWERDNDN2A81A8ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"2/7/2022 11:57:34 AMA1MAIN LEVEL1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL DNBEDROOM 217'-4" X 16'-9"BATH9'-4" X 11'-4"CLOSETBUNK ROOM15'-6" x 13'-2"BATH6'-10" x 13'-2"CLOSETGREAT ROOMBELOWCANTILEVEREDOPEN UPPER DECKCANTILEVEREDOPEN UPPER DECKPOOL BELOWOPEN DECKBELOW2A81A820' SETBACK10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINESPECIAL SETBACKSPECIAL SETBACKVIEW EASEMENT20' SETBACKScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"2/7/2022 11:57:43 AMA2UPPERLEVEL1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HI3/16" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVELNo.DescriptionDate GARAGE31' -0"UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAX ROOF61' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"2A8UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAX ROOF61' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"2A8ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"2/7/2022 11:58:04 AMA4EXTERIORELEVATIONS1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDateSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOF:DARK BRONZESTAINED WOOD SOFFITFIBERGLASS WINDOWS:MILGARD = BLACK BEANSHIP LAP WALL PANELS: HARDIE TEXTURED PANELSVERTICAL SIDING:HARDIE BOARD W/ RANDOM BATTENSCUT CORAL STONE VENEER3/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION GARAGE31' -0"UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAX ROOF61' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"1A8GARAGE31' -0"UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAX ROOF61' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"1A8GUESTHOUSE29' -0"GUESTHOUSE29' -0"GUESTHOUSE29' -0"GUESTHOUSE29' -0"ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"2/7/2022 11:58:09 AMA5EXTERIORELEVATIONS1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"3GUEST NORTH3/16" = 1'-0"4GUEST EAST3/16" = 1'-0"5GUEST SOUTH3/16" = 1'-0"6GUEST WEST ScaleProject numberDate2/7/2022 11:58:59 AMA6EXTERIORVIEWS1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1AERIAL REAR2AERIAL FRONT ScaleProject numberDate2/7/2022 11:59:48 AMA7EXTERIORVIEWS1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate1REAR2FRONT GARAGE31' -0"UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"GUESTHOUSE29' -0"2A8GARAGE31' -0"UPPER LEVEL43' -0"MAIN LEVEL32' -0"GREAT ROOMENTRYLANAIGARAGE BEYONDPOOLLAWNPROPERTY LINESPECIAL SETBACK1A8ScaleProject numberDate3/16" = 1'-0"2/7/2022 11:59:54 AMA8SECTIONS1911MAKAHUENA LOT2TMK: (4) 2-8-021:069Gulfstream Financial LLC3214 N. University Ave#117 Provo UT 846041-19-2021Koloa Kauai HINo.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0"1LONGITUDINAL SECTION3/16" = 1'-0"2CROSS SECTIONKITCHENDININGGREAT ROOMBEDROOMBATHBUNK ROOMBATHGUEST HOUSE BEYONDBEDROOM WING BEYOND EXHIBIT , RiRiRiRi RiRiRiRiCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCmCm Pn PnPnCr4Cr4Cr4Cr4AvAvAvRi Pn Pn Pn Pn Ri RiRi RiRi Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri RiTREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMENORONHIA EMARGINATA / MADAGASCAR OLIVEPANDANUS TECTORIUS / SCREWPINEPLUMERIA OBTUSA `SINGAPORE` / SINGAPORE PLUMERIAMATURE SIZEH:15` X W:15'PLUMERIA OBTUSA 'DWARF SINGAPORE PINK' / DWARF SINGAPORE PINK PLUMERIAH:8' X W:8'PALM TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECOCOS NUCIFERA / COCONUT PALMMATURE SIZEH:50` X W:25`DICTYOSPERMA ALBUM / PRINCESS PALMMATURE SIZEH:33` X W:14`LANDSCAPE ZONE: SIDE, REARLICUALA GRANDIS / LICUALA PALMH: 8' X W: 5'PHOENIX ROEBELENII / PYGMY DATE PALMSABAL PALMETTO / CABBAGE PALMETTOPLANT SCHEDULESHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMEALLAMANDA CATHARTICA / GOLDEN TRUMPETALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOEBOUGAINVILLEA X BUTTIANA 'MISS MANILA' / MISS MANILA BOUGAINVILLEACARISSA MACROCARPA 'PROSTRATA' / PROSTRATE NATAL PLUMCHRYSOBALANUS ICACO 'RED TIP' / RED TIP COCOPLUMCRINUM AUGUSTUM 'QUEEN EMMA' / QUEEN EMMA CRINUM LILYDRACAENA REFLEXA 'SONG OF JAMAICA' / SONG OF JAMAICAGARDENIA TAITENSIS 'DOUBLE' / DOUBLE TAHITIAN GARDENIANEOREGELIA X 'SHOCKING PINK' / SHOCKING PINK BROMELIADPITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'NANUM' / DWARF JAPANESE PITTOSPORUMPLUMBAGO CAPENSIS / CAPE PLUMBAGORHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA / INDIAN HAWTHORNSCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS / BEACH NAUPAKAAvCmCr4PnRiGROUND COVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMEBACOPA MONNIERI / HERB OF GRACEMICROSORUM SCOLOPENDRIA / WART FERNRHOEO DISCOLOR / OYSTER PLANTWEDELIA TRILOBATA / CREEPING WEDELIAZOYSIA JAPONICA `EL TORO` / KOREAN GRASSDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....n0 201040 60Scale: 1" = 20'-0"LANDSCAPE DESIGN NOTE:THIS LANDSCAPE WAS DESIGNED BY ORUNDER THE DIRECTION OFCORY SHUPEA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INTHE STATE OF UTAHTHE STAMP IS UNDERKEVIN D. HORNA LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OFHAWAIITRADEWINDSsummer sunrises umm e r s u n s e t wi n t e r s u n r i s ewinter sunsetnLANDSCAPE EDGER, TYP.EXISTING COMMUNITY WALLLANDSCAPE EDGER, TYP.OVERALLLANDSCAPEPLANLP101GRAVEL DRIVEWAY, TYP.GRAVEL PATH 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....n0 201040 60Scale: 1" = 20'-0"LANDSCAPEGRADINGPLANLP201LANDSCAPE DRAIN PIPE,DAYLIGHT TO RETENTION, TYP.LANDSCAPE DRAININLET, TYP.LANDSCAPE BERMAROUND DECK, GRADE SODECK IS MAXIMUM 30"ABOVE TOP OF BERM, TYP.RETENTION BASINFINISH GRADE OF LAWNTO BE MIN. 42" BELOW TOPOF WALL. TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALQTYPANDANUS TECTORIUS / SCREWPINE25 GAL. 8-12` HT1PLUMERIA OBTUSA `SINGAPORE` / SINGAPORE PLUMERIA25 GAL. 6-8` HT3MATURE SIZEH:15` X W:15'PLUMERIA OBTUSA 'DWARF SINGAPORE PINK' / DWARF SINGAPORE PINK PLUMERIA25 GAL. 6-8` HT4H:8' X W:8'PALM TREESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCALQTYCOCOS NUCIFERA / COCONUT PALM50 GAL. 20-25` HT6MATURE SIZEH:50` X W:25`DICTYOSPERMA ALBUM / PRINCESS PALM50 GAL. 8-12` HT5MATURE SIZEH:33` X W:14`LANDSCAPE ZONE: SIDE, REARLICUALA GRANDIS / LICUALA PALM10 GAL.9H: 8' X W: 5'PHOENIX ROEBELENII / PYGMY DATE PALM10 GAL. 6` HT MIN.2SABAL PALMETTO / CABBAGE PALMETTO25 GAL. 12-15` HT5SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTALLAMANDA CATHARTICA / GOLDEN TRUMPET5 GAL5ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE5 GAL3BOUGAINVILLEA X BUTTIANA 'MISS MANILA' / MISS MANILA BOUGAINVILLEA5 GAL8CARISSA MACROCARPA 'PROSTRATA' / PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM5 GAL17CHRYSOBALANUS ICACO 'RED TIP' / RED TIP COCOPLUM5 GAL4CRINUM AUGUSTUM 'QUEEN EMMA' / QUEEN EMMA CRINUM LILY5 GAL25DRACAENA REFLEXA 'SONG OF JAMAICA' / SONG OF JAMAICA5 GAL6GARDENIA TAITENSIS 'DOUBLE' / DOUBLE TAHITIAN GARDENIA5 GAL15NEOREGELIA X 'SHOCKING PINK' / SHOCKING PINK BROMELIAD5 GAL16PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'NANUM' / DWARF JAPANESE PITTOSPORUM5 GAL7PLUMBAGO CAPENSIS / CAPE PLUMBAGO5 GAL9RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA / INDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL29SCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS / BEACH NAUPAKA5 GAL17GROUND COVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTSPACINGBACOPA MONNIERI / HERB OF GRACE1 GAL1,513 SFMICROSORUM SCOLOPENDRIA / WART FERN1 GAL24" o.c. 108RHOEO DISCOLOR / OYSTER PLANT1 GAL12" o.c. 369WEDELIA TRILOBATA / CREEPING WEDELIA1 GAL24" o.c. 97ZOYSIA JAPONICA `EL TORO` / KOREAN GRASSSOD6,921 SFAvCmCr4PnRiPLANT SCHEDULEDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....LANDSCAPENOTES,SCHEDULE &DETAILSLP501TREE PLANTING - FLEX STRAPNOT TO SCALE4' ABOVE GRADE DIAMETER SHALL BE2 TIMES SIZE OF ROOTBALLJAIN FLEXSTRAP TREE TIE ORAPPROVED EQUALSTAKE DECIDUOUS TREES WITH 2 - 2"DIA. LODGE POLE PINE STAKES AT 180DEGREES. FOR TREES LARGER THAN 2"CALIPER OR IN WINDY CONDITIONS,STAKE WITH 3 - 2" DIA. LODGE POLEPINE STAKES AT 120 DEGREES. EMBEDMIN. 3' INTO GROUND. DRIVE FIRMLYINTO SUBGRADE. REMOVE STAKESAFTER ONE YEAR.FINISH GRADESOIL - SUBGRADEPROVIDE MIN. 1'-6" RADIUS MULCH(4" DEPTH) COLLAR WHEN TREESARE PLANTED IN SOD. DO NOTPLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITHTREE TRUNK.PREPARED BACKFILL MIX - 30%EXISTING SOIL, 50% LOAMYTOPSOIL, AND 20% CLEAN SAND.WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIRPOCKETS. BRING LEVEL TO FINISHGRADE. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.ROOTBALL- PLANT ONUNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL.REMOVE ALL WIRE, ENTIREBASKET, NYLON TIES, TWINE,ROPE, AND 2/3 BURLAP.NATIVE SOILPLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOTBALLIS 2" ABOVE FINISHED GRADESUCH THAT THE TRUNK FLARE ISVISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THEROOTBALL. DO NOT COVER THETOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH 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 TREETIE - ONE CONTINUOUSSTRAP.2" DIA.LODGEPOLESTAKE PINESTAKES, TYP.2" DIA. LODGEPOLE STAKEPINE STAKES, TYP.ROOFING NAILROOFING NAIL2SHRUB DETAILNOT TO SCALENOTES:1. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" ABOVEFINISHED GRADEMULCH (3" DEPTH)FORM SAUCER -NATIVE AREASONLYSCARIFY SIDES OFPLANTING PITUNEXCAVATED ORCOMPACTEDBACKFILL BELOWROOTBALL TO BE1/2 DEPTH OFROOTBALL (6" MIN).EXISTING SOILBACKFILL MIX - 30%EXISTING SOIL,50% LOAMYTOPSOIL, AND 20%CLEAN SAND.WATER AND TAMPTO REMOVE AIRPOCKETS. BRINGLEVEL TO FINISHGRADE.REMOVE STRING &BURLAP FROM TOP2/3 OF BALL WHENB&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. 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 SLEEVEFHTQ8888Q T H F01010101Q T H TT TQ F212121212121QT H TT TQ F51515151515108HE-VAN 12HE-VAN10HE-VAN 15HE-VAN8012151BFCRValve NumberValve FlowValve SizeValve Callout###"IRRIGATION SCHEDULEDrawing 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....n0 201040 60Scale: 1" = 20'-0"OVERALLIRRIGATIONPLANLI101POP 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 KOLOA KAUAI, HI ....IRRIGATIONNOTES, &DETAILSLI5011. 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.18. CONTRACTOR IS REMINDED THAT THE 10 FT WIDE STREET PARKWAYFRONTING THEIR LOT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THAT SPECIFIC LOTSPRIVATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MUST BE IRRIGATED AND MAINTAINEDAS PART OF THE LOT LANDSCAPING. THEREFORE, THE ASSOCIATION'SEXISTING NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN WILL SIMPLY BECOME A "PASSTHROUGH" SYSTEM SERVING TO IRRIGATE OTHER AREAS ON EITHERSIDE OF THE LOT.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 MOUNT456231 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 801.913.7994StampRDBP02.04.2022CS22-107MAKAHUENA LOT 2 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 EMITTER32514 EXHIBIT - Lot 2 Lot 2 1645 Pee rd 1645 Pee rd Koloa, HI 96756 Koloa, HI 96756 TOTAL:2,585,928.98 TOTAL:455,466.52 Item Description Total Item Description Total Soft Costs 213,725.00 Soft Costs 38,625.00 Plans and Engineering 55,568.50 Plans and Engineering 10,042.50 Permits and Fees 17,098.00 Permits and Fees 3,090.00 Overhead Office work and management.111,137.00 Overhead Office work and management.20,085.00 Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.29,921.50 Other Soft Costs Insurance, financing, etc.5,407.50 Hard Costs 2,372,203.98 Hard Costs 416,841.52 GRADING & BACKFILL Post & Beam 51,500.00 GRADING & BACKFILL Post & Beam 11,450.00 SEPTIC & PERCULATION 51,294.00 SEPTIC & PERCULATION 10,506.00 CONCRETE WORK Foundation, retaining walls, flatwork 144,200.00 FRAMING MAT'LS 45,526.00 FRAMING MAT'LS 222,274.00 FRAMING LABOR 38,627.06 FRAMING LABOR 188,590.94 PLUMBING 18,385.50 PLUMBING 89,764.50 PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 5,253.00 PLUMBING FIXTURES Sinks, faucets, toilets, tubs 25,647.00 ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 19,261.00 ELECTRICAL Includes Low Voltage 94,039.00 ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 5,253.00 ELECTRICAL FIXTURES Can lights, pendants, sconces 25,647.00 HVAC 12,257.00 HVAC 59,843.00 ROOFING Standing seam and membrane 21,239.63 ROOFING Standing seam and membrane 103,699.37 SIDING MAT'LS Lap siding 8,755.00 SIDING MAT'LS Lap siding 42,745.00 EXTERIOR DOORS multi‐slides and hinged doors 35,020.00 EXTERIOR DOORS Bi‐folds, multi‐slides, and hinged doors 170,980.00 INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 4,377.50 INTERIOR DOORS Stain grade 21,372.50 WINDOWS 17,860.20 WINDOWS 87,199.80 INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 14,008.00 GARAGE DOORS 16,320.00 RAILING 12,257.00 INSULATION & DRYWALL Smooth finish 68,392.00 FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 19,313.53 RAILING 59,843.00 FINISH CARPENTRY 43,249.70 FLOORING Hardwood and Tile 94,295.47 CABINETS kitchenette & bathrooms 10,506.00 FINISH CARPENTRY 211,160.30 COUNTERTOPS Quartz 7,004.00 CABINETS Kitchen, laundry, bathrooms 51,294.00 PAINT 14,008.00 COUNTERTOPS Quartz 34,196.00 GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.4,377.50 PAINT 68,392.00 WINDOW COVERINGS 2,626.50 GLASS & HARDWARE Shower Enclosures, mirrors, etc.21,372.50 GUTTERS 3,852.20 WINDOW COVERINGS 12,823.50 LANDSCAPE 18,910.80 GUTTERS 18,807.80 FENCE & STONEWORK 3,502.00 APPLIANCES Stainless Steel 47,019.50 DUMPSTER 1,400.80 LANDSCAPE 92,329.20 CONSTRUCTION TOILET 525.30 POOL Infinity Edge and spa 133,900.00 SITE CLEANUP 875.50 FENCE & STONEWORK 17,098.00 UTILITIES 700.40 DUMPSTER 6,839.20 MISC SHIPPING 5,253.00 CONSTRUCTION TOILET 2,564.70 MAT'L STORAGE 700.40 SITE CLEANUP 4,274.50 UTILITIES 3,419.60 MISC SHIPPING 25,647.00 MAT'L STORAGE 3,419.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Main Residence Ohana Living Space 2626 SF/ Garage 800 SF/ Covered Lanai 103 SF/ Pool 623 SF Living Space 478 SF EXHIBIT J 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 "' � z a. z ----"' "' I I v st --·: cl :l1z-"'0 C -� ·3:0 C � �a.0 Pollhole :- � IAANUALOHA 1 NlHI KAI VILLAS LOT A-2 s E Ha'eno HANALEI DISTRICT ,, KAWAIHAU DISTRICT Ll'hu'e Anaholo PROJECT LOCATION ISLAND OF KAUA'I PROJECT LOCATION C, VICINITY MAP LOT 9 THE MAKAHU'ENA A U Dy" s·10N·· THE POINT AT PO'!PU PROJECT LOCATION TMK:(4) 2·8-21:41,W-•8 LOCATION MAP F.H. SYMBOLS 0 STANDPIPE <:J STANDPIPE d' F.H. "t:f F.H. 't:f F.H. tJ' F.H. I-Hit" I-Zf/2" 2-2.vz• l-4" 1-2ftl" _k41/2" l-2Vt" ·1-41/2" 2-2:Ve" HYATT REGENCY INDEX DESCRIPTION TITI.E SHEET GENERAL NOTIES TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN GENERAL SITIE PLAN PLAN AND PROFILE EROSION CONTROL DETAILS MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS WATER DETAILS DRAINAGE DETAILS ELECTRICAL PLAN ELECTRICAL NOTIES & DETAILS ELECTRICAL DETAILS CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MAKAHU'ENA SUBDIVISION Subdivision Planning.- Dept. (Tentative Approval: April 14, KOloa, . Kaua 'i, S-2015-142015) TO W eliweli·,, Hawai'i TAX MAP KEY: (4) 2-8-21: 41, 44 Thru 68 Owner: CLDC Land Development Company P .0. Box 93330 Anchorage, AK 99509 PREPARED BY: ESAKI SURVEYING AND MAPPING, INC. LIHU'E, KAUA'I, HAWAI'I 96766 DRAWINGS-· APPROVED= SHEET NUMBER ,�� 1 2 -3 4 5 6 7 - 8 9 10 -12 13 -14 15 -16 17 18 1 DIRECTOR, PLANNING DEPy\RTMENT COU OF KAUA'I ENGINEER, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS OF KAUA'I CHIEF, ENVIR MENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALlH STATIE OF HAWAl'I �v MANAGER & CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPT. OF WA TIER COUNTY OF KAUA'I 4�1� CHIEF ENdlNEER, KAUA 'I ISLAND UTILITY COOP. tpfilEF ENGINEER, HAWAIIAN TEL COM SIGNAGE AND STRIPING SITIE PLAN STRIPING PLAN & ROADWAY CURVE DATA 19 -21 22 23 CHIEF ENGINEER, OCEANIC TIME WARNER CABLE OF HAWAl'I I DATIE 3-1-4-2015 DATIE to/z1fr5 ·DATIE 1 DATE olz-1. /.sDATE z 0 (/) m :::::, (/) <( z l,,J <( � <( (/) z z 0 F (.) :::::, (/) z 0 (.) 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 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 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 Bougainvillea cult . bougainvillea Om u POLYGONACEAE Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. sea-grape Om R 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 Nat R Nat AA Nat u Nat R1 lnd A 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. 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 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. DLNR-DOFAW PUA LOKE FENCING & SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PETITION FOR: USE PERMIT CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Līhuʽe, Kauaʽi, Hawaiʽi TMK: (4) 3-8-005:002 September 2022 Prepared For: Department of Land and Natural Resources Engineering Division 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 221 Honolulu, Hawaiʽi 96813 Before the: Kauaʽi County Planning Commission Prepared By: 1953 South Beretania Street, PH-A Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96826 Telephone: (808) 941-8853 Fax: (808) 945-9299 www.bowengineering.com F.2.e. April 11, 2023 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. ii Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition Table of Contents I. PETITION FOR LAND USE PERMITS ......................................................................................................... 3 II. PETITIONER..................................................................................................................................................... 4 III. PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE ............................................................................................................ 4 IV. AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF SOUGHT .......................................................................................................... 4 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ........................................................................................................... 4 A. LOCATION/ACCESS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 B. TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 C. FLOOD MAP ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 D. SOILS ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 E. HISTORY OF THE PARCEL AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES ......................................................................................... 5 F. PREVIOUS PERMITS .............................................................................................................................................. 5 VI. LAND USE DESIGNATION ........................................................................................................................... 6 A. STATE LAND USE DISTRICT................................................................................................................................. 6 B. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ..................................................................................................................................... 6 C. COUNTY ZONING ................................................................................................................................................. 6 VII. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 7 A. DESCRIPTION, MATERIALS, AND BENEFITS.......................................................................................................... 7 B. IMPROVEMENTS COST ........................................................................................................................................... 8 C. REQUIRED PERMITS .............................................................................................................................................. 9 D. PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................................. 9 VIII. EFFECTS UPON RESOURCES IN THE AREA ......................................................................................... 9 IX. USE PERMIT STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................ 10 X. JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................... 11 XI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 11 XII. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 12 XIII. EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 3 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAIʽI In the matter of the Petition of: Bow Engineering & Development, Inc.’s request for a Use Permit and a Class IV Zoning Permit for perimeter fencing, vehicle access driveway, and sewer improvements, including enclosure of an approximately 1.2 acre existing staging area and nursery with a six-feet high chain link fence, a gated vehicle access from Wehe Road, and closure of an existing cesspool in conjunction with construction of a new sewer pump station and force main, at State of Hawaiʽi owned parcel TMK: (4) 3-8-005:002 in Līhuʽe, Kauaʽi. I. PETITION FOR LAND USE PERMITS Bow Engineering & Development, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” is requesting a Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit to allow the construction of chain link fencing, an access driveway, and a sewer pump station and force main, onto lands classified as “Urban” by the State Land Use Commission, and zoned “R/ST-P” by the County of Kauaʽi. ST-P standards for Public Facilities within the Special Treatment Districts. The fencing will enclose approximately 1.2 acres, which is a portion of the larger Tax Map Key (TMK) (4) 3-8-005:002 parcel in Pua Loke, Līhuʽe, Kauaʽi consisting of approximately 7.319 acres. See Exhibit A for TMK Map. The intent of the proposed fencing improvements is to provide perimeter security for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DLNR-DOFAW) to protect its equipment and property within an existing staging area and plant nursery. The design of the perimeter fence will minimize impact to existing grassed landscape. No grading is proposed and the only planned land disturbance is construction of fence post footings. The intent of the driveway is to provide vehicle access to the existing staging area from Wehe Road. This will alleviate traffic congestion along Pua Loke Road, which currently provides the only vehicle access to the property. New housing developments have been constructed in the area, and the proposed driveway will provide an alternate route for DLNR’s heavy equipment and large vehicles to avoid using Pua Loke Road alongside residents. The driveway will be asphalt paved and gated for security. The intent of the sewer improvements is to close the existing cesspool. Cesspools can be hazardous to the environment and have the potential to contaminate groundwater resources. A new pump station and force main will connect the DLNR onsite buildings’ existing sewer system to the Puhi Sewer and Water Company’s collection system and would allow continued and sustainable use of said buildings. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 4 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition II. PETITIONER The fee title owner of the parcel is the State of Hawaiʽi. Authority has been granted to Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. to apply for the necessary permits. The Petitioner’s address is: Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 1953 South Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96826 III. PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE All communications and notices relative to said petition, shall be addressed to the Petitioner, as well as their following representatives: Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 1953 South Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96826 (808) 941-8853 IV. AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF SOUGHT The Chapter 8 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Kauaʽi County Code (KCC) states that a conditional Use Permit is required prior to development that is proposed within the Special Treatment-Public (ST-P) sub-zone. The proposed fencing triggers a conditional Use Permit. Procedures for filing a Use Permit petition are stated in Section 8-3.2, KCC. A Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement pursuant to Section 8-3.1, KCC, when a conditional Use Permit is requested. This section provides the legal basis for filing the petition and complying with the public hearing notification requirements. Public hearing to be held at a later date, to be determined. V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY A. LOCATION/ACCESS The subject project is located within parcel TMK (4) 3-8-005:002, with an existing DLNR owned base yard, plant nursery, and asphalt-paved driveway to the north, the Kealaula County Housing to the southwest, and Wehe Road bordering on the south and east. The project site’s current use is a plant nursery and staging area. There are several trees within the site. The existing DLNR base yard has a six-feet high chain link fence and the Kealaula Housing has a four-feet high chain link fence for security. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 5 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition Access to the site is provided by either an existing driveway which branches off of Pua Loke Street or directly from Wehe Road. B. TOPOGRAPHY The area to be fenced is a well-maintained grassed area. It is generally level with elevations ranging from 222 feet to 228 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) with the majority of the site sloping east at 1% to 2% towards Wehe Road. C. FLOOD MAP The FEMA flood map shows that the project area is within Zone X, which is defined as areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. See Exhibit B for Flood Hazard Assessment Report. D. SOILS The site consists of Līhuʽe silty clay (LhB) as provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Līhuʽe silty clay is classified as well drained and Hydrologic Soil Group C. See Exhibit C for NRCS Soil Survey. E. HISTORY OF THE PARCEL AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES The subject parcel is owned and operated by the State of Hawaiʽi Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The approximately 1.2-acre area within the proposed fencing is currently being used as a staging area and nursery. Two utility easements run through the project site: 1) perpetual non-exclusive waterline easement granted to the Board of Water Supply of the County of Kauaʽi, 2) perpetual non-exclusive electric transmission line easement granted to Citizens Utilities Co.. An existing DLNR owned building on the subject parcel utilizes an existing cesspool for wastewater disposal. The proposed sewer improvements include a pump station and force main, which will allow for the closure of the cesspool. The project site is not designated as a historic property by the Hawaiʽi Register of Historic Places. F. PREVIOUS PERMITS Previous permits provided for this parcel include the following building permits: Table 1 – Previous Permits for Parcel Permit No. Date Description Permit Amount 1500000969 4/5/2016 Commercial Building $50,000 1800002139 11/8/2018 Photovoltaic System $50,000 180000250 11/26/2018 Renovation $235,000 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 6 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition VI. LAND USE DESIGNATION A. STATE LAND USE DISTRICT The State Land Use District designation for the project parcel is Urban. See Exhibit D for State Land Use Map. Use of the property as a base yard is consistent with the Urban designation. B. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN Per Article 1 Sec. 7-1.2 of the County General Plan, dated 2018, “the General Plan sets forth in graphics and text, policies to govern the future physical development of the County. The General Plan is intended to improve the physical environment of the County and the health, safety, and general welfare of Kauaʽi’s people.” The project site is designated as Urban Center according to Figure 5-5 Līhuʽe Land Use Map of the County General Plan. See Exhibit E of Līhuʽe Land Use Map. Use of the property as a base yard is consistent with the Urban Center designation. C. COUNTY ZONING The subject parcel is designated as Residential and Special Treatment District - Public (R/ ST-P) in regards to zoning districts by the County of Kauaʽi. Article 4, Section 8-4.1, Kauai County Code (KCC) for Residential Districts (R) states: The purpose of Residential Districts is to regulate “the number of people living in a given area by specifying the maximum allowable number of dwelling units that may be developed on any given parcel of land.” Since the project does not propose the construction of any residences or building structures, no increase in density in regard to the number of people living in the area is anticipated and requirements set forth by Article 4 in relation to residences shall not apply. Article 11, Section 8-11.1, Kauai County Code (KCC) for Special Treatment Districts (ST) states: The purpose of Special Treatment Districts is to specify “the additional performance required when critical or valuable social or aesthetic characteristics of the environment or community exist in the same area as a parcel where particular functions or uses may be developed. (a) To designate and guide development of County areas which because of unique or critical cultural, physical or locational characteristics have particular significance or value to the general public. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 7 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition (b) To insure that development within those areas recognize, preserve, maintain and contribute to the enhancement of those characteristics which are of particular significance or value to the general public. (c) Any or all of these districts may overlap any Use Districts, creating accumulated regulations which more nearly relate to the conditions of the specific location where the development or use may occur.” The type of Special Treatment District applied to this parcel is that of Public Facilities. Special Treatment District- Public Facilities are defined by KCC as: “Public Facilities (ST-P). All public and quasi-public facilities, other than commercial, including schools, churches, cemeteries, hospitals, libraries, police and fire stations, government buildings, auditoriums, stadiums, and gymnasiums, which are used by the general public or which tend to serve as gathering places for the general public; and those areas which because of their unique locations are specially suited for such public and quasi-public uses.” The use of the project area as a base yard with perimeter fencing and an access driveway, and the proposed sewer improvements is consistent with the Public Facilities designation. VII. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A. DESCRIPTION, MATERIALS, AND BENEFITS Proposed improvements include the addition of a 6-feet tall perimeter chain link fence to the existing staging area and nursery, a paved access driveway, and sewer improvements, including a new pump station and force main to serve existing DLNR building facilities. All fencing material shall be galvanized steel. Fence posts will be installed a maximum of 10 feet apart within concrete footings. Double swing gates, also comprised of galvanized steel, are proposed near the existing driveway and along Wehe Road for the proposed driveway access into the base yard. A single gate is proposed within the northern fence line near an existing plant nursery building. The access driveway will be asphalt paved with concrete curbs along its edges. The new sewer pump station will replace an existing cleanout located between DLNR-owned buildings north of the proposed fenced area. A force main comprised of PVC pipe will route wastewater from the pump station along Wehe Road to an existing pump station at the Kealaula County Housing. The force main is approximately 600 linear feet. A location map of the proposed improvements is included in Exhibit F. Location of the driveway is preliminary and may shift along Wehe Road. Details for the chain link fence and sewer pump station are included in Exhibit G. No building structures or additional landscaping are proposed at this time. Existing grassing and trees will remain and continue to be maintained. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 8 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition The proposed fencing will provide security for DOFAW’s existing staging area and nursery, the proposed driveway will provide access from Wehe Road, and the proposed sewer improvements will allow for the closure of the existing cesspool, which has the potential to be an environmental hazard. B. IMPROVEMENTS COST The proposed project will cost approximately $544,900. Table 2 - Site & Utility Improvements - 0% Construction Cost Estimate Item Qty Unit Unit Price Cost Site Improvements 6' High Chain Link Fence 520 LF $ 80.00 $ 41,600.00 Double Swing Gate 2 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 Single Gate 1 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Asphalt (3" thick) 60 SY $ 50.00 $ 3,000.00 Base Course (8" thick) 13 CY $ 130.00 $ 1,690.00 Concrete Header 20 LF $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 Concrete Curb 60 LF $ 50.00 $ 3,000.00 Subtotal Site Improvements $ 60,290.00 Utility Improvements Sewer Force Main (4" PVC) 600 LF $ 100.00 $ 60,000.00 Sewer Manhole 2 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 New Wet Well 1 EA $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000.00 Sewer Pump including pump controls, alarm cellular monitoring system, alarm warning light, level controls, guide rail system & appurtenances 1 LS $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 Electrical Equipment 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Subtotal Utility Improvements $ 390,000.00 Mobilization (10% of above subtotals) 1 LS $ 45,030.00 $ 45,030.00 Subtotal Mobilization and Demobilization $ 45,030.00 SUBTOTAL $ 495,320.00 Contingency 10% $ 49,532.00 TOTAL $ 544,852.00 ROUND-OFF TOTAL $ 544,900.00 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 9 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition C. REQUIRED PERMITS No Federal or State of Hawaiʽi permits are required to construct perimeter fencing around the proposed base yard, to construct the proposed driveway, or for the proposed sewer improvements. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is typically required for projects which use State funding. However, due to the exemptions allotted to the DLNR (“Exemption List for the Department of Land and Natural Resources”), the subject project is exempt from this review process. These exemptions fall under General Exemption Type 3 and include the following: “2. Construction of security features, including fencing, gates, cameras, and other similar items… 14. Construction or placement of utilities (telecommunications, electrical, solar panels, drainage, waterlines, sewers) and related equipment (such as transformers, poles, cable, wires, pipes) accessory to existing facilities.” Required County of Kauaʽi Permits are as follows: Use Permit…………………………………………...…….Planning Department Class IV Zoning Permit……………………………...…….Planning Department Building Permit (for Sewer Improvements Only)…………Building Department D. PROJECT SCHEDULE Submit petition to Planning Department………………….September 2022 Send public hearing notice………………………………..TBD Public hearing……………………………………………. TBD Action Approved Deadline………………………………..TBD Building Permit Application………………………………TBD Construction……………………………………………….TBD VIII. EFFECTS UPON RESOURCES IN THE AREA There are no anticipated effects upon the resources in the area as a result of the proposed fencing. The area to the north is currently being utilized as a base yard enclosed by a perimeter fence, and therefore, enclosure of the project site with a perimeter fence can be viewed as an extension of the existing parcel’s use. No grading, building structures, or landscaping are proposed at this time. Drainage will remain unchanged. Access to the area will be provided by the existing internal driveway and a proposed gated access driveway to Wehe Road. Access to the fenced area will be limited to authorized personnel and fencing will provide much needed security for the staging area and nursery. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 10 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition The proposed driveway should not have any impact on the resources in the area, other than alleviating traffic congestion on Pua Loke Road by providing an alternate route to the site for DLNR’s existing vehicles. The proposed sewer improvements will affect the utilities within this area. The new pump station and force main will route wastewater from the existing DLNR onsite buildings to the Puhi Sewer and Water Company’s collection system and will therefore increase the flows within said system. It has been confirmed by the Puhi Sewer and Water Company that it has the capacity to accommodate the additional anticipated wastewater flows. See Exhibit H. The proposed fencing, driveway, and sewer improvements are not expected to increase the demand for Police or Fire services. Other than employment for the construction of the perimeter fence, driveway, and sewer pump station and force main, no permanent employees will result from the project. No potential effects to the following are anticipated: · Flora and fauna · Cultural · Air Quality · Water · Drainage · Recreation/Parks · Housing · School · Employment · Police and Fire IX. USE PERMIT STANDARDS Chapter 8, Article 3, KCC states that “A Use Permit may be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the construction, development, activity or use in the particular case is a compatible use and is not detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use…” The petitioner proposes the following measures to mitigate any potential community concerns: 1. The height of the perimeter fencing will be 6-feet tall, matching the fence height of the adjacent base yard. 2. The material of the perimeter fencing will be galvanized steel, similar to the existing fencing of the adjacent base yard and housing facility. 3. The use of the project site as a fenced storage area and nursery will be compatible with the surrounding area, as the adjacent portion of the base yard and nursery building are enclosed by a 6’ chain link fence located directly north of the project site. 4. Use of the proposed driveway will be limited to authorized vehicles. 5. The trenching for the proposed sewer force main will remain on property and will not disturb traffic within the County Right-of-Way. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 11 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition X. JUSTIFICATION The proposed location, design, construction, and use of the proposed improvements can be properly integrated into the surroundings. A. Construction of the perimeter fencing is consistent with the purpose and intent of the DLNR parcel to provide a secure storage area and nursery space, which will protect DLNR property and equipment. B. The proposed fenced area will serve as an extension of the existing, adjacent baseyard area already secured with a perimeter fence. C. The fencing material, look, and color will match the existing fencing in the adjacent areas. D. The proposed driveway will alleviate traffic congestion on Pua Loke Road and will prevent DLNR’s heavy equipment and large vehicles from driving alongside new residential developments. E. The sewer pump station and force main will be underground and will not cause visual disturbances to the surrounding areas. F. The pump station and force main will allow for the closure of the existing cesspool which has the potential to be an environmental hazard. G. The force main will be aligned along Wehe Road, but still within the property lines and will not cause traffic complications or road closures during construction. XI. CONCLUSION Based on the provided discussion, it can be concluded that the proposed improvements to TMK (4) 3-8-005:002 in Pua Loke, Līhuʽe, Kauaʽi will not have an adverse effect on the environment or land use and resources in the area, and it can be properly integrated into the area’s use. Approval of the requested Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit to allow the installation of perimeter fencing and sewer improvements is justified and meets all the requirements for approval. Therefore, we humbly request your approval of this petition. Respectfully Submitted, Matthew Fujioka, P.E. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. Petitioner Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 12 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition XII. REFERENCES Chapter 8 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Kauai County Code updated 2000 Custom Soil Resource Report for Island of Oahu, Hawaii United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service Exemption List for the Department of Land and Natural Resources Concurred on by the Environmental Council dated November 10, 2020 Flood Hazard Assessment State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/FHAT/ Kauaʽi Historic Properties Historic Hawaii Foundation https://historichawaii.org/historic-properties/kauai-historic-properties/ Kauaʽi Kākou - Kauaʽi County General Plan Approved by the County Council dated 2018 State of Hawaii Land Use District Boundaries Map dated January 2018 https://histategis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b843c728b4cb4333b1df01 5fdaa84104 XIII. EXHIBITS Exhibit A – TMK Map Exhibit B – Flood Hazard Assessment Report Exhibit C – NRCS Soil Survey Exhibit D – State Land Use Map Exhibit E – Līhuʽe Land Use Map Exhibit F – Site Plan Exhibit G – Construction Plan Sheets & Details Exhibit H – Puhi Sewer and Water Company Email Exhibit I – Photographs and Photograph Log NOVEMBER 9 APPENDICES Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 13 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT A TMK MAP Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 15 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT B FLOOD HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT 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 flood (100- year), also know as the base flood, is the flood 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 flood. Mandatory flood 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 flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. Zone V: Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); no BFE determined. Zone VE: Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); BFE determined. Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE. The floodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without increasing the BFE. NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - An area in a low-to-moderate risk flood zone. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng communiƟes. Zone XS (X shaded): Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood 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 flood. Zone X: Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. OTHER FLOOD AREAS Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undeter- mined, but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood 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 0 200 400 ft DOFAW Base Yard KAUAI TMK NO: (4) 3-8-005:002 WATERSHED: NAWILIWILI PARCEL ADDRESS: ADDRESS NOT DETERMINED LIHUE, HI 96766 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S):NONE FEMA FIRM PANEL - EFFECTIVE DATE:1500020307E - SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 1500020326F - NOVEMBER 26, 2010 NO NO Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 17 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT C NRCS SOIL SURVEY United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Island of Kauai, Hawaii DOFAW Base Yard Natural Resources Conservation Service August 24, 2022 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 24297602429770242978024297902429800242981024298202429830242984024298502429760242977024297802429790242980024298102429820242983024298402429850461210 461220 461230 461240 461250 461260 461270 461280 461290 461300 461310 461320 461330 461340 461350 461210 461220 461230 461240 461250 461260 461270 461280 461290 461300 461310 461320 461330 461340 461350 21° 58' 21'' N 159° 22' 32'' W21° 58' 21'' N159° 22' 27'' W21° 58' 18'' N 159° 22' 32'' W21° 58' 18'' N 159° 22' 27'' 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: 1:703 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI LhB Lihue silty clay, 0 to 8 percent slopes 1.3 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Island of Kauai, Hawaii LhB—Lihue silty clay, 0 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hpv6 Elevation: 0 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F Frost-free period: 365 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Lihue and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lihue Setting Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Basic igneous dust Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: silty clay H2 - 12 to 60 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R158XY401HI - Isohyperthermic Ustic Naturalized Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 24 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT D STATE LAND USE MAP 8/25/22, 11:19 AM State of Hawaii Land Use District Boundaries Map - January 2018 https://histategis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b843c728b4cb4333b1df015fdaa84104 1/1 State of Hawaii Land Use District Boundaries Map - January 2018 Legend USGS Quads (Old Hawaiian Datum) - USGS Quads OHD State Land Use Districts Agricultural Conservation Rural Urban District Boundary Amendment - Molokai District Boundary Amendment - Hawaii Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 26 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT E LIHUE LAND USE MAP 5.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAPS | 5.0 POLICY mAPs 237 Figure 5-5 Līhu‘e Land Use Map Līhuʻe Puhi Hanamāʻulu KūhiōHwyKaumualiʻi Hwy Nāwiliwili Kīpū Līhuʻe AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t Ahuk in i R d Nā w i l i w i l i R d M aʻalo RdAlekoko Fishpond W a i luaRiverLand Use Map - Līhuʻe 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Roads Streams University Zone Residential Community Neighborhood General Neighborhood Center Urban Center Urban Edge Boundary Planning District Boundary Major Roads USGS 40 ft. Contours Līhu‘e Puhi Hanamā‘uluKūhiōHwy Kaumuali‘iHwyNāwiliwili Kīpū Līhu‘e AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t AhukiniRd Nā w i l i w i l i R d M a’alo R dAlekoko Fishpond WailuāRiverLand Use Map - Līhu‘e 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Urban Edge Boundary Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Military Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Major Roads Planning District Boundary Roads Streams University Zone Urban Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Residential Community Līhu‘e Puhi Hanamā‘uluKūhiōHwy Kaumuali‘iHwyNāwiliwili Kīpū Līhu‘e AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t AhukiniRd Nā w i l i w i l i R d M a’alo R dAlekoko Fishpond WailuāRiverLand Use Map - Līhu‘e 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Urban Edge Boundary Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Military Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Major Roads Planning District Boundary Roads Streams University Zone Urban Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Residential Community Līhu‘e Puhi Hanamā‘uluKūhiōHwy Kaumuali‘iHwyNāwiliwili Kīpū Līhu‘e AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t AhukiniRd Nā w i l i w i l i R d M a’alo R dAlekoko Fishpond WailuāRiverLand Use Map - Līhu‘e 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Urban Edge Boundary Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Military Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Major Roads Planning District Boundary Roads Streams University Zone Urban Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Residential Community Līhu‘e Puhi Hanamā‘uluKūhiōHwy Kaumuali‘iHwyNāwiliwili Kīpū Līhu‘e AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t AhukiniRd Nā w i l i w i l i R d M a’alo R dAlekoko Fishpond WailuāRiverLand Use Map - Līhu‘e 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Urban Edge Boundary Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Military Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Major Roads Planning District Boundary Roads Streams University Zone Urban Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Residential Community Līhu‘e Puhi Hanamā‘uluKūhiōHwy Kaumuali‘iHwyNāwiliwili Kīpū Līhu‘e AirportKukui Grove Shopping Center Wilcox Memorial Hospital Ric e S t AhukiniRd Nā w i l i w i l i R d M a’alo R dAlekoko Fishpond WailuāRiverLand Use Map - Līhu‘e 0 1 20.5 Miles N1 in = 1 miles Reservoirs Urban Edge Boundary Natural Agricultural Parks and Recreation Homestead Resort Transportation Military Agricultural (IAL) Golf Course Major Roads Planning District Boundary Roads Streams University Zone Urban Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Residential Community Agriculture Agriculture (IAL) ONLINE VERSION ONLINE VERSION Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 28 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT F SITE PLAN Resource Mapping Hawaii, GeoEye Wehe Road Wehe RoadPua Loke S t ree t Haleko Road DOA Memorial Site DOCARE, DAR, Land and DSP DOFAW Baseyard Expansion Area More County Construction 0 300150Feet ± 1.2 Acres 0.38 Acres Cinema --- Nursery ------Old Baseyard Address New Baseyard Address Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 30 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT G CONSTRUCTION SHEETS & DETAILS W E H E R O A DPUA LOKE STREETTMK: (4) 3-8- 0 0 5 : 0 1 3 T M K : ( 4 ) 3 - 8 - 0 0 5 : 0 0 6PUA LOKE STREETADA ACCESIBLEADMINISTRATION /MAINTENANCE131415345671011122981WEHE ROAD I U SAHAWAI WEHTAM AKO JUFK. ITW E H E R O A DPUA LOKE STREET I U SAHAWAI WEHTAM AKO JUFK. IT Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 33 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT H PUHI SEWER AND WATER COMPANY EMAIL From: Ann Sokei <ann@aquaengineers.com> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:13 AM To: Matthew Fujioka <MFujioka@bowengineering.com> Subject: External: RE: Sewer Service for Parcel TMK:3-8-05: 002 Aloha Matt, Thanks for reaching out. You are correct on all points: • TMK: 3-8-05: 002 is in the PSWC service area • Connection to the system would be at our nearest SMH behind King Auto Center (location on the drawing is accurate). • It would be IDEAL and smart planning if all the State entities/buildings on that TMK and possibly neighboring State owned TMKs could tie in….. Is there any possibility to coordinate with the CoK to drop into their line? What are the projected flows? Thanks, Ann Ann Sokei 3560 Koloa Road Kalaheo, Hawaii 96741  (808) 240-2214 / (808) 332-7381 www.aquaengineers.com From: Matthew Fujioka <MFujioka@bowengineering.com> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:53 AM To: Ann Sokei <ann@aquaengineers.com> Subject: Sewer Service for Parcel TMK:3-8-05: 002 Hi Ann, DLNR’s Pua Loke Baseyard is currently on a cesspool that they are looking at options to close. I had discussions with Jesse in my office and I believe the baseyard is in Puhi Water and Sewer’s service zone, so we will need to make a connection to your system as DOH is not allowing an IWS if a conncetion can be made. Would the manhole behind King Auto Center be the conneciton point again for us (see attached)? The current project involves only a single mens and womens restroom for the DOFAW employees and it isnt heavily used, but it may be advantageous to look into connecting multiple buildings in the area if we will be putting in a pump station. Will the system be able to take the current project flows? We can submit a service request letter, but just want to get your insight before getting too far, thanks! Matt Matthew K. Fujioka, P.E. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 1953 S. Beretania Street PH-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 Direct: (808) 369-8215 E-mail: mfujioka@bowengineering.com Office: (808) 941-8853 (x115) Website: www.bowengineering.com This message is intended solely for the recipient identified above and should not be opened, read, or utilized by any other party. This message is intended above and shall not be construed as official project information or direction except as expressly provided in the contract documents. Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. 36 Pua Loke DLNR Fencing & Sewer Use Permit / Class IV Zoning Permit Petition EXHIBIT I PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTOGRAPH LOG Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. Location for Proposed Sewer Force Main (Photographs Taken 8/18/2022) Photograph 1 Photograph 2 Photograph 3 Photograph 4 Photograph 5 Photograph 6 Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. Location for Proposed Perimeter Fencing (Photographs Taken 8/18/2022) Photograph 7 Photograph 8 Photograph 9 Photograph 10 Photograph 11 Photograph 12 W E H E R O A DPUA LOKE STREETTMK: (4) 3-8- 0 0 5 : 0 1 3 T M K : ( 4 ) 3 - 8 - 0 0 5 : 0 0 6PUA LOKE STREETADA ACCESIBLEADMINISTRATION /MAINTENANCE131415345671011122981I U SAHAWAI WEHTAM AKO JUFK. ITW E H E R O A DPUA LOKE STREET1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 F.2.e.1. April 11, 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, 2023xK.1. April 11, 2023 Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Page 2 Febraury 7, 2023 The Planning Department began their inquiry into the Master Permit in 2019. The Applicant responded to the Planning Department's request for a site inspection and requested documents. Thereafter, further inquiry was issued on February 7, 2022. On March 9, 2022, the Applicant submitted its enclosed Status Report. The Status Report was intended to provide an update as requested by the Planning Department to its letter dated February 7, 2022. The Applicant would further like to schedule a meeting with the Planning Department and complainants in an effort to resolve this matter in lieu of holding a contested case hearing on the Order to Show Cause Petition. Therefore, a six week deferral is a reasonable request given the Applicant has been engaged with your Department on this matter since 2019 and provided all requested documentation. Moreover, allowing additional time to resolve this matter may result in an agreement to settle this matter without costly administrative litigation. Thank you very much for your continued assistance in this matter. IKJ:jaug Enclosure Sincerely yours, cc: Mr. Leslie Milnes, w/enc. (via email only) {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0 178793.DOCX } 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 } Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Page2 March 9, 2022 Thank you very much for your continued assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, IKJ:jaug Enclosure cc: Mr. Leslie Milnes, w/encl. (via email only) Mr. Romio Idica, w/encl. (via email only) {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74933.DOCX} LLP 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} EXHIBIT "A" 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. .. ·----------.. -----··--·· -.............. . 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 Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Page 2 Febraury 7, 2023 The Planning Department began their inquiry into the Master Permit in 2019. The Applicant responded to the Planning Department's request for a site inspection and requested documents. Thereafter, further inquiry was issued on February 7, 2022. On March 9, 2022, the Applicant submitted its enclosed Status Report. The Status Report was intended to provide an update as requested by the Planning Department to its letter dated February 7, 2022. The Applicant would further like to schedule a meeting with the Planning Department and complainants in an effort to resolve this matter in lieu of holding a contested case hearing on the Order to Show Cause Petition. Therefore, a six week deferral is a reasonable request given the Applicant has been engaged with your Department on this matter since 2019 and provided all requested documentation. Moreover, allowing additional time to resolve this matter may result in an agreement to settle this matter without costly administrative litigation. Thank you very much for your continued assistance in this matter. IKJ:jaug Enclosure Sincerely yours, cc: Mr. Leslie Milnes, w/enc. (via email only) {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0 178793.DOCX } 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 } Mr. Ka'aina S. Hull Page2 March 9, 2022 Thank you very much for your continued assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, IKJ:jaug Enclosure cc: Mr. Leslie Milnes, w/encl. (via email only) Mr. Romio Idica, w/encl. (via email only) {W:/DOCS/29229/1/W0l 74933.DOCX} LLP 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} EXHIBIT "A" 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. .. ·----------.. -----··--·· -.............. . H.1. Feb. 14, 2023XK.1. April 11, 2023