Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/2011 FINANCE/PARKS AND RECREATION/PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Committee MeetingMINUTES FINANCE /PARKS & RECREATION / PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS COMMITTEE June 8, 2011 A meeting of the Finance /Parks & Recreation /Public Works Programs Committee of the Council of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Councilmember Tim Bynum, Chair, at the Council Chamber, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 9:08 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio. Member The Committee proceeded on its agenda item, as shown in the following Committee Report which is incorporated herein by reference: C 2011-75 Communication (02/10/2011) from Council Chair Furfaro, requesting the Administration's presence to provide the Council with an update on the Kapaia Swinging Bridge Project. [This item was deferred.] Chair Bynum: Someone is .going to do a presentation I assume? Mr. Rapozo: Oh I don't know... but I guess I'll start with the motion to... Mr. Furfaro: Yeah we have Curtis... yeah why don't we start with a motion. Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011-75 for the record, seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Mr. Furfaro: Let me answer Mr. Bynum's question. I believe we have Curtis Motoyama here from the Facility Access Coordinator, State of Hawaii but I would also pose that question to the administration, I'm not sure if they have anymore that they want to present, Mr. Bynum. But we do have a visitor from the State here today. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? If I may? The purpose of the deferral last week was... or last Committee Meeting was to ask for the State to be here and I would ask that we have him up first so we can address the questions regarding the ADA issues and then the Administration if they want to respond, they're free to do so if there are any questions. But we've had a lot of discussion .and a lot of presentations dating back to 2006, one of the major issues as I see it with the recent presentation by the Administration is the ADA issue and I was hoping we could get Mr. Motoyama up to clarify. Chair Bynum: Okay, we'll suspend the rules if Mr. Motoyama would grace us with his presence. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Bynum: Good morning Mr. Motoyama and did you have a presentation or are you here to answer questions? CURTIS MOTOYAMA, DISABILITY & COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD (DCAB): I can do a little bit presentation first and I'll answer questions after. Committee Chair and Committee members thanks for inviting us to come today and speak. I'm just going to update you on the ADA requirements or obligations for this bridge. The ADA is a Federal Civil Rights Law so these are federal requirements, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to go over the County's obligations if they become involved with this bridge itself. If the County takes ownership of the bridge or the land or if the County funds construction or design, then the County is obligated to meet federal ADA requirements. I guess I should say the opposite is that if the County does not I guess take ownership or does not fund any design or construction or does not become involved, then the County has no obligation. It would fall on whoever is the person or entity, I guess doing the construction. So if it's a private non-profit then they would be responsible to ensure that the bridge complies with the ADA requirements. If the County does become involved then there is an obligation under the alterations requirements, that whenever you touch an element, you are required to make that element comply with the ADA accessibility guidelines. Since the bridge is a pedestrian route, it would have to comply with the accessible route requirements, so basically you would have to have a width that's three feet wide, that's a minimum width and the surface of the bridge itself would have to be firm, stable, slip resistant as well as the slopes have to comply with the ADA accessibility guidelines. So that's for the alteration portion of the bridge itself. There are exceptions within the accessibility guidelines; one (1) exception is a technical infeasibility. Any time you have an alteration, if there's a little likelihood of making that alteration comply with the accessibility guideline then the construction or design may not be required to comply. Examples of justifications of technical infeasibility are existing bearing load or construal element that's a bearing element is being altered or being removed or something like that, you know that could be a justification for a technical infeasibility. The other possible justification for technical infeasibility could be existing terrain, so if the existing terrain is really steep then that may be a claim for justification for technical infeasibility. These justifications though as far as our office, we do review State and County projects for compliance with the ADA accessibility guidelines, so if this bridge was a County facility or a County funded construction project then the drawings and specifications would be submitted to our office for review. If there is a claim for technical infeasibility, it would come to our office and we look at it but we wouldn't approve it and it's not our office that generates the justifications. It would have to be the design consultant in conjunction with the County, I guess the Department or Engineers. So that's one exception possible that may apply to this bridge, the other possible exception is historic preservation. If the County looks at the design of the bridge or the construction project and they feel that this bridge or I guess the design or construction would destroy the historic significance of the bridge itself, I guess the correct term is threaten or destroy, if that's what they feel that the construction or the compliance would threaten or destroy the historic significance... then what you need to do is you need to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer at DLNR and then consult with them. If the State Historic Preservation Officer concurs with the County's justifications or claims that this could destroy or threaten the historic significance, than you can possible file for some exceptions as well but the Historic Preservation statements or those types of a claim, it's going to be specific to certain elements. As it applies to the bridge possibly... say I guess the ramp portion that leads to the 2 ground to the bridge itself, if they say that you cannot change the length or the slope of that bridge or that connection... you know then that portion is the only portion that may be exempted from the ADA requirements so that's just an example, you would have to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to see what can or cannot be done. Those are the two (2) examples of exceptions under the ADA accessibility guidelines that may apply to the bridge itself. I think when we talked to Mauna Kea about this project and Lyle, one of the engineers; I guess they showed us a report with some possible plans. One (1) possible plan had a parking lot right next to the bridge. As far as the ADA accessibility guidelines or actually, I should... before I get into this part... whenever there is an exception, so if you file a exception for .technical infeasibility or even historic preservation, it doesn't mean that you're just totally exempt from the ADA accessibility guidelines, you would still need to comply with the guidelines to the maximum extent feasible. One (1) example could be the slope of the route, the accessibility guidelines... if it's just a walking surface, there's a maximum slope of five percent (5%) or grade. And say there's a technical infeasibility statement, the consultant is claiming that they cannot comply with the five percent (5%) because of the existing terrain. At that point what the designer has to do is they have to look at the project or the site and figure out what is the least slope possible and that's what would be required. They would still have to make the surface from stable slip resistance and compliance with the guidelines. So just because the slope will not comply, they will have to comply with all other accessibility guidelines. Same thing goes with the historic preservation. As far as the parking lot, the way the ADA is written if you provide parking, then you will have to provide accessible parking. If you don't provide parking the ADA doesn't require accessible parking. It is only when it is provided. Chair Bynum: Chair Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: Yeah I just wanted to note Mr. Bynum would you be asking Curtis to put his testimony in a form of a memorandum directed to the Committee so that we have a summary here. Obviously perhaps you're not as familiar with the facilities and the areas because there's some ownership questions that are not under the control of the county and therefore I clearly want to see your comments about ownership in some written form to us and what I'm hearing from you is... we should be talking to DLNR next. Once we have these summary questions and we can anticipate the answers to DLNR through Mr. Trask office that would probably be the appropriate right step. Mr. Motoyama: Yes if there is a claim for historic preservation. Mr. Furfaro: Let's talk in terms of a claim for the purpose of historic preservation whether it's for facility usage or simply for the amenity being preserved without any use, you know that brings different questions to the surface, I think, with DLNR but I am going to ask the Committee Chairman if he could ask you to summarize what you testified today in writing to this body. Mr. Motoyama: Okay. Mr. Bynum: And so that's okay with you? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah I believe that will be fine. I will double check with my director but I'm pretty sure that would be okay. 3 Mr. Bynum: Thank you very much. Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you and thank you for being here today and thank you Mr. Chair for funding his travel here today. I think it's important that we get your office involved at this point because I think there's a lot of misconceptions in the community about what we need to do and not need to be clarified one right now that a parking lot is not required. I think I was led to believe that it was required but what I heard you say is if we provide parking, it needs to be ADA accessible? Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Mr. Motoyama: What I should clarify though is that since the bridge I believe we were talking about it before with Mauna Kea it's a pedestrian route but it's also possibly going to be a sort of like a destination point, almost like a... I'm not... there was discussion about it, I don't know what it's actually going to be... but if it does become sort of like a destination point or if it does become some type of, thing similar to like a landmark or monument where people go there and if the county does own the property or say fund design or construction or somehow related to the bridge itself then they're, the County then is obligated to ensure that the bridge is accessible. The guidelines do require an accessible route from the boundary of the site, so said the sidewalk along the street to the facility on site. Mr. Rapozo: Okay... well... let me... just so that you understand what the community has requested is not so much a tourist trap, not so much a landmark, it's to restore a bridge that was used in old days as an actual path connecting Hanama`ulu to Lihu`e that was once used quite a bit. The community is asking for that. .There's many discussions on this table and the community about how can we make it happen, if we made it a landmark, would it be easier. But I think. to get back to basics what the community is asking for is to restore this bridge to its original construction so that it can be used once again to connect Hanama`ulu not as a tourist trap, not as a destination... that's not what the community is asking for. I just want you to understand that that's how this discussion got started back in 2006. One of the problems on this bridge it's a county bridge .sitting across a river that is connected to private land. One side the lands are... I mean the land is... the slope is going to be an issue and I'm hearing from you that the existing terrain could be a valid exemption under the technical infeasibility provision? Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's a possible justification. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. The other question I have is being that the county has already spent some money in a study, we've already spent quite a bit of money on a consultant structural engineering study, does that automatically put the project into the ADA requirements or are you talking about the actual construction restoration? Mr. Motoyama: I do know for our office when we review projects, it does have to be moneys applied to the design and construction of the county or I guess the facility itself. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. 4 Mr. Motoyama: But as far as the federal obligation, I'm not a hundred percent sure, I can check on that to see if a study is done and the county does pay for that study whether or not the county has some obligation at that point. Mr. Rapozo:. Okay. Just a couple more questions Mr. Bynum? Mr. Bynum: Sure. Mr. Rapozo: You mentioned that the bridge... the ramp would have to be smooth, I forget the terms that you used, I wrote it but I can't find it. Mr. Motoyama: Firm stable slip resistant. Mr. Rapozo: Correct. But the bridge itself doesn't provide for that because obviously it's wood and it's slats going up, does that mean that with that historical designation that we could keep it that way? Mr. Motoyama: Possibly. But wood planking could be a firm stable slip resistant in compliance with the guidelines. So the wood may be okay, I guess you would just talk to your design consultants and your engineers to see if they consider it to be... Mr. Rapozo: I'll just say that it would be quite hard for a wheelchair to go across that bridge because of the way the design is. I guess my question is that if in fact the design of that new firm stable surface would alter the original design of the bridge, would that be covered under an exemption? Mr. Motoyama: Possibly. I guess you would talk to the DLNR (inaudible) preservation officer. Mr. Rapozo: DLNR, okay. Mr. Motoyama: To see if. Mr. Rapozo: And then the only other question I have right now is... is there a difference in your office's opinion or not your office but by law... between a State and Federal designation of historical register? Is there any difference whatsoever? Mr. Motoyama: That I'm not too sure,. I guess you would have to talk to the State Historic Preservation Officer for that one. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Mr. Motoyama: But for our office's review it would just be a statement from the State Historic Preservation Officer at DLNR. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. I think that's all I have right now. Thank you very much again for being here. Chair Furfaro: Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Motoyama thank you very much for the clearest explanation of ADA that I've heard so far. On the technical infeasibility 5 exemption/exception... you said we won't approve... I wasn't clear who does approve that exception. Mr. Motoyama: As far as I'm aware of there's nobody who approves that type o£.. I guess technical infeasibility claims. Even with our document review process when a project, say the bridge did have design drawings or drawings and specifications and say it did come to our office, we will review it for compliance but our review is technically not an approval. So when we complete our review, it's not saying that the project or the design as submitted to us is approved and is certified or anything like that. Our review process is technical assistance, so for the technical infeasibility statement when they come to our office, we'll review them... if we like... if we have questions or if we feel like there's not enough justification then we'll ask the consultant and the County to provide more information. Ms. Yukimura: Can everybody hear Mr. Motoyama? Can we either increase his volume or maybe you can bring it closer. Mr. Furfaro: Can you lift the mic up a little bit to you. Ms. Yukimura: Because you're saying very important things, so I want everybody to hear it. Mr. Motoyama: Okay. Ms. Yukimura: Okay so what I'm hearing you say is, you don't actually approve but you check and give technical assistance for compliance. Mr.1Vlotoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: And if it's not sufficient, you let the County know so they can resubmit with further justification? Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Ms. Yukimura: So that when you... do you sign off on it as review complete or something like that? Mr. Motoyama: Yes we do issue a letter, a report and it'll say that... if we don't have any more comments or questions, then it will say that... well... and say there's no technical infeasibility, there's no historic preservation, there's no exceptions... then it will say, the report will say something like the project appears to comply with the ADA accessibility guidelines and we do sign that report. Ms. Yukimura: Okay but if there is a technical infeasibility assertion... Mr_ Motoyama: ... Ms. Yukimura: ... on the part of the project, what do you then say if you finished the review? Mr. Motoyama: It will say that one... like the technical infeasibility statement was submitted with the project so this... so like a certain portion of the project does not comply with the accessibility guidelines. 6 Ms. Yukimura: But it might comply with the exception except that it's not your role to say yes or no, is that? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah... it's not our role to approve I guess the design or the technical infeasibility statements. Ms. Yukimura: Okay and so whose role is it to approve? Mr. Motoyama: It would be a situation where if somebody did make a complaint and if the complaint went to say court... then that's typically how the ADA is enforced. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Mr. Motoyama: Is through complaints. So somebody with a disability may claim that they're discriminated against... Ms. Yukimura: And so at that point then whoever is being sued would assert the technical infeasibility and it would be the court's role to make the determination about it? Mr. Motoyama: Yes they would make the final decision. What would probably happen if it was a County, like say if it was the bridge project, they would probably subpoena our files and then I guess the whole reason for us asking for the statements is that if there ever is a complaint, then they can look at our files and see the justifications. They're actually written someplace so that they have access to them. Ms. Yukimura: Okay and then on the Historic Preservation exception, that one seems to have compliance based on DLNR historic preservation officer approval? Mr. Motoyama: I guess they would make a statement as well. For our review process, they would have to make a statement that the design or I guess full compliance would threaten or destroy historic significance. There is a letter that we ask for when we do and conduct our document reviews and it has to be signed by the State Historic Preservation officer at DLNR. That also goes into the project file and that's also noted on the final report. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. So there is often a statement from the DLNR Historic Preservation officer that full compliance would destroy or threaten the historical significance? Mr. Motoyama: that? Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Motoyama: within the facility though. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Motoyama: Ms. Yukimura: exemption. Yes. There are occasions where they would make It's typically specific to particular elements Right. Yeah. Like you were explaining it's not a total 7 Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: It would be as to specific aspects of the project. Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. And the issue of the parking lot actually depends on the character of the restoration, if it's basically for the purpose of a pedestrian path, then a parking lot wouldn't be... apparently necessary because it's about people, it's something for people walking, they wouldn't have a car. Mr. Motoyama: Yes I would say that's correct. Ms. Yukimura: Right? But if it's a destination like a visitor destination where people come to look at, then ADA parking requirements would be possibly invoked? Mr. Motoyama: Possibly and the main thing is that there is some access to the bridge itself if it does become a visitor destination. So I guess possible solutions that could be explored would be maybe a parking lot... passenger drop off or pick up or... what would be required under the guidelines is an accessible route from the sidewalk or the boundary of the site to the bridge. That's actually required in the guidelines. Ms. Yukimura: Right. And I mean there was some talk about it being a monument so not something that people can actually use but something people look at. Mr. Motoyama: Yea. Ms. Yukimura: And I guess if that's what it is and people do have to have a place in which to look at it. And you assume people come in a car to look at, that there will be some people come in a car, in fact most people will come if you can't really use it as an accessible pedestrian path. Right, because you can't get from one side of the... one side of the bridge to the other if it's only going to be a monument. I think those who are advocating this bridge really see it as a functioning pedestrian path? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I think that's it. Thank you very much. Mr. Motoyama: Thank you. Chair Bynum: Council Chair. Mr. Furfaro: I just wanted to... you know we're reliving with this at Lydgate Camp Grounds right now. Your office never gives final endorsement to (inaudible)? Mr. Motoyama: It is called a final document review. Mr. Furfaro: No... let's use the word endorsement. 8 Mr. Motoyama: Mr. Furfaro: plan? Mr. Motoyama: like an approval or a certification? Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Motoyama: certification. Oh... You never give a final endorsement to a Not an endorsement. You're talking about Yes. Yeah, it's not an approval, endorsement or Mr. Furfaro: So if we wanted to take this next step that we would talk to the Federal Historic Preservation Group, we would only have from your office a letter that says you reviewed the plans, the design concepts and if we took that technical feasibility to them after we spent the money on the design and so forth because the other part of the problem is getting some grants that would help them us fund this.:. do you know of any types of approvals that would come out of DLNR or the Historic Preservation State Committee that would help us get these endorsements along the way so we can look for grant money? Mr. Motoyama: As far as grant money for say ADA compliance, I am not aware of any grants especially for that. I did call the Department of Justice Technical Assistance line and they, the person that I talked to said that they are not aware of any federal grants for ADA compliance construction projects. Mr. Furfaro: So you've checked on that from our earlier conversation? Mr. Motoyama: Yes I did. I did call them after our earlier conversation. The person that I talked to said that they're not aware of any grants for ADA compliance construction projects but they suggested that you could possibly call the Small Business Administration and they may be able to help answer that question better. Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to have my staff share an email with you because: you know we've been looking at potential funding sources with Kapaia Swinging Bridge that's based on some federal .support because the ADA regulations are in fact federal mandates and you know there's .some agencies whether it's... if this was an agricultural community so there's agricultural opportunities, neighborhood pieces with HUD, National Park Service, a Preserve America Grant, an American Treasures Grant... National Trust Loans, Tourism Care loans you know they kind of all exist but to get to a point that we get some support from the federal government, we want to document that's coming to us from the public facility access piece that says... the plan has our stamp of approval. But you're telling me that we would never get that far. Mr. Motoyama: Yes, not an approval. I guess you can possibly try to talk to these people who oversee these grants and see if our document review... or our final document review letter would in a way meet the conditions of receiving a grant, just to clarify with them to see what they would require. Mr. Furfaro: Well I just know that Councilmember Dickie Chang has been working with Roger Gwinn on evaluating some of these federal 9 moneys that are available to us. But it clearly requires that we clear some lesser political subdivisions at the state level before we can pursue the opportunities for those funds. Mr. Chang has done some pretty diligent dialog with these agencies that you may now have a sample of them and I've just read... but you know we could go on trying to get the right letter for such a time but you know the bridge actually deteriorates to the point where it collapses. It could take us that long to... through some of this process. Obviously we reinstated the money for that count thinking of the possibility of at least funding the design and getting it to a point that it could be accepted by your office but I just wanted to reconfirm, we would never see a letter that basically says you concur with everything I've done and therefore these plans meet the requirements and are approved... we would never get there? Mr. Motoyama: Not approved. Mr. Furfaro: Okay... you've... Mr. Motoyama: Through our State law... Mr. Furfaro: I just want to tell you Curtis, I really appreciate your candidness on sharing this with us because as the counties go through these projects, we're never going to get a letter for approval but we'll have this review and design piece but additional conditions could always be added and so forth and I mean this could go on for a long time. I know our Legal Department will agree with me, I mean we could go on for years trying to get us to that point but I really appreciate you being here today Curtis. Mr. Motoyama: Well thank you. Mr. Furfaro: You've clarified a lot of things for this Council, I think. Mr. Motoyama: Okay... well thank you. I just wanted to clarify that the State law that we, I guess that requires the plans to be submitted to our office, I guess the way it's written, it does say that the State and Counties are required to seek our advice and recommendation and I guess that's how it becomes to the point where it's not an approval or certification, it's technical assistance and advice and recommendations and that's just how the State law is written. Mr. Furfaro: .And I'll just make it really clear, it basically says if there's any liability exposure for the plan, the State is saying we didn't approve it... that's basically what it boils down to. Thank. you Mr. Bynum. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Kuali`i then Councilmember Nakamura. Mr. Kuali`i: Aloha and mahalo, thank you so much for being here and a lot of the questions my fellow Councilmembers have asked... you've gave us a lot of valuable information not only for us but for the community members that are here today. I just had one really quick question and it's real basic and simple... so when you started out you talked about ownership and the obligation of the County, is there any difference if the County owns it versus a community non-profit as far as the likelihood of being considered for these different exceptions? Mr. Motoyama: No, the exceptions would apply to the County as well as the non-profits in the same way. I guess with the non-profit if the project 10 is completely private, say the County is not owners or if the County does not provide funding for the design or construction... the project, and if it was a hundred percent private project, the project would not be sent to our office for review. Under State law, we only look at the State and the County projects. So private projects we don't look at. So they, non-profit as the private entity would have to, I guess take it upon themselves to document any technical infeasibility statements or technical infeasibility claims and they, themselves would have to document any claims of historic preservation. Mr. Kuali`i: And then the only thing you said about, because there's no real approval, is that only becomes an issue when a complaint is filed and then it's decided by the Court? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Mr. Kuali`i: So that would be the case... in this private where, so it wouldn't even come through you at all then? Mr. Motoyama: Yes, not for our review. Mr. Kuali`i: Not for review... Okay, that's it. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Mr. Motoyama: Chair Bynum: Ms. Nakamura: similar question but let non-profit organization, through... in that case compliance? Mr. Motoyama: Ms. Nakamura: funds... Mr. Motoyama: Ms. Nakamura: Mr. Motoyama: Thank you. Councilmember Nakamura. I think Councilmember Kuali`i asked a me just clarify... so if the County were to give funds to a would that project for this project kind of as a pass would plans have to go to your office for review and Yes it would. It would. So as long as there are public Yes. Attached to a project? Yes. Ms. Nakamura: Okay. In this case where the boundary of the project or the part that the County itself owns is the bridge itself so one end to another, how does public accessibly work? Mr. Motoyama: Ms. Nakamura: Because you had mentioned that... you know from the boundary of the site to the bridge would need. to be accessible but if we don't own it... what is that rule here? Mr. Motoyama: As far as if you were to look at the ADA accessibility guidelines it would, I guess it would just be from... just to the boundary of the site that the City owns. 11 Ms. Nakamura: So if it's just from... Mr. Motoyama: ... if it's just the bridge... Ms. Nakamura: The bridge itself? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. So that would be the limit of the County's, I guess obligation under the ADA accessibility guidelines. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Okay well that's pretty interesting because the County only owns the bridge, so you're saying everything outside of that would not be subject? Mr. Motoyama: To the ADA accessibility guidelines... Mr. Rapozo: Right. Mr. Motoyama: ... yes but the County as a public entity still would have a responsibility to ensure what they call it as there program, services or activities are accessible to the people with disabilities. So I guess there would have to be some method of ensuring that the bridge is still accessible to people with disabilities then of course you would need to explore different options for that. Mr. Rapozo: Right but that's for pre-exemptions, right you'd applied... it would apply for the exemptions based on historical significant as well as the grade of the private lands that abut this bridge? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah but I guess even if you do file for an exemption there is just an overall obligation for the public entity to make sure that... in this case the bridge would be accessible to people with disabilities. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Mr. Motoyama: Regardless of exceptions. Mr. Rapozo: And then your final document review, I guess it's like semantics because it's not called an approval but you know if the County was to go and design a public restroom right now that was not ADA accessible, they would not get a final document review? Mr. Motoyama: Yes, they would not. Mr. Rapozo: Right and so I'm looking... as long as I've understood this process the final document review and although I know you're not going to say it's an approval but really if it doesn't meet the standard, they're not going to get a final document review? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Right so I mean... are you aware of any civil cases that went through court, the case that received final document review from your office and lost? 12 Mr. Motoyama: I'm not aware of any. Mr: Rapozo: Neither am I. Because that final document review as far as the State is concerned is the approval process although it's not called an approval process... Mr. Motoyama: Yes I would... Mr. Rapozo: I mean without that... you cannot build. Mr. Motoyama: You... Mr. Rapozo: I mean I guess you could. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. Mr. Rapozo: But the final document review is required really for any... I know it's the policy of this county; we're not going to build anything until we get that final document review. Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: So I look at it as almost a semantics issue that call it what you want but we got to submit the plans to you, you guys vet it out and say okay it meets all the ADA requirements. Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: Then you have our stamp of review? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah I guess so, that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. I just want to make it clear that when you get a final document review, as a claimant, if I file a lawsuit and I go to an attorney, I think the first place the attorney goes... the plaintiff's attorney is going to... did the County get final document review from the State, yes... then he tells the client that's up to you, you want to spend some money, let's go: Mr. Motoyama: ~ Yes, that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: I think we need to... Mr. Motoyama: Yeah thanks for clarifying that. Mr. Rapozo: It's not just a... okay here you go... it's the review. It's basically saying okay county you did everything you need to do to comply with State law. Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: And here's your final document review. Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. 13 Mr. Motoyama: Thank you. Chair Bynum: Other questions? Councilmember Yukimura. Ms_ Yukimura: Councilmember Rapozo's questions and your answers were very helpful. So what it's basically saying is there are times where you won't issue a letter? Mr. Motoyama: We'll issue a letter but the letter will have comments attached to it and the letter will state that there are portions of the projects that do not appear to comply with the ADA accessibility guidelines. Then with that letter will be comments that will specify what we see as reviewers that do not appear to comply with the guidelines. Ms. Yukimura: And in the case of a technical infeasibility exception you would say that this project is applying for a technical or a citing or asserting a technical infeasibility and you... you would just leave it at that, you wouldn't say that... and you would also make sure that there's as much documentation as possible for it? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah basically is a final document review letter but then we do clarify that there is a technical infeasibility statement attached to the project. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so your letter is essentially saying... you know we think this project complies with ADA requirements but it's not guaranteed, I mean the final arbiter of this is the Courts? Mr. Motoyama: Yes it's not guaranteed. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. But it sure is increases because they've consulted with you and they've tried to document any exceptions and compliance? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay so if we talk about a project that's completely private, you said it's not to be sent to your office for review, it doesn't have to... it's not obligated under law to seek review or technical assistance from your office? Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Ms. Yukimura: But the non-profit still needs to comply with ADA requirements? Mr. Motoyama: Yes they would have to comply with ADA requirements as a private entity. Their obligations are a little bit different than a public entity and I can clarify that now. As a public entity there is something that is called program access, I guess first you're supposed to look at making the physical construction accessible and if that's not possible then you do... then there are other methods that are available to the public entity and the example that's written in some DOJ documents is if you have a museum and there's no way for you to make it accessible then one of the other methods could be audio visual, you'll show the museum through an audio visual display to the person with the disability. For a private entity it's a little different where they have to do something called readily achievable barrier removal. They don't have the options of other methods 14 like the audio visual but what they do is they have to assess the facility, see what's not compliant and then come up with a plan to make those areas comply and what they look at, they look at I guess what they call... what I've heard the term is achievement easy and I guess that's why they use the term readily achievable barrier removal. Based on the entity's resources... then they determine what can be removed as far as barriers and then they have that plan to lay out when those barriers will be removed. Ms. Yukimura: I see. So you're saying there's a distinction between what a public agency is required to do to comply with ADA and what a private non-profit entity... or a private... Mr. Motoyama: Private entity. Ms. Yukimura: A private entity. And you said in the case of public agencies, if you can't give physical access then you... you're allowed to give program access? Mr. Motoyama: Yes that's correct. Ms. Yukimura: Which is audio visual, etc... Mr. Motoyama: Yeah that's one possible other method. Ms. Yukimura: And in the case of a private entity, program access isn't required but what is required is readily achievable barrier removal which means a plan to comply with... after you inventory what's not in compliance, you have a plan to put it into compliance, you're allowed to use what's called a cheap and easy solutions that are based on the entity's resources? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: And you also have some time to do it? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah I guess you would have some time to do it; it's all based on the entity's financial resources I would say or resources in general. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Motoyama: I guess I should clarify, that's for existing facilities so if you were looking... Ms. Yukimura: Oh for existing facilities? Mr. Motoyama: Existing facilities. So then I guess with the bridge it's a little different if they are going to replace the bridge then they have to... whatever they're replacing would have to just comply with the accessibility guidelines. Ms. Yukimura: They don't have the readily achievable barrier removal option... Mr. Motoyama: No. Ms. Yukimura: This is all in the context of private? 15 Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Um... Mr. Motoyama: I guess both private and public. Ms. Yukimura: Oh... Mr. Motoyama: If they're replacing the bridge, whatever they're touching they have to make comply with the accessibility guidelines unless you're claiming some type of an exception. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you. Chair Bynum: Council Chair Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: I don't want to disagree with the interpretations from two of my colleagues here but there's a difference between approval and how they presented it... as an implied warranty. There's a big difference and many lawyers in this room that know that there's a big difference between that and implied warranty. You won't approve it and it's fair and understood if we cannot give access to all people and you don't approve that, you don't put a stamp of approval on it. That's why I want to pursue the next question... if we find ourselves in a position that we want to restore this as a landmark, an icon for the town... and it has no intent to be used but just restored as a landmark, your review is not subject to non-compliance, non-use intent of restoring the historical bridge? Mr. Motoyama: When you say non-compliance, not... Mr. Furfaro: Well we know it's not going to comply, we know that the land cost around it are perhaps excessive to the project cost but we want to restore the bridge for the purpose of it being a landmark for the town, you would have no review? Mr. Motoyama: Oh... Mr. Furfaro: (inaudible) go through the regular permitting, if it's not intended for any use? Mr. Motoyama: And the county is going to own the bridge and fund it? Mr. Furfaro: We own the bridge as it is right now. Mr. Motoyama: Okay. Mr. Furfaro: But only the bridge not the land, not the access. Mr. Motoyama: The County owns the bridge and if they do an alteration project then it is required by State law to come to our office for review, the plans specifications. Mr. Furfaro: Even if the intention is only to make it as a landmark? 16 Mr. Motoyama: Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Motoyama: Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Okay. Any time. You've answered my question. Okay. Mr. Furfaro: But I guess we want to be very clear in our communication to the... we're not pursuing use but we're pursuing preservation? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. So any time there's plans or specifications done for a State or County project, it is required by State law to come to our office for review. Mr. Furfaro: Would you note that you approved it based on the fact that there's no pedestrian use? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah, we would basically, for our review process we look at whatever's submitted. Mr. Furfaro: Okay, that's fair and I just want to restate that we can't meet all these requirements and it can't be accessible .for everyone, then our only alternative is perhaps to restore it as an historical landmark? Mr. Motoyama: But I guess I should clarify that there is still that general obligation for the public entity to ensure that their programs, services and activities are accessible to people with disabilities. So our review process for plan reviews are going to look at whatever's being altered and we're reviewing it to the minimum requirements of the ADA accessibility guidelines and we wouldn't review it to that overall obligation for the public entity. Mr. Furfaro: But if we're going to make it as a landmark, then obviously an area where people will come to park and have a scenic view of the bridge and so forth would be subject to your office's review? Mr. Motoyama: It's going to be... we would look at the plans as far as what's being provided as far as alteration work or see if parking is provided then we'll review that for compliance. Mr. Furfaro: So you would review the parking if we decide... Mr. Motoyama: To provide. Mr. Furfaro: ...it is only for the purpose of preserving an icon in the Valley and if we provide public viewing of this historic landmark then. the parking area would be subject to comments from your office? Mr. Motoyama: If you provide parking. Mr. Furfaro: Yeah. Mr. Motoyama: Yes. I guess that's one of the parts that's a little bit difficult I guess... is that for our review process, you know if you're just 17 redoing the bridge, restoring the bridge and say you're not providing parking for our document review process, we're just going to look at that. If the County does consider it a landmark, our document review process won't require parking. It is something that the County just has to look at on their own and when they're developing the project scope of work, they have to assess all of those requirements. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for that Curtis. Mr. Motoyama: Okay. Chair Bynum: If there are no other questions, I have a few... let me start with... if it was restored as a historic landmark, we have to provide access for people with disabilities to participate in viewing that landmark, right? One way would be to do a parking lot and that would require that it have access and ADA spaces, another way I'm hearing is to make sure from the Highway there's an accessible route so it could be a bus stop with an accessible route, like an ADA compliant bus stop with an accessible route to the area to see the bridge, right? Mr. Motoyama: Yes, those are possible solutions, yes. Chair Bynum: Okay, now the County has existing sidewalks that have more than a five percent grade and in this instance coming from Lihu`e to this Valley, there's a sidewalk and I'm sure it's more than five percent grade, there's no requirement for the County to retrofit that sidewalk right? Mr. Motoyama: No actually within the... there are accessibility guidelines specifically for public rights of way, it hasn't been finalized yet so it's still in... I guess you could consider it in draft form. Within the public rights of way accessibility guidelines sidewalks are allowed to... sidewalk slopes are allowed to follow the road slopes. Chair Bynum: Right. Mr. Motoyama: The adjacent road slopes. So if it exceeds five percent, if the road slope exceeds five percent then the sidewalk can match that road slope. Chair Bynum: Right but from that sidewalk point to the... if we created a new sidewalk down the existing road then that road grade exceeded five percent, we can... Mr. Motoyama: That's one a little... Chair Bynum: That would be an accessible route. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah it would be an accessible route because it's no longer a public right of way but that's where you could possibly... I guess I should say the public rights of way guidelines only apply to elements within the public right of way. Once you go outside the public right of way into say County property or private property or State property then the public rights of way guidelines no longer apply and if you do have a route, then the route has to comply with the five percent maximum slope if it's a walking surface, if it does exceed five percent then you have to build a ramp with hand rails and all of those things. Chair Bynum: Right. 18 Mr. Motoyama: So that's what would be required within the site but again that's where you could possibly file a claim for technical infeasibility due to existing terrain. Chair Bynum: Okay, so that goes to my next question... there isn't a lot of agreement on this whole situation but one place I see agreement from the Administration and the community is that if we move this forward, we want it to be a practical pedestrian route which means it needs to connect from one... the highway goes like this, the route would go like this, it has to connect highway to highway... right? To make it a feasible transportation route, so I assume you've seen the drawings from the consultant? Mr. Motoyama: I've seen the report. Chair Bynum: Okay so the report did have an ADA compliant route from one point to the other, right? It showed switchbacks coming up the steep side near the church? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah I guess I did see it but I didn't like check everything in there to make sure it fully complied... I guess when we do our document review, we ask for kind of a lot of information as far as... it gets really specific to even like hand rail diameters and things like that. Chair Bynum: ~ So I'm trying to go through this technical infeasibility because of slope..., you know it's... what's. the criteria there? Is it dollars, is it... you know what makes the difference because you know there's a steep slope up to the church, there's a path there now, I'm sure is not ADA compliant. It's possible to build an ADA compliant, Boardwalk or (inaudible) that switches back but that's going to be expansive right? So if we proceed that route, we'd probably say hey we want a technical infeasibility because of the slope of this, you know... what's the criteria... well you know it's technically it is feasible, so it would be really expansive but it is feasible, so where does that you know where's the guideline for that? Mr. Motoyama: That's a good question and there really is no clear delineation as far as when something is technically infeasible and when it's not. It is going to come to the option of the design consultant and the county as well. As far as the Department of Justice, they always state that cost cannot be a justification for technical infeasibility, although what you're saying is correct in that you can do almost anything if you spend the money. Chair Bynum: Right. Mr. Motoyama: But I guess that's where it does come down to the opinion of the design consultant and the county. And what you're saying about all of those switchbacks... you know you could build it... I have heard that when you have so many switchbacks it becomes unusable for people with disabilities, just trying to negotiate all of those turns and that steep grade change. So one I guess possible option is if you do claim an technical infeasibility, of course you want to try to get as much justification as possible so if there is a complaint, then you can use that statement in court if you need to. I guess you could possibly try to work with disability groups, talk to them and show them your plan and see what their opinion is as well. You could possible talk to people who use wheelchairs and see what their opinion is, whether or not they feel that that route is even usable for them. That's just additional justification that could be in the statement. 19 Chair. Bynum: Other. pedestrian things we've done, we've had exemptions or we build switchbacks you know... you can go at a steeper grade if you put in railings and put landings every so many feet right? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Chair Bynum: And you know there's other instances where we had a slope during a long path that was technically infeasible but there were other ways to get there so one of the reasons we were granted said well this path is too steep but we're going to give you this feasibility because there's another path that is, there's alternatives. In this case, there wouldn't really be an alternative and so that's kind of again not a real clear answer... at what level does this elaborateness of this structure reach some criteria, you know there's no formula that says if the cost is three hundred percent greater then it's technically infeasible right? Mr. Motoyama: Yeah unfortunately there... Chair Bynum: And I have read that federal language that says cost isn't a factor. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. Chair Bynum: You got to do it, right... so basically what I'm taking all this as, if you choose to proceed you can show us the plans and you can get guidance from us but we can't really tell you what criteria you need to meet, you just got to submit it and see what happens right? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Chair Bynum: But I'm also hearing that if we make this path ADA accessible say from highway to highway, the highway on each end is beyond grade you know going up to Hanama`ulu or going back to Lihu`e is beyond... along the highway... but that would be okay if it was in the highway right of way? Mr. Motoyama: Yes it would comply with the draft public right of way accessibility guidelines. Chair Bynum:. And I hope this is my last question... coming down from the Lihu`e side, there is a sidewalk... and then going from Hanama`ulu side up the steep grade, you know there's... it's like in a v... the highway right of way is not that great, would there have to be some kind of pedestrian access in the Hanama`ulu even though it may be in the right of way and steeper but there has to be something right or else it would dead end in a place where nobody could... because there is no pedestrian element on the highway, on that side. Mr. Motoyama: And there may be a requirement, I .guess that's where the County would look at, would have to look at their overall that program accessibility requirement and try to see what would be required under that overall obligation then I guess through that process you would probably try to determine where sidewalks may actually be needed. It's hard just for me just to give an answer to that one. Chair Bynum: I really appreciate you being here today and being willing to answer all these technical questions. Mr. Motoyama: Thank you. 20 Chair Bynum: .And I think you also understand the frustration from the County side that we never get a clear determination, a stamp of approval, good to go... Mr: Motoyama: Yeah. Chair Bynum: We never really receive that and the questions that we have to address are complex and then we don't know really what your recommendations are, even if we're going to get a final document review, until we actually submit it and your office does the evaluation? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Chang and then Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Chang: Mr. Motoyama thank you for coming, very informative, thank you. My first question is a little unusual... what time is your flight back to Honolulu? Mr. Motoyama: I believe it's about 3:15 or something like that. Mr. Chang: Perfect, first question. Because I want to ask you, I don't believe you've been out to the site, have you? Mr. Motoyama: No I have not been out to the site. Mr. Chang: Because my question is just going to be if you can please, I see some tour guides here that I'm sure wouldn't mind familiarizing because i.f you look at a plan and you see Hanama`ulu, you see Lihu`e... I think you should visualize what we're talking about. When we're talking about the grades, or accessibility, parking, stream, the historic... I think it's very important for you and for us... for you to be there along with the community because you know just to be at that area I think you can understand where both sides are coming from. So I would like to humbly ask you and I'm sure you'll have a lot of time, we're only about fifteen minutes away from the site and less than fifteen minutes back to the airport so that would be my request that if you could do that favor for us, I would really recommend that you please take that time... since you're on Kauai you know may as well see the beauty and the history. Thank you very much Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: That's fifteen minutes if you walk. If you drive over there, it's about two or three minutes away... it's right up the road. It's actually closer to the airport, I mean it's... Mr. Chang: One minute. Mr. Rapozo: Yeah if you walk, it'll take you fifteen minutes. I just wanted a little ,bit more and I apologize I think you mentioned this enough times but I just wanted to get more clarity on the exemptions... the technical infeasibility, the County owns the bridge so we'll restore it for historical purposes or pedestrian use. One side of the bridge obviously private property, it's no doubt it'll be technically infeasible, simply because of the grade, the contour, what would the county's responsibility be? 21 Mr. Motoyama: And the county doesn't own that property then? Mr. Rapozo: No. Mr. Motoyama: I guess if the bridge was just a pedestrian route... Ms. Yukimura: (Inaudible) Mr. Motoyama: And the property line is just the bridge itself? There's no County property or easement? Mr. Rapozo: No. Not at all. Mr. Motoyama: To the boundary. Then I would say the county's responsibility if it's just a pedestrian route is just to look at the bridge itself. Mr. Rapozo: That's what I heard earlier. Mr. Motoyama: So if it's just a pedestrian route then you just focus on the bridge. Mr. Rapozo: Right. Mr. Motoyama: But once it does... if it does become like a landmark type of destination then the obligation would change. Mr. Rapozo: And I explained earlier that was not the intent. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. Mr. Rapozo: It was really to just get those people off the highway back from Hanama`ulu and you'll see it when you get there, if you get there... to get them from Hanama`ulu back to Lihu`e in a safe manner versus walking on that very dangerous roadway. Obviously would we even have to apply for a technical infeasibility exemption if we're not touching that private access? Mr. Motoyama: No. Mr. Rapozo: We're. just focusing on that forty foot or seventy foot span of wood bridge? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. The technical infeasibility would just apply to the alteration portion of the project. Mr. Rapozo: And we would not be altering, I mean it would be restoring, so we wouldn't need to apply from what I'm hearing today and I really thank you for being here because you're clearing up a lot of questions... likewise on the other side of the bridge which is privately owned, obviously would apply. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. 22 Mr. Rapozo: So basically our plans and our design plans that would be submitted to your office would simply be for the bridge? Mr. Motoyama: Yes. If it's specifically for the bridge then it'll just, whatever statements if there's technical infeasibility... Mr. Rapozo: And we would apply obviously for the historical preservation exemption to pretty much get that restored to its original state and this county would not be required to provide any access across the private property? Mr. Motoyama: No I wouldn't think so. It would just be within the boundary of the site. Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Well that clarifies quite a bit. Thank you very much, you've been very helpful and I hope you go down to the bridge today. Mr. Motoyama: I'll try to make it out there. Mr. Rapozo: Yeah take a camera, you'll feel it... it's a very sacred place and a lot of history in that valley. Thank you. We can provide transportation by the way. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: So in my mind it cannot be a pedestrian access without acquiring the land that extends from the bridge itself? There's no way it's going to be a pedestrian pathway if it goes from one side of the bridge to the other side of the bridge? Mr. Motoyama: What you're saying like an accessible pedestrian pathway or just a pedestrian pathway? Ms. Yukimura: Well I mean if the County doesn't have a right of way then theoretically it's not really a pedestrian, no pedestrian has the right to actually go across private property and then across the bridge and then across private property again. We need a continuous public pathway if it's to really be a practical path. Mr. Motoyama: Oh. Ms. Yukimura: So I mean I don't think anybody would fund, unless it's just for monument purposes. If it's a monument purpose then it's from one end of the bridge to the other, it's a historical monument that used to once be a pathway but it's not going to be if, but its function will not be a public passageway from one side of the valley to the other. Mr. Motoyama: Well I guess... Ms. Yukimura: Because there's no public right of way. Mr. Motoyama: Well I guess I'm not too sure how to answer that. I guess it's really not an ADA type of a question I don't believe. It's more like... Ms. Yukimura: It's a scoping question I guess. 23 Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. Ms. Yukimura: But what I'm saying is that you can't possibly say that it's for public access way... a public pedestrian path unless we have figure out the private, the land areas that connect to the bridge structure itself. Mr. Motoyama: Oh. Ms. Yukimura: As public access.. Mr. Motoyama: I guess for the ADA, I guess it is a scoping issue for the portions outside the bridge or beyond the bridge itself. Ms. Yukimura: Right. Mr. Motoyama: But for the bridge itself as far as ADA I guess I would consider it a bridge to be, just that short section is a pedestrian route for that... whatever span is. Ms. Yukimura: But you can only go from one side of the bridge to the other technically. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah. Ms. Yukimura: You can't go anywhere else. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah but for the ADA since it is I guess you would consider it as a pedestrian path from one side of the bridge to the other... Ms. Yukimura: Yeah well it's not... Mr. Motoyama: We would apply the ADA to that portion of the route. Ms. Yukimura: Well I mean with the practical outcome would be that you would exempt it historically so you don't have to put wheelchair access along the bridge and then you would require a place for people to park and look at the bridge. Mr. Motoyama: Um... Ms. Yukimura: Probably. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah, I mean that's a possible solution. I'd say if the bridge does come like that visitor destination. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you. Mr. Motoyama: But once the county does have some type of easement to put in routes, then those routes would have to comply with ADA. Ms. Yukimura: Exactly, that's understood. I mean I'm just thinking in terms of a practical project and the vision for the bridge, it's not practical to say you're just going from one end of the bridge to the other. They're 24 kind of a theoretical exercise but it doesn't work in the context of actual pedestrian access. Mr. Motoyama: Yeah, I guess that's a scoping type of issue. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you. Chair Bynum: If there's no further questions I'd like to thank you very much and we're going to have... with the rules still suspended, we're going to take public testimony and it's the Chair's intention to allow at least one member from the Kapaia Foundation, I think you're prepared to do a presentation to go beyond the traditional six minutes for one member. Mr. Motoyama: Chair Bynum: that presentation and... (Inaudible) Chair Bynum: Thank you. So perhaps that would be a great time for I'm sorry? Mr. Furfaro: Let me restate what the Chair has said... one of your members can make a presentation that exceeds more than six minutes, I think he said everyone after that will be held to the rules. Chair Bynum: Right. Mr. Furfaro: And I'm not sure why we're having all this mic problems... Chair Bynum: If that's acceptable to members. Whoever would like to make that presentation, you can have the time sufficient to make it and then further testimony will go by the normal rules. (Inaudible) Chair Bynum: If you'd like to take the chair and I would encourage you to pull the mic close, some people are having a hard time hearing. LEEROY WADAHARA, KAPAIA FOUNDATION: Kapaia Foundation. Chair Bynum: If you could state your name for the record please. Mr. Wadahara: I'm sorry, I'm Leeroy Wadahara. Chair Bynum: Mr. Wadahara the floor is yours. Mr. Wadahara: Thank you. The Kapaia Foundation, we're put together to preserve and promote the rich history of Kapaia Valley. The bridge was built in 1948 for sugar plantation immigrant laborers living in Kapaia Valley. In 2006, the bridge was closed because of safety concerns due to maintenance neglect. Concerned citizens immediately petitioned the county to repair the bridge, but almost 5 years later, the bridge remains untouched. The Foundation was formed in 2010 and its purpose is to preserve and promote the rich history of 25 Kapaia Valley. Its immediate task is to assist the County of Kauai by assuring that the historic Kapaia Swinging Bridge is repaired. Kapaia Foundation's vision for the bridge... as the towns surrounding Kapaia continue to develop with big box stores, 4 lane highways and more traffic lights than we care to count... The Foundation's vision is to preserve a rural greenbelt of humble beauty and tranquility for citizens of Kauai and throughout the world to enjoy. The historic Kapaia Swinging Bridge is the centerpiece of Kapaia Foundation's vision. Once repaired, not only will safe walking path between Hanama`ulu and Lihu`e be restored, but a greater vision, opening many pathways of exciting possibilities, will become available to pursue. In its lush tropical setting, the functional bridge will entice more people to walk, rather than drive, contributing to the health and fitness of our citizens, conserving natural resources and reducing air pollution. Will create the potential for an extended pathway, connecting to the Kauai bikepath and Hanama`ulu Beach. The extended pathway would add another excellent recreational hiking, biking and jogging trail for citizens and visitors to enjoy. Introduces a unique cultural heritage tourism destination for visitors. The bridge and its surroundings will delight the traveler looking for a uniquely meaningful place, unlike the crowded, bustling city they long to escape from. Promoting and embracing cultural heritage tourism assures the viability of our visitor industry for future generations. Will enhance the economic growth of businesses in Kapaia and surrounding towns. Kapaia Stitchery and the Koa Store will see increased sales. Other businesses will have the opportunity to be successful because of the increased interest in Kapaia as a unique cultural heritage tourism destination. The ,Catholic Church and Buddhist temple will see increased interest, attendance and revenue. The picturesque bridge setting will be used as a backdrop for weddings and other photo opportunities. Will provide an educational resource for youngsters and adults to learn and appreciate the rich history of the sugar plantation era in Hawai`i's history. Will provide the incentive for biologists, environmentalists, educators and students to restore native flora, fauna, fish and wildlife in the valley surrounding the bridge. Will be an opportunity to work with the State to re-establish water shed councils. Will provide the opportunity for archaeological research of untouched historical sites in Kapaia Valley. Will bring the entire community of Kapaia and its surrounding neighbors together. Parking between the two large churches in the valley could be shared in times of need, such. as bon dance and funerals, or other large gatherings. Seniors in Sun Village will once again be able to take a Sunday stroll down the hill and through the Kapaia swinging bridge to mass at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church. Will give Kapaia Foundation the opportunity to share its vision with organizations, institutions, businesses and individuals, creating a network of collaborative support to assure the success of its hope and dreams for the benefit of all the people of Kauai. 26 The foundation's vision is achievable because its strategic plan is reasonable and workable. Kapaia Foundation's Strategic Plan for the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. Public awareness... mass media such as radio, newspaper, Internet, television, word of mouth, flyers, brochures, participate in public awareness opportunities such as National Trust Historic Preservation's This Place Matters Community Challenge. Educate citizens of Hanama`ulu of a safe path option and conduct informational presentations with target groups. Work to streamline project to a reasonable scale and secure all cost saving opportunities. The original bridge plans do not indicate redwood as the original timber used. Using a less costly, but durable wood should be allowed. This will cut material cost tremendously. Volunteers can be used to revegetate the worksite, relocate parking area, reduce parking spaces and get cost estimates from at least two bridge building contractors. This is a two million dollar residence in Koloa... house and lot... two wooden towers, eighty inch of wooden planks and two lines of steel cable... two million dollars? Work to bring together other beneficiaries of this project. Potential partners include Lihu`e Hongwanji Mission, Immaculate Conception Church, Hanama`ulu Community, Kapaia businesses, Grove Farm Co., Wilcox Hospital, Wal-mart, Kauai bike path, Lihu`e Senior Center, Sun Village, etc. Team and collaborate with other non-profit organizations. Work with Historic Hawaii Foundation, State of Hawaii Preservation Division and State ADA specialist for a clear understanding of ADA requirements and exemptions for historic structures. Secure Funding... Grants, place bridge on National Historic Register, work with county leaders to secure County, State and Federal funding, apply for private grants, donations and fundraisers. Re-involve the County of Kauai with caring for their property. This place matters. What you can do to become part of the campaign to promote awareness of Kaua`i's unique and irreplaceable historic treasures go to www.preservationnation.org/communitychallen~e and vote for Kauai's chance to win one of three cash prizes to help repair the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. Is that it? Okay, this was a little bit different to me. Chair Bynum: Thank you Mr. Wadahara if you can stay there for a little bit and see if there are any questions from Councilmembers? Mr. Wadahaxa: Actually the one with most of the information is Lorraine but I'd like to just add my own personal... I didn't grow up there but I have gone over the Kuhi`o Highway Bridge. I've seen and followed kids zooming down that hill trying to keep up with traffic but no matter which direction they go, they hit that hill on the other side and when they're doing... trying to (inaudible) it's really spooky. Women pushing baby strollers has been seeing trying to hug the wall where the car speed by. You know when you take a community like Hanama`ulu which simply close the bridge which isolate safe walking paths, you know and there's a lot of Filipinos there and they're hard working and most of the family works two or three jobs, so if grandma is home and she wants to make an 27 appointment to see Kauai Medical Center, she has to wait to somebody brings her because they don't want to cross the bridge. Summer session... for the library, kids could go ,without having to charge down that hard bridge and just simply they would be better part of our community you know there's County and State buildings and stuff, that would all be available for Hanama`ulu residents within walking distance. So it involves restoring a safe walking path that was there since the 1940s. Anyway that's all I have but any questions for me? Chair Bynum: Thank you and Mrs. Moriguchi, you can join him if you like if there's questions. Any questions from Councilmembers? Okay. I do want to thank you for what I think is an excellent presentation and beautiful photographs and an understandable vision. So I guess if there's no questions from other Councilmembers, we'll continue... Mr. Rapozo: I have one question for Lorraine? Chair Bynum: Okay. Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Lorraine thanks for being here. I know this bridge that we're talking about was built in the 40s but prior to that, there had been other bridges, you know what is the oldest bridge or when was the original bridge, the first bridge that provided that pedestrian path between Hanama`ulu and Lzhu`e. Do you know when that might have been? T.AR.ATNE MORIGUCHI: I think the oldest bridge would have... Mr. Chang: Laraine... excuse me, could you please state your name for the record? Ms. Moriguchi: Oh... For the record my name is Laraine Moriguchi. I think the oldest bridge was probably a plank. Mr. Rapozo: Right. Ms. Moriguchi: Used by the Hawaiians. Mr. Rapozo: But there is a concrete structure there that is significantly lower than this current structure. Ms. Moriguchi: There's actually two... you can see two different structures, two different times. On one of them which is the taller one, it say 1918. Mr. Rapozo: 1918? Ms. Moriguchi: Yeah. So that's the earliest record that we have. Mr. Rapozo: So that route has been around for quite a while? Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Almost a hundred years. Ms. Moriguchi: Probably more. 28 Mr. Rapozo: Chair Bynum: Yukimura.. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilmember Ms. Yukimura: .Yes, I understand that if you were to go across the bridge from the Lihu`e side to the Hanama`ulu side, there's actually a pathway all the way down to Hanama`ulu Beach? Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So that... there is a potential to actually linking it to the beach and maybe to the multiuse path which is going to pass through the beach park? Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: In that way. Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so you know I think a lot of us are concerned about going over the bridge to the Catholic Church side and then trying to go up the hill, re-linking to the main highway and then trying to go up the hill to Hanama`ulu and that is a problem... there is a stretch that still would be very dangerous unless we can think of some way to improve that particular route but it looks like there's also in the long run, a possible link through the valley so you don't have to go up such a high grade and link to Hanama`ulu Beach Park? Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, that's wonderful. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Kuali`i. Mr. Kuali`i:' Aloha and mahalo and mahalo for such a great informative presentation. This is just a quick question regarding... I know that the Administration has said I believe... couldn't move forward without access right of ways or what have you and I've heard some on the Council express concern about that as well but for all these years... if the County only owned the bridge, how... the bridge still served as a pedestrian way for the people so it worked even though it's private owners along the bridge, so those owners just allowed it or I mean, how did it work that the public could use the bridge even though the County didn't own the land on both sides of the bridge? Ms. Moriguchi: It was originally plantation land, so the County built the bridge for the plantation and then later it was... the plantation sold it to the private owners and I guess, it's just tradition and nobody said anything. Mr. Kuali`i: So it's kind of like the old style where... Ms. Moriguchi: Just kept going. Mr. Kuali`i: Even the old plantation roads where we would use to get to the beaches and... that was then but today it's no longer the plantation then... 29 Ms. Moriguchi: Right. Mr. Kuali`i: Its private owners then. Okay thank you. Chair Bynum: Council Chair Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: This was a nice presentation, you guys did a good job. I really see this as having multiple phases to it and Lorraine this question is really directed towards you. I think the first phase that the County has some opportunity here is with the bridge because it's our asset and you know later possibly acquisition of additional land and then another phase that connects some of the expanded pathways and bike routes as a third phase eventually but is the Committee willing to just at this point try to raise awareness and Kokua on restoring the bridge only as a first phase? Ms. Moriguchi: Yes. Mr. Furfaro: Have you folks had an opportunity to talk about or solicit assistance on a community project from Grove. Farm who has now the possession of the (inaudible) fact lands, have you had dialog with Grove Farm, Marissa Sandbloom or... Ms. Moriguchi: We have not yet. We have talked to Marissa, emailed her, we invited her to one of our meetings and she's willing to come so we're supposed to have a general meeting this month that may be moved to July because we're having a lot of special meetings you know, for this purpose but she was willing to come to visit with us. Mr. Furfaro: Okay. And you folks are open to the idea that anything the county is able to help with, we help more in phased work... over three phases and you know we have restored the money that was in the account whether there's design and consultant services needed but it'll boil down to at the end of the day regardless of what the Administration thinks of my comment here I'm going to say it anyway... would you folks be in a position that you could eventually manage the bridge as a Foundation yourselves? Ms. Moriguchi: Mr. Furfaro: Ms. Moriguchi: Mr. Furfaro: Chair Bynum: Possibly. Possibly. Yeah sure. Okay, thank you very much. Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question and I'm not sure who can answer this, probably Kimo, but the other side the Immaculate Conception side of the trail or the route obviously that's Grove Farm's land but what is the condition of that route at this time? KIMO ST. JOHN: The last time. Mr. Rapozo: And you have to state your name, I'm sorry. 30 Mr. St. John: My name is Kimo St. John, I'm with the Kapaia Foundation. The last time I was across the bridge because it's been closed for a number of years, the trail was about a three foot wide dirt and gravel trail with maybe a twenty... sixteenth percent slope, I would say. Sixteen to twenty percent and it had a galvanized pipe rail going from the bottom of the bridge all the way to the top of the trail. The trail basically has been in use like we said for over a hundred years, no one ever seem to have a problem with anybody going across back and forth and even though the trail was steeper on the other side, it hasn't stopped people from using it and even people with disabilities so... you know I know there's always an obstacle to this kind of a thing but I don't think any of these are instrumental. Mr. Rapozo: Okay and when was the last time you were on that other side? Mr. St. John: ~ Probably a couple years .ago when I accessed it from the Immaculate Conception side and it's a little bit overgrown but a little bit of clearing wouldn't take that long. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Ms. Moriguchi: I just walked it yesterday. Mr. Rapozo: On the Immaculate side? Ms. Moriguchi: Yeah, yesterday. Mr. Rapozo: And is it in pretty good shape yet? Ms. Moriguchi: For me, I was going with a camera and walked down. The railing was still okay. It was a little overgrown but I was able to walk to the bridge. Mr. Rapozo: Yeah. I haven't gone down in a long time but I know Grove... speaking with Grove Farm, they're concerned with the liability issue and that's something that has to be worked out with the County and indemnification and so forth but I think today's discussion was really to clarify some of the ADA issues that I was quite surprised to hear. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Chang. Councilmember Yukimura then Ms. Yukimura: Lorraine the group has identified some possible federal moneys for this. I think the transportation enhancement moneys have been suggested. Do you have testimony? Mr. Wadahara: Yeah that's what... Ms. Yukimura: Can we hear that first? Mr. Wadahara: She may be able to answer some of the questions before they're asked. Ms. Moriguchi: Okay so I represent... do you want to? 31 Mr. St. John: We have a few suggestions... the Kapaia Foundation is moving forward with its strategic plan to repair the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. Since our last meeting with you on May 11, we have met every week to implement the strategic plan to make our vision a reality. Kapaia Foundation is in the first days of a public awareness project, which was just described in the power point presentation. This place matters challenge has given Kapaia Foundation an opportunity to reach out to all of Kauai, opening the door to sharing the importance of restoring a safe pathway for citizens like Britney Balauro, who walks to work at Subway daily, and Angeli Peneyra, who walks from Hanama`ulu to work at Costco every day. Or like Kupuna Amy Songcuan who walks from Hanama`ulu to Kapaia to visit her daughter Evelyn. With less than thirty inches between them and the cars whizzing over the Kapaia Highway Bridge, they undeservingly, risk their lives. In the coming weeks, we will take on the task of evaluating every item on Kai Hawai`i's cost estimate. Our goal is to streamline the project to a reasonable scale and cost. Also, we have started to apply for private grants. One application has already been submitted and two more will be available for submission in July. We are in the process of placing the Kapaia Swinging Bridge on the National Historic Register in order to qualify for federal grants. Kapaia Foundation will continue to pursue every grant opportunity that is available. Finally we are accepting gifts from membership donations and through our website. Everything possible is being done to raise funds and reduce the cost of repairing the bridge. Kapaia Foundation is not able to do this alone. We need our County Council's continued support and we need the Administration's assistance to one, the east tower of the bridge is on the brink of collapsing. We are asking the Administration to release twenty thousand dollars from the bridge fund to stabilize the towers. Stabilizing the bridge will prevent any additional repair costs and will give Kapaia Foundation more time to raise funds for repairing the bridge. Two, we need the Administration's help in creating a public pathway easement through Laukini Road. At least two of the landowners are willing to donate their ownership to the county for a savings of more than sixty thousand dollars. Kapaia Foundation is in the process of working with the other landowners for the possibility of more savings to the county. Three, we humbly request that our County Council keep the two hundred and forty thousand dollars in the budget and add more when available. Between the County's contribution and Kapaia Foundation's efforts, full funding for the bridge repair will be possible. And four, we need the Administration's help in applying for transportation enhancement funding. Kauai has a very successful track record of securing TE funding. We will do our part in assisting the county with the eligibility requirements. If accepted, eighty percent of the cost of repairing the bridge will be provided by the federal government. It is an opportunity Kauai cannot pass up. Kapaia Foundation is committed to saving the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. We need the continued support of our County Council and a recommitment from our Administration. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. So if I can just follow up with some questions? So actually the County needs a continuous public easement from the main highway to the other part of the highway, across the bridge and to... in order to qualify for the transportation enhancement moneys, is that right? 32 Ms: Moriguchi: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay so what you're asking the county to do is to acquire that public easement that would connect from is it Kuhi`o Highway, yeah Kuhi`o Highway before the Hongwanji and then it would go to the bridge and then from the bridge up to Kuhi`o Highway again. With that continuous public right of way, you would be eligible for transportation enhancement moneys which even if the price stays at four million, the County's share would be eight hundred thousand, twenty percent so it drops the County requirements tremendously. Did you say that the landowners at least on the Laukini side are willing to donate their land for that kind of public easement? Ms. Moriguchi: Not all yet. Ms. Yukimura: But you're working on it? Ms. Moriguchi: Yeah, we're working on it. Mr. Wadahara: I called the Hongwanji and you know there's people on both sides of the fence there and I can't really speak for all of them but I did talk to Ted Inouye and he's the president of the Board this year and you know he has reservations, concerns about parking and a lot of traffic but as far as helping local traffic, you know he felt... Ms. Yukimura: Pedestrian traffic? Mr. Wadahara: Yeah so they can go to the doctors, so they can visit relatives, keep the kids from going down that narrow suicide stretch... he thought that was okay and so they have the top portion of Laukini so you know, I mean the point is... we're working on it, we're moving, we're not just sitting still and every one of these we get will really impact in a twenty, eighty percentage for the County of Kauai. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much, that's really excellent work in a very short time. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Chang. Mr. Chang: Thank you Mr. Bynum. I have a question... have you folks contacted the church, are the churches aware o£.. you mentioned Hongwanji or Immaculate Conception, have you talked to them about the possible use of parking and you know we mentioned gatherings or bon dances so vita versa, you know using one parking lot to get to the other side or the other side to get to the other side, have you talked to these churches and let them know that potentially their place... do not... you know in session or service could be a possibility of a parking lot? Mr. Wadahara: We're making the initial contacts like you know I did with the Hongwanji and it's kind of early to really you know... like I said there were people on both sides but the people that voted for it was the guys that carried the thing... just to even let the engineers go down to inspect using their right of way... we plan to get together a coffee time with the Catholic church in the near future but we don't have that answer yet but we hope that we try to progress along those lines. Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me if I can interrupt for a second Chairman of the Committee. Leeroy, thank you so much for giving us that. I do 33 want to note that when I put this on the agenda I made it quite broad but I specifically talked about the upgrade to the bridge, the facilities for the bridge and that's why I spoke in terms of future phases. So if you folks continue to pursue other partnerships and so forth for your organization, we can certainly put that on as a separate agenda item but today's agenda item deals with us getting an update on the bridge itself,. the project far the bridge. You know we are more than glad to... as you read your strategic plan, I mean we'll be more than glad to put some future items on the agenda but we need to within our own rules, the item on the agenda today is the repair, maintenance and development of the bridge and that was pretty broad. Mr. Chang: If I can make a quick clarification and the only reason I say that is when we have a presentation and it becomes public record, I was just wondering if these other people are aware of not only the intentions but the goals, so that's why I brought that up just because it was part of the presentation. Mr. St. John: I think at this point that I know we've made contact with the Hongwanji, the Catholic Church is our next step. We haven't really presented them with a final picture because we're still developing it. I mean we have a vision but until we know exactly where we're headed, we're waiting until we have more information for them because we don't want to go there and say we want your help but we don't know with what. (inaudible) Mr. Saintjohn: Oh for the temporary? You're asking about the temporary support? Mr. Chang: No. Mr. Furfaro: No, let's... let me clarify this... Mr. Chang, your comment is well appreciated but the agenda item here is... Mr. Chang: I understand. Mr. Furfaro: ...not collaboration and partnerships from different because... we should have posted that. The agenda item is the repair and the restoration of the bridge by having the Administration here present and we have for the repair and maintenance of the bridge, we have replaced the funding that was once at the two hundred forty thousand... you know that's done but I'm more than willing whether it's in Mr. Rapozo's Committee or Mr. Bynum's Committee which it is in right now to expand the new posting when you're ready to talk about the strategic components and other collaboration to make this happen. But right now we need to focus on the goals of restoring the bridge itself. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: You all raised a .really important and immediate concern about the stabilizing the structure while funds axe raised and so forth and I think Kimo, you have some construction background so are you able to describe what needs to be done to stabilize the bridge so it doesn't fall apart while we're trying to raise the money on permanent restoration? Mr. St. John: Currently there's two towers on the bridge that support the suspension cable and the top of the towers are decayed enough that it's starting to stress the cable and push it out sideways. I'm not an engineer but 34 based on construction background, if we were to add four by eight post on the towers on either side of the bridge and cross arms across that, it would keep the cables from falling off. If the cables fall, the whole bridge comes down. And it's getting to the point where if temporary repairs are not made, that becomes a possibility. Ms. Yukimura: So I heard you request, this is one place where the County Administration can really help given that there's moneys in the budget and was it twenty thousand dollars you thought... would be subject to scrutiny by the county and their engineers or whatever but that something in that ballpark would be useful and it's already there, there's two hundred forty something thousand right now in the line item, so... started July 1 that would be our CIP budget but you're asking the Administration then to take on those temporary repairs? Mr. St. John: Either the Administration do it themselves or allow us to bring in someone to do it. The twenty thousand is a number that has been put out that seems to be would sufficiently cover any repairs required just to keep the bridge from falling down. Ms. Yukimura: Maybe we can get the Administration response at some point? Chair Bynum: Other questions from Councilmembers? If not, thank you very much... oh I'm sorry... Councilmember Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to say I think you put together a very good vision for the bridge and I like the fact that it's very comprehensive and it involves bringing the community together around this and I'm glad that you are seeking outside sources of funding because I think that was the key source of concern, a key concern for me at least. And I think the approach that's being taken is... gives me a lot of comfort at this point. I wanted to find out whether a cultural study has been done of the bridge? Mr. St. John: To my knowledge, no. Ms. Nakamura: Okay. I think that information would be very useful in any further, I'm thinking as we try to get the historic federal designation and in any future work that's done, that's like a very base line study that... this is why we're trying to preserve it because of its history... there may be cultural history that's very important to preserve as well. To me there's a need to do that and I see that in your strategic plan. You want to respond to that? Ms. Moriguchi: Personally, I do a lot of research on the families in Kapaia history, oral history. That is being done. We collect oral history. Ms. Nakamura: Oh okay, good. Ms. Moriguchi: Yeah. So if you visit our website, you can see that. Mr. Wadahara: Getting back to Mr. Furfaro's concerns... as far as incremental building and plans, we need to temporary fix so that no more big damage is done. We are planning on get people, contractors to at least look because according to the study that was done, the foundation is fine, the cables are okay...you know I mean they threw in the cost for a lot of stuff. You know if the two towers are up, if we incorporate volunteer work to just you know put new planks 35 down in the railing, which is not like a really technically hard thing to do, we really are looking to bring down the cost. And if we can get the twenty, eighty... we're not talking eight hundred thousand, we're talking significant amount less and it's doable and you can release Hanama`ulu people .from being caught a gap someplace, that they've been in. Ms. Nakamura: My last question has to do with the stabilization of the east tower and the twenty thousand that you quoted is to help rebuild that structure? The tower? Reinforce the tower? 1VIr. St. John: The twenty thousand quoted was just a quote. Basically for materials and labor involved to support the existing structure to keep it from collapsing, it's not... I wouldn't call it rebuilding, I would call it temporary support. ].VIs. Nakamura: I see. And... Mr. St. John: And on the cultural aspect, when you asked me has there been a cultural study done, officially no... but our group has spent countless hours going through archives and talking to people and we do have quite a cult~iral histoxy put together of the existing bridge. Ms. Nakamura: Okay I'll be interested in seeing, in also hearing what the Administration response to this. Mr. St. John: One last thing I want to say is that if you look at the physical aspects of Hanama`ulu, the closure of that bridge has isolated that community from anyway of getting to any place else on the island by walking because they are surrounded by highways aII the way around. By closing that bridge, you took away their last pathway of getting out of there. Opening it would do them a favor. Chair Bynum: I have one question, you mentioned earlier Mrs. Moriguchi that there is a path from Kapaia to Hanama`ulu Beach Park? Ms. Moriguchi: There should be, there was when my mother was a little girl, they always walked from the valley... Chair Bynum: There was? 1VIs. Moriguchi: Ah, yeah. Chair Bynum: And that ownership is mostly Grove Farm? Ms. Moriguchi: I have no idea. Chair Bynum: Okay, thank you. Other questions? Any closing comments? Mr. Saintjohn: As far as the path to the beach from the valley... talking with a lot of old time people, they said that at one point the cane used to be taken by wagon down to Ahukini landing from Kapaia Valley and there was a roadway, maybe a dirt road that they used to take the wagons down to deliver the cane to the ships. Chair Bynum: Thank you. If not, thank you very much for the presentation and answering the questions. I think... it's 11:00... so we need a... 36 Ms. Yukimura: Caption break. Chair Bynum: So we're going to take a break for ten minutes. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:05 a.m. The Committee reconvened at 11:19 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Bynum: I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Any further discussion among Councilmembers or questions, Council Chair Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: Yes. You know whether the Administration is coming up or not, I do want to say that I appreciate the fact that the point was made about a temporary to the one tower but I do want to make sure that we understand this will require a check with the Historic Preservation, number one, number two because it crosses a stream, we would probably have to get permits even for the repair to the tower for the Corps of Engineers. BC: Check your mic Jay. Mr. Furfaro: Test. Okay... that we would probably also need to get a... the appropriate permit going over water for the Corps of Engineers because it does cross a stream. So it's not perhaps as easy as just you know having a repair done, there will be some application process with Historic Preservation as well as the Corps of Engineers. I just wanted to point that out. Mr. Rosa... I just will tell you that Mr. Bynum will acknowledge you, I don't know if he... Chair Bynum: We'll get there... Mr. Furfaro: One moment Mr. Bynum. I don't know if he called for public testimony yet but when he does call for that, I'm sure he's going to recognize you. He asked for discussion from the Council members and I just wanted to clarify that point. BC: Your. mic is drifting... Mr. Furfaro: Okay. But anyway I wanted to point that out for those... from the group that are still here. I think the Council wants to pursue checking into that with Mr. Dill before we just acknowledge the go ahead. Thank you Mr. Bynum. Chair Bynum: Calling the meeting back to order, any discussion among Councilmembers? If not, I'm going to call for public testimony. Anyone from the public that like to speak on this matter? Mr. Rosa. JOE ROSA: Good morning. -For the record my name is Joe Rosa. Well I've been hearing all this testimony going on from the people from the Honolulu Office that you brought down here and like I always say, I'm the historian... I'm not from Kapaia but I travel up and down that area as a youngster and from my past knowledge and history that I heard, that first bridge that was strung across that Kapaia stream was a swinging bridge that was done by some of the early Hawaiians that lived in the valley there. Basically to get across that area, (inaudible) where the bridge is, is a deep (inaudible) and stuff like that so they took it upon themselves. Now that original swinging bridge, I recall going across it in my young days. I used to walk from Lihu`e (inaudible) to go to summer religious 37 education classes at Immaculate Conception and we used to go down by way up the Kuhi`o Highway, down to Laukini Road and crass that swinging bridge. Now... in the great flood of 1941, they had two floods... in March of 41 and again I think in November of 41. In 1941 the Tanaka Reservoir breeched and they had a collapse of it and that swinging bridge went, then the plantation being in the Kapaia area they had camps known as Kapaia east and Kapaia west. Kapaia east was located on the Immaculate Conception Church side and Kapaia west was adjacent across Kuhi`o Highway. When that reservoir breeched, it wiped out that bridge like I just said and it was through the plantation that putting another (inaudible) bridge, basically right above, maybe three to four feet above the water there and time and time again when (inaudible) that would come down that bridge...we'd just go down until finally the late 1940 something, they built the higher bridge. That's my knowledge and history about the Kapaia bridge. So talking about it, I can't see spending two point four million for a bridge. If you're going to restore it so you can have historical recognition, it should be built to nearly the original what it was to have your funding under the Historical Society. Other than that how are you going to get the funding if you're going to put a super structure? All you got to do is, is (inaudible) that bridge I heard the earlier speakers mention, you know it's going to be a certain feet. Chair Bynum: Mr. Rosa. Your first three minutes are done... would you like to continue? Mr. Rosa: Yeah. Well I can go three more and explain a little bit more history in there. Chair Bynum: Okay. Mr. Rosa: I've never heard about it and I want to know, you talk about right of way, now actually who owns that Laukini Road because you know I can bring up a problem when I was working with DOT when we had to resurface and repair the road, we had to go a little off, we found out that neither the County nor the State owned (inaudible) Road and I guess it's probably the same thing with Laukini Road. In the old days agreements were made by the gentleman handshake, a handshake would get a deal sealed and they could do something about it. Then I heard that, I don't know how true it was but I heard that the Lihu`e Hongwanji Mission when they bought the parcel across the road, they brought the roadway leading down to the Valley there. So who owns that? In other words, Hongwanji owns the Laukini Road from Kuhi`o Highway down to the bridge, so it's not a county road or anything that and as I told Mel that you have to check into it. See who really legally owns it because at that time when the deal was made with Hongwanji, it ,was with LP... A&B properties and JB properties, so those are the kinds of things I hear about it and like I as I said also, you don't need two point four million to built a structure to restore it to its original because you're not going to put a big reinforced concrete beams that you did like across Kealia River, this is for pedestrians so it's something simple and easy. Those are the kinds of things I hear people coming up here, never been touched or mentioned and there's always like... you know I hate to refer to like Mr. Bynum always referring to the minimum, minimum... what is your minimum? You got to come up with figures, be realistic and come up with figures, how can you get funding for it? So you know those are the kinds of things that I haven't heard that hasn't even been scratched upon so you know, I don't belong to the Kapaia Committee but like I said I've been around, I worked with DOT for thirty-six years, I traveled this island back and forth and I've seen all the changes. I'm trying to give a boost to something that I think is worth well recognition because I came from an original plantation family, I traveled that route down there and I've seen it from when it was a swinging bridge to a wooden timber bridge crossing the stream, I see the high bridge that the County made... 38 things like that there so you know check into who has the legal right of~way. Did the gentleman handshake from Kuhi`o to the end of that bridge site there, the stream side, who owns it? Does the Hongwanji own it, legally all? Because you know if they... Clerk: Six minutes Mr. Chair. Mr. Rosa: Because if they own that roadway, I don't know how they cut off all those other private landowners down there. Chair Bynum: Okay Mr. Rosa that's your six minutes. Mr. Rosa: So something was done illegally. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Thank you very much. Anyone else in the public that would like to testify about this agenda item? There being no objections, the meeting was called .back to order, and proceeded as follows: Chair Bynum: Any further discussion? If not, we have a motion to receive. Mr. Rapozo: I have discussion. I thought Councilmember Yukimura had some discussion... Chair Bynum: Oh okay. Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I'm not sure what your intention is, I guess I know the motion is to receive and I know at some point I guess, I did read Council Chair Furfaro sent over a list of questions to the Administration and we did get a response today and it does appear that the vision is, the vision as was presented by the Administration is to restore the safe and useful or restore the bridge to a safe and useful condition that it would be a fully functioning pedestrian bridge, accessible to the entire community and providing a tangible benefit for the community. I'm assuming that the direction has changed because at last I had heard that it was not going to move forward and maybe I'm reading this wrong but I just did want to give a little history for many people here that may not have been here in 2006 and I would encourage you to go and review the notes from the 2006, November of 2006 when we were first given the presentation regarding the direction for this bridge. I'll read it just so that I don't misquote anyone but basically in 06, in November of 06 which is four and a half years ago, there were five recommendations. The first one being request a money bill to conduct structural evaluation of the suspension bridge, of all county owned suspension bridges. I know we definitely did the one for Kapaia. The second recommendation was to secure a right of entry agreements from all affected landowners. And this number three is the one that I'm concerned... it says pending the owners' approval, they was going to construct a temporary foot bridge across Hanama`ulu stream, I know that hasn't been done. Number four, was to complete research and permit requirements and then this one which is the most intriguing it was to request a money bill to repair the Kapaia suspension bridge and the estimate in 06 to restore the bridge was a hundred and ninety thousand dollars, which I think is pretty accurate to restore the bridge. That was in 06 and 07. November of 07, a year later the action plan was to execute an MOA with the affected landowners granting their permission to restore the bridge, second was to submit to Council for approval a Resolution to expend county funds on private property. Number three was to have DCAB which was Mr. Motoyama's agency conduct a field inspection and provide a formal assessment of 39 their opinions on ADA accessibility requirements. The fourth was to include a consultant scope of work compliance with ADA requirements and require documentation of technical infeasibility issues, and number five was to pursue land access issues which were right of entries and easements or right of way acquisition, that was in 07. In 08, it's the same exact slide, it was not changed. I guess my concern is that the public has been waiting for quite a long time and they've been told for a long time that these are things that we're going to do and as far as I can tell the only thing we've really done was we've done the structural report, the structural engineering report. In speaking with Grove Farm recently, they had not been contacted by anybody from the Administration at all regarding the issues. So I think I guess my point Mr. Chair is... I think the public deserves to know what we're going to do and if we tell them we're going to do something, then we should follow through. Because they're relying on expectations that hasn't happened... the foot bridge, I haven't heard anything about the temporary foot bridge although I was on the Council when we were told that was going to happen, that hasn't even been addressed so I guess for the community who obviously by their presentation has been working really, really, really hard... I was quite impressed to see that Kapaia Swinging Bridge is one of the hundred historical projects that are sitting on that displaced matters program, one out of a hundred throughout the country. That says a lot, this country is full of historical projects, I mean thousands upon thousands and Kapaia Swinging Bridge made one of them and if you listened to Mr. Rosa and all the other old timers here on Kauai about Kapaia, it definitely is worth pursuing. I think what I heard today from DCAB was promising I think, there is an opportunity for us to get this bridge restored quicker and I guess what I would ask the Administration to do is to try to focus on the areas that we can get done and not focus on the obstacles that will prevent this restoration more specifically this shoring up on this bridge because once it falls and I got to admit that it's going to be sooner than later this will collapse that we actually go in there with the sincere desire to restore this bridge and I think Mr. Chair has... I agree with Mr. Chair that we'll do it in phases that's a good way but we need to do something and if we go back to 2006 maybe we .should start with that PowerPoint slide and move from there. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: I first want to thank Councilmember Rapozo for getting Mr. Motoyama down here and Mr. Motoyama for his presentation and it was a very informative presentation. I also want to say and acknowledge the Kapaia Foundation for their extraordinary hard work in their presentation and in all the actions they've been taking since the last meeting. It's clear to me that this is a site and bridge of both historical value and current day value and to think that for a hundred years people, more than a hundred years people used this as a connection, a way to get to and from Kapaia... Hanama`ulu and Lihu`e is no small matter. I want to make a motion. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend the motion to receive by adding that we send a letter to the Administration requesting that they take one, they take action to stabilize the Kapaia Swinging Bridge using the money in the 2012 fiscal year CIP budget. Two, they move to acquire pedestrian easements between Kuhi`o Highway and Laukini Road and the bridge and between the bridge and Kuhi`o Highway or I guess it's Kapaia Road which leads to Kuhi`o Highway from the Immaculate Conception side. Three that they work with the community to scope and design the bridge restoration trying to reduce the price. Four that they move to get the project on the STIP list .which is the State Transportation Implementation Plan and five that they apply for federal transportation enhancement moneys, seconded by Mr. Chang. 40 Chair Bynum: We have a motion and a second to... so the motion would be to receive with these stipulations? Ms. Yukimura: It's to amend the motion to receive, so yes we would receive and we would send a letter to the Administration requesting these actions. Chair Bynum: Discussion? Mr. Furfaro: Yes. Chair Bynum: Council Chair. Mr. Furfaro: You know I appreciate the framework that Vice Chair Yukimura put in place there but you know I had mentioned earlier that I do believe to move forward on this, we need to be in phases... but really at this particular time I want to reiterate that you know the stabilization and repair work on the one tower is going to be a little bit more complicated from a permitting standpoint than was .presented to us from a very well meaning group because of a checking it into a historic value as well as building over the stream way, so I just want to be really realistic that the first phase should be approached of coming up with the stabilization, revisiting the engineering report that I want to thank the Administration for getting to us a better estimate of repair and maintenance of the existing facility and then a little bit more involving the permitting concepts aS it ties to its historic value. I can support Council Vice Chair Yukimura's structure when it gets to the Committee of the Whole but I won't be voting on this, this time around because I'm not a member of this Committee. The reality is you know I think land acquisition and getting the federal people involved and so forth, is another hurdle at another time. The first four items I mentioned I can go along to but again I'm not a member of your Committee so I won't be voting today. Chair Bynum: I want to do a further analysis of those four points or at least hear them again before I call for the vote... and I would also like some clarification from the administration so I'm going to ask the Administration if it's okay with Committee members to come up now to entertain some questions and comments. Mr. Furfaro: Would you ask them on my comments about the stabilization first... I want to make sure I'm not off base on some of those questions I asked about process. Chair Bynum: Well if I can I'll have you pose those questions and. I'll.... apparently Mr. Heu is going to represent the Administration. I'd like to start by giving Mr. Heu an opportunity to make any comments and then we'll go to questions. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GARY HEU, MANAGING DIRECTOR: Good morning Council Chair, Committee Chair Bynum and members of the County Council. For the record my name is Gary Heu, Managing Director. First of all I want to say thank you very much for this opportunity to chat with you folks just a bit this morning. I also want to say thank you to Mr. Motoyama and the Kapaia Foundation for their presentation. I think this discussion this morning has been very instructive and I've been briefed numerous times on various discussions with the State. Historic Preservation Division as well as with DCAB and sitting here this morning I think that it helps to illustrate .that in fact this is a very, very complex project regardless 41 of how people may view it. It is very convoluted and it's taken a lot of effort to sort through a lot of this information and we continue to sort through but I do want to express appreciation for everyone sitting around the table as well as the people who have spoken this morning on this issue. -We've been on this issue for quite a bit of time this morning and it's not my intent to necessarily prolong the discussion, I just wanted to come up and share a few things. Number one, we've got folks from the Administration here today both from the County Attorney's Office as well as Public Works. We do have an attorney who needs to be at an engagement and leave here at about 12:00 so I just wanted to say that if there were specific questions that we wanted to address from a technical perspective with you know folks from Public Works or the County Attorney's Office, you know if we could do that in the very near term of this discussion, that would be good. If there are policy types of issues that you wanted to spend more time discussing later or had a future date then I'm more than happy to be a part of that discussion but since we do have our technical folks here, I wanted to give you folks an opportunity if there were questions that needed to be addressed to those people. You know what I did want to say before I turn the floor and the mic over to... back to you and possibly our technical folks was that... you know when we talk about the expense, I mean, I myself was knocked over when I originally heard some of cost. I'm thinking boy it's a wooden structure, wooden bridge I mean if we were to do a replacement board for board, post for post... I mean are we really truly talking two million dollars... I'll just share a real quick story with you folks. Recently we got a quick estimate for some fencing around one of our beach parks and it wasn't even around the whole park, it was for two sides of that park. This is the Kapa`a Beach Park, you folks drive by it, many of you folks drive by it on a daily basis and understand that it is in sore, sore need of replacement... well just to replace the Kuhi`o Highway side as well as the short section along the Police substation, an estimate came in at about a hundred and seventy thousand dollars for that... again I was blown away, I said you have got to be kidding me. That's a chain link fence and not even around the whole park, we're talking about a hundred and seventy thousand. That quickly put into perspective for me the type of cost that would be involved in something like a wooden structure such as Kapaia Bridge because in that case we are really talking about the deconstruction of the bridge as well as the rebuilding of the bridge. So just to help me put it in better perspective and I wanted to share that information with you folks so as we look at these cost, we can see that as observed as it may appear to the naive eye like mine, you know when you compare it to other types of projects that we have out there I mean it quickly comes into perspective. Chair to your question on the temporary type fixes to stabilize the structure, although I might be able to offer some insight to that, I think I would rather let our Attorney's Office as well as Public Works address that relative to potential permitting issues and cost. Unless you have a specific... again I'll be here for a while so again if you want to revisit policy matters in terms of the bridge, I'd be more than happy to engage in that but I want to give these guys a chance to come up here just in case you have some questions. Mr. Furfaro: Well I do have a policy question. Chair Bynum: Right now? Mr. Furfaro: So... Chair Bynum: Mr. Heu... I'm sorry, go ahead. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Heu, I sent the correspondence over on May 18 to the Administration and I believe the fifth question I asked dealt with... what is the vision for the use of the bridge in the future and the response I think 42 Mr. Rapozo touched on but I was pleased to see the Administration's response as a, that you had a vision that the Kapaia Swinging Bridge would be restored to a safe and useful condition if it will be fully functional pedestrian bridge accessible to the entire community and providing a tangible benefit for people throughout Kauai. That was the vision but I see this vision as being in phase work as we come over these different hurdles. Can you expand on that answer? Mr. Heu: Sure. Thanks for the opportunity because that was one thing I wanted to touch upon, I was going to maybe save it till later but real quickly and if you allow me, I'd like to read through the entire response to the question and the question again for those watching was... what is the vision for the use of the bridge in the future? If it is just to have a foot bridge, is a parking lot necessary? So anyway I'm going to focus in on the vision portion and the response was.:. the Administration's vision is that the Kapaia Swinging Bridge will be restored to a safe and useful condition. It will be a fully functioning pedestrian bridge accessible to the entire community and providing a tangible benefit for people throughout Kauai. The feasibility of that vision will ultimately be determined by the Administration, the County Council, and the community based on the requirements of SHPD, DCAB, and the availability of funds. So again what we've got is we've got a vision and we have reality and standing in between the vision and reality are those caveats that is mentioned as part of that statement. So again it does set out the vision, I mean our feel at the Administration is if we're going to invest significant funds into a project like this, we want to make sure that it's more than something that people can just come and look at, we want it to be a fully functioning bridge. Mr. Furfaro: So it's a conditional vision? Chair Bynum: Before we go into other questions, we said a few weeks ago, I said a few weeks ago, the community deserves a yes or no answer, I heard the no answer from the Administration. I heard it very clearly... given all these parameters, we don't want to proceed and I think that was followed up by with a letter from the Mayor that's been circulated so I just. want you to... so basically that's your position you're saying if we're going to do this, it should be functional for everyone but given all of these things, our judgment right now is no. Mr. Heu: Yeah because that wasn't the question that was posed to us, the question was what's your vision. Chair Bynum: Well that's why I'm asking that right now. I mean, the way I interpret it, when I read it is... eh if we're going to proceed, it's going to have to be fully functional. Mr. Furfaro: Well, well... Chair Bynum: May L . . Mr. Furfaro: No, Mr. Bynum. Chair Bynum: I have the floor. Mr. Furfaro: I just want to say... Chair Bynum: And it's my Committee... I want to continue. 43 Mr. Furfaro: I understand that, I just don't want you to put interpretation into why I brought the gentleman from the State over. The whole reason I brought him over from the State was to get clear on his conditions. Chair Bynum: I believe I was... Mr. Furfaro: You were correct and I apologize publically to you but I don't want... that answers is what fund that gentleman to come over here, I just want to make sure that was clear and I apologize sincerely, I was out of line. Chair Bynum: Yes. Mr. Heu: I just want to again reiterate that you know some of our folks have previous commitments and I really would like you to have access to them if the Committee has, if Committee members have some questions and then I'll be more than happy to come back. Chair Bynum: Well I was hoping you answered that one question and then... Mr. Heu: question? Okay, I'm sorry. Could you restate the Chair Bynum: Mr. Heu: The way I read this. Yes. Chair Bynum: And given previous comments, the way I see the Administration's position is if we're going to proceed with this, we want it to be a fully functional pedestrian element available to everyone but given all the parameters that we have now, the Administration is saying no we don't want to proceed. That these things are... the cost and the technical things are too great for us to make a commitment for us to proceed, so the answer is no. That's coming from the Administration right? Mr. Heu: I think that the answer from the Administration relative to our position in terms of proceeding with this project. Chair Bynum: Yes. Mr. Heu: Has not changed. And again I think that needs to be taken into the context of number one our focus up until this point in time really has been trying to get our arms around this animal. I mean what does this animal ultimately look like, how much is it going to cost and that was answered in large part by the feasibility technical study that was recently completed. Now as you folks understand, we have, we continue to have to work with regulatory agencies such as SHPD as well as DCAB and our folks who I'd like to bring up actually had face to face meetings with both SHPD and DCAB and so I think again some of those discussions are very instructive for us. The bottom line is that's where our focus has been to get us where we are today to see again how big is this animal and how much does it cost. I think relative to some of the questions that were addressed earlier in terms of the opportunities for funding, for partnering... all those sorts of things, we have not looked at those, we have not gone there at this point in time. Simply based upon the feasibility study and the cost that were laid out, we did not think it was prudent for the County to proceed based on using two to four million dollars of County funds to be able to accomplish that work. 44 Chair Bynum: So the answer is no? Mr. Heu: So the answer is... Mr. Furfaro: It's conditional. Mr. Heu: Yeah the answer is... if you're asking today based on the. information we have today, has our position changed since the Mayor stated that he would not be moving ahead with the project, the answer is no. Chair Bynum: Okay, thank you. And then I want to honor, you're willing to stick around until we're done with questions with you... Mr. Heu: I'm willing to do that. Chair Bynum: But if we have technical questions that involve the Attorneys or the Public Works... Ms. Yukimura: leave right, before noon? Mr. Heu: Ms. Yukimura: questions... I think it's only the Attorney who has to Yes. So the question is if we have legal Chair Bynum: So are there legal questions for our County Attorney from Councilmembers? If not... Ms. Yukimura: May I? Chair Bynum: Does the County Attorney wish to make a statement? Mr. Heu: I would like to qualify that because our Deputy County Attorney was the lone county representative who met with SHPD, so if you have any questions relative to SHPD and the requirements, although he cannot speak for SHPD, he can convey to you folks some of the discussions that took place. Both our County Attorney as well as our Deputy County Engineer met with Mr. Motoyama in Honolulu and I don't know if you needed anymore discussion on ADA, it sounds like we had a... Chair Bynum: I think we're clear on that but have Mr. Trask come up and make a statement and see if there's questions. MAUNA KEA TRASK, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY: Thank you Councilmember Bynum. Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask on behalf of . the Administration. I just wanted to answer one question that actually Chair Furfaro brought up just so I can comment on that and I did speak with Angie Westfall on May 26, I had that meeting in the morning prior to meeting with DCAB. It's my impression that yes we would, if we're going to touch the bridge whether it's to reinforce it or take any action, alterations regarding it, we would have to consult with SHPD first. That's not only due to its age, it's over fifty years old so it's automatically considered historic property under 6e but also because it is on the Hawaii State Register of Historic places and which is another, which automatically puts up those kinds of requirements as well. In speaking with SHPD just so you're aware of moving forward, they, I was told by Ms. Westfall who's the director of the 45 Architectural Department, newly appointed, that they're looking to designate the entire district of Kapaia as a historical district and (inaudible) the national register on that. They're also looking at writing a singular register for all the bridges on Kauai and based on speaking with her, because of their interest within Kapaia Valley, the entire Valley, they would be wishing to comment on anything and everything we do whether it's this project or any future projects. Finally in speaking with her and getting further clarifications on issues that we had been speaking about for some time it was made clear to me that the next step really involves submitting, you know like how we had talked about before I believe Councilmember Yukimura had stated that you know before we can get any answers from SHPD, we have to submit actual plans, we have to go through all that stuff and that is the next step. Submitting to them, I gave her copies of our studies, she was excited to look at them and that's where we are at right now. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Rapozo. Councilmember Yukimura and then Ms. Yukimura: Mauna Kea, you're saying that even if we were to do this temporary stabilization of the bridge, we would need to submit the plans or ideas to Historic Preservation? Mr. Trask: Ms. Yukimura: And that's completely understandable but it shouldn't be an obstacle in stabilizing the bridge. Mr. Trask: It's a requirement, I don't see it as an obstacle but it's just a legal requirement... Ms. Yukimura: Yeah we have to let them know that we're doing it and ask them to comment on any proposed plans for stabilizing the bridge? Mr. Trask: Yeah. Ms. Yukimura: It's exciting if they're thinking of designating Kapaia as a historical district. And then it would make walking around the district important too. Mr. Trask: Ms. Yukimura: So, yeah... that would be another way of gaining their support I'm sure. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Mauna Kea, the plans that you talk about that need to be submitted, is that the plans that were provided by the structural engineer or are we going to go out for new design? Mr. Trask: for Gary to answer. Well that's for, it's more of a policy question Mr. Rapozo: No but the question is that plans that SHPD is talking about, that's not what the consultant provided? Mr. Trask: What... 46 Mr. ~Rapozo: If we were to submit, I'm not asking if we're going to... I mean that would be for Larry but. Mr. Trask: You know the actual submission of the plans, it's a back and forth process. It was described to me as more of a dialog than an actual submit, wait and you get something back so it would be the vision, you know what would it be and that may include you know if we could submit those plans that the contractor provided or the consultant provided and what SHPD would most likely say is okay we don't want any of this stuff in it, we don't want the expanded bridge, we don't want this... and this is the reasons why. That I think would assist us in going to DCAB and saying look this is what we want to do with the bridge, SHPD has said we can't do a full on ADA build out, it has to be this way. Disability compensation access where they're going to comment a lot based upon what SHPD says and SHPD is the first step that we're going to have to go through because without their requirements from my understanding DCAB is not going to review our request for exemptions. So it might be a submit full out and paired down process or engage in this conversation with SHPD and figure out where we're at. So it's going to be a prolonged process. Mr. Rapozo: Okay well I'm just trying to figure out where we go from here, I mean the legal route and I guess my question is you know after hearing from Mr. Motoyama this morning regarding some of the parking lots, that it may not be required and in our consultant report there's substantial cost to the parking lots. In fact they're showing two parking lots, one on the Laukini side, one on the Kapaia side. The church side, two hundred nineteen... almost two hundred twenty thousand dollars and on the Laukini side about three hundred thirty-six thousand dollars and we're hearing today that we may not need to do parking lots. Mr. Trask: That's correct. Mr. Rapozo: For ADA and it's concerning the cost estimates. I mean they're charging a thousand dollars per handicap sign, one thousand dollars, I thought it was a typo and it's not because it was repeated several times and it's... for a post and a handicap sign, I cannot imagine the cost being a thousand but I guess and I'll ask Larry, it's probably not your department but you know are we planning to submit plans that will be consistent with what Mr. Motoyama mentioned this morning? Mr. Trask: Well I guess that really:.. my job is really more to see what the desire is and trying to facilitate that action but in looking at this, I think you make a good point is that for instance DCAB is not going to require parking from a ADA perspective. I think the thing we all have to realize is that or remember is that Mr. Motoyama works for a specific state agency that is tasked with a very specific task and their agency may not require certain things. SHPD the same thing. SHPD is not concerned with the disability act, they're concerned with historic integrity of structures and cultural sites, etc. Forgive me, I think it was either Councilmember Yukimura or Councilmember Bynum, they had said that above and beyond when you use public money, there has to be for public purpose and then you trigger other issues and so when speaking with Mr. Motoyama, it's clear that DCAB wouldn't require a parking lot but that doesn't mean that the use of public money, I think it was Councilmember. Yukimura said, that when you're going through a path and all that, there are considerations we have to consider a big one like you stated was that Grove Farm's concerned about liability and stuff like that. In moving forward like Chair Furfaro said, I think it does have to be kind of like a phased situation and we have to constantly revisit these questions as we move through the process. We don't want to hinge everything on one agency because then again they're not tasked to deal with that and that's not really their 47 expertise. As far as what we want to submit, I think that is a question appropriate for Mr. Dill. Mr. Rapozo: Yeah well I guess the reason why I use the ADA issue is because it was a large part of that contributes to the cost of this project which is leading the Administration to say it's not feasible but I'm saying as we move forward and we're finding out if we're going to do phases... and what I heard today is that we can just focus on the bridge itself to save that bridge and all of these other amenities can be done at a later time if we choose to do that. Mr. Motoyama told us today what the law requires, not so much what his agency requires but what the law requires if in fact we pursue. Mr. Trask: Yeah from the disability access... Mr. Rapozo: Correct from ADA but again it was one of the larger obstacles as I understood it from going through the discussions. The other issue is I think you know Historical Preservation, they're going to basically tell us what we need to do based on the federal historical law, we're going to have requirements there as well. SHPD as they review our plans, they'll tell us what we can and cannot do but I just wanted to... this entire estimate of cost, a lot of it hinges on things that we may not necessary need in phase one. Chair Bynum: Councilmember Yukimura and then Councilmember Kuali`i. Ms. Yukimura: Relating to what Councilmember Rapozo has said and also to the kuleana of SHPD, wouldn't it be the best approach to take that engineering study and .work with the community and between the county and the community on what our best proposal would be for the restoration of that bridge so we would take into... we'd. say okay parking has been cost at this much but we don't really need parking on this side maybe we need it on that side for a few tourist like at the Hanapepe Swinging Bridge, a few parking for that but mainly it's going to be a pedestrian walkway so you don't need a large parking lot. Most pedestrians, most users of the bridge will not have a car to worry about and then... and all these issues go through it all and paix it down to what we think is the best possible proposal and then send it to SHPD who can tell us yes you're on the right track, you don't have to accommodate wheelchairs because that would be a threat or destruction of the historic essence of that bridge and so you can get an exception for that? Mr.' Trask: Well... Ms. Yukimura: And... Mr. Trask: It would be a back and forth and it would more be like actually working backwards, they would say we would like to do this and SHPD would say okay. But they don't issue the exemptions, it would be DCAB and we would have to approach DCAB and say we asked SHPD if we had to provide... if could provide access ramps, they said no. Ms. Yukimura: According to Mr. Motoyama it's not DCAB that provides the exception on the historic preservation... Mr. Trask: Yeah... Ms. Yukimura: It's basically the Historic Preservation officer. 48 Mr. Trask: SHPD would say we're not going to allow that to be done to the bridge and so then when we apply for the historic exemption from DCAB, they would need that input from SHPD in order to make their determination. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, that's fine. Mr. Trask: It's just. Ms. Yukimura: But I mean the main thing is that we don't go ask for a parking lot if we don't really want it or feel that it is necessary for a complete project. Mr. Trask: That's correct. Ms. Yukimura: We take what the engineers have advised us and they always do it sort of out of context, they're engineers and they're only looking at it from engineering but we put in all the community, cultural, cost concerns and try to put forth the most, the best... using a lot of their data and then we put forth our best proposal to both SHPD and DCAB, get their input and revise it accordingly and then we have a project to go with. Mr. Trask: That's what we submit, yeah. Ms. Yukimura: Yeah. And then on the cost angle, if we get it down a million dollars because we can qualify for the enhancement moneys then we're home free in terms of a workable project. Mr. Trask: Well again that's not really a statement I can make. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Trask: Ms. Yukimura: that of Mr. Heu. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry? I don't really know how to answer that. Yeah you don't have to answer that, we'll ask Chair Bynum: Councilmember Kuali`i. Mr. Kuali`i: Aloha and mahalo Mauna Kea. Just to clarify a little bit about I think what I heard Councilmember Rapozo saying and you saying... I see the phase one is just preventing the bridge from falling, right... and if DCAB says the county property is the bridge from one end to the other, we can focus just on that and being the immediate need that they've asked for, the community asked for... the twenty thousand dollars, (inaudible) up the towers so that it holds the cables so it prevents the collapse of the bridge, couldn't we just start from there and go forward immediately? I mean day by day once the bridge falls in, we have a whole different place that we're in. Mr. Trask: Yeah we would submit... Mr. Kuali`i: So if SHPD wants to preserve the historical nature of the bridge as it was, is... and if DCAB is saying we're only responsible for what's between each end of the bridge, for starters... even though the county has eventual places we want to end up, the community is already working on right of 49 entry, the private landowners nearby and parking, all those things yeah it's important and we're going to work towards that but none of that will matter if the bridge falls now. So can we just move forward quickly and legally on that piece to restore the bridge and the first part of restoring the bridge is preventing it from falling in. The twenty thousand dollars, the moneys there, the expertise is there, maybe their presentation of that twenty thousand and what it would take, then we can hear from .engineers or what have you but legally can't we move forward with that immediately? Mr. Trask: I really don't know how to answer that question because in speaking with Angie, I tried to get a timetable and she would not tell me how long. She's the head of a department I believe has one person underneath her, they're tasked with the entire state. It is a high priority, she did say that the Kapaia district was a high priority but as far as proceeding quickly, it would proceed as it proceeds and what we would probably do is submit a plan with a short term (inaudible), reinforce it to protect it from deteriorating further, but then again I was distinctly told and I clarified a couple times, it begins the dialog... we submit, they come back with comments and it goes back and forth until sometime they make their decision and we approach DCAB with that. But like Curtis said if we're just talking about the bridge itself, it changes, there's different facts to the issue: Mr: Kuali`i: So (inaudible) won't start until we start it and I think we just have to do that right away and then stay on top of them, keep asking for answers because it matters. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Chair Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. First of all I want to take a moment to apologizes again to Chairman Bynum but I want to make sure the Administration is very. clear on something here... the questions that went over to the Administration were generated from me and partially because of the conditional comments that were made on what the next step was. They needed interpretation and therefore I have pointed out and thank you for acknowledging the fact that it isn't as simple as the Committee saying we calculate the money to be about twenty thousand, the fact of the matter is SHPD needs to be involved, the engineers need to be involved, crossing water and so forth... and we need to make sure that we understand that as a body here. So if you respond to me as the Administration that going to the next step is yeah that's my vision but my vision is conditional what better way than to put the guy in front of the Council today at our request and let us hear this from them and I ,didn't hear anything that indicated anything other than these things could be hurdled. We just probably have to do it in the right phases and we have to be inclusive of SHPD and DCAB. I don't need somebody, if somebody is answering my correspondence from my question, I need to hear pretty straight from them, I don't need others to interpret what their correspondence meant, they need to tell me straight forward. This is a very good thing for us to have you here today and also to have SHPD here but do you see anything that we wouldn't hurdle if we did this in phases? ALFED B. CASTILLO, COUNTY ATTORNEY: Wait... Excuse me, Al Castillo, County Attorney. Mauna Kea please refrain from answering that question, the reason why I and I have to interject here is, when the County Attorney's Office is asked to render some sort of legal opinion, the legal opinion has to come from a set of facts that we can clearly look at and not speculate. One of the problem here that I've, that we've been going through is we need to know at the County Attorney's Office exactly what the project is and will be and then we will be in a position where we can render an opinion. The Deputy here is being asked and 50 excuse me but you know the facts are changing and it's hard for us to render an opinion when the facts are changing. I beg your indulgence, excuse me for interrupting but I caution this Council that it's really difficult for us to answer a legal question when the target is shifting. Ms. Yukimura: I don't think it's even a legal question. Mr. Furfaro: First of all, your boss who also seems to be me too because the County Council is represented by your office, I want to make sure you understand, I don't think I asked any breeched of a legal opinion first of all, but I'll send it over in writing. The point was for this body to understand what hurdles are posed in front of us, it was my desire to have DCAB here because the question I sent over, the response was well it's conditional. Well what are the conditions DCAB, tell us a little bit about that. I don't need others to answer that, I need the administration to answer that for them, so I'll send my question and I'll respect Mr. Castillo's query of my question here but I'll send it over in writing. It worked for all of us to have DCAB here today and it would probably is something that we need to know about as we step into different stages here, what we're getting ourselves into and what the risk is and that's what your office is all about... telling us what the risk are. Not only financially but with public liability and land access, so thank you very much, I'll send my question over in writing. Although I don't disagree with the query, I'll send it over in writing. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Any other questions for Mr. Trask? Councilmember Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: Just a question about when you define the scope of this project, I've heard both new bridge and I've heard the term restoring the existing bridge and I think that makes a difference in the processes that are involved in the future so I was just wondering what is your, based on the scope of work that by the consultants, do you define this as a new bridge or a replacement of an existing? Mr. Trask: Well... again... I just want to bring to light... Mr. Castillo's, you know what he said regarding the understanding and what my understanding it's always been for this project is this would be what's casually referred to as restoration. I think technically the term is alteration which is to fix certain portions of it without affecting the historical integrity and that's what it would be. Ms. Nakamura: Alteration. Mr. Trask: Yeah. And it's not the... but when we go to the consultant, it was prudent for the engineers to say what would it be to build this out totally, just so we can appreciate the entire ADA component because when we bring that to DCAB, I'm sure they would want to see it. Like Curtis said, they ask for a lot of dots. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Bynum: Any other questions for Mr. Trask? If not, thank you very much for your patience. Mr. Trask: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Have a good afternoon. 51 Chair Bynum: Can we have Mr. Heu back? Ms. Yukimura: Could I ask... Chair Bynum: Thank you Mr. Iieu for your patience. Mr. Heu: Before we start I just want to thank Mauna Kea although he's left the building that he did come in on his day off so great appreciation for his commitment to this project. Chair. Bynum: Ditto. With that, I'll give the floor to Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. Heu, I have some questions about the basic vision but taking off where we left with Mauna Kea, my question is, is the Administration willing to take responsibility for stabilizing the Kapaia Bridge so that the long range vision will continue to be a possibility, is it willing to move immediately on this matter? Mr. Heu: I think to answer that question appropriately we would, I would probably need to consult with Public Works because I know there's been a great deal of discussion regarding stabilization but there may be other options so I think that really before we speak publicly about that, we probably need to consult and to see what the best course of action with the potentially the same end in mind which is to a great extent a safety issue. Ms. Yukimura: It's not only a safety issue. I mean it's as Councilmember Kuali`i pointed out if the tower falls, I mean... it just becomes a more difficult restoration job so there's safety but there other factors. Mr. Heu: Right and as stated before and again the question was posed to Mr. Trask what is restoration, what is involved and again... Ms. Yukimura: We're not talking restoration here, I'm talking just stabilization. Mr. Heu: Well... I understand Vice Chair; however, as an example, it may be and I'm not sure and that's why I hesitate to get too far into that. Ms. Yukimura: Okay so then how much time does the Administration need to get back to us on this issue? Mr. Heu: I'm not certain. I can consult with Public Works and we could give you an estimate on the time we would need to make a true assessment and get back to you. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, I hope it's not too complicated because this is restoration, I mean excuse me... stabilization, it's just to keep the bridge from falling into the water so hopefully... Mr. Heu: No and I understand... Ms. Yukimura: And the urgency... Mr. Heu: As you know Vice Chair the devil is always in the detail right, the stuff looks like... oh no problem, let's slap this together and... 52 Ms. Yukimura: Okay so maybe you can get back to us in a couple of days as to how long it would take for you to get back to us on the answer? Mr. Heu: That's sounds fair enough. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, great. Thank you. On the bigger question. Mr. Heu: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Your response to Council Chair's questions said that the vision is, that the swinging bridge will be restored to a safe and useful condition but it's based on the requirements of feasibility, so the community has come forward to say we could drop the cost to the county to eight hundred thousand dollars, at worst case scenario assuming that four million is the worst case scenario in terms of cost. Mr. Heu: Right; I heard that. Ms. Yukimura: So isn't that something that would make the bridge feasible, eight hundred thousand, less than a million dollars and I mean in previous discussions you've been saying two million might be the cap, four million's far too much. So if we can drop it to below one million and maybe even below eight hundred thousand depending on how we can rework some numbers and so forth like maybe we don't need as many parking places, etc., wouldn't this be something that would really bring it in the realm of feasibility for the Administration? Mr. Heu: Well that's an interesting question. I don't think that that's ultimately when we're talking about funding issues, I don't think those are issues that we would unilaterally enter into. That's a discussion for collectively this body and the larger community. Ms. Yukimura: But is it not enough... well but the Administration in terms of your own policy, I mean yes if you decide that eight hundred thousand is a good figure then you would come and ask us for it right? Ask us to approve an appropriation bill and yes it would need our consent but before you can even do that, we need to go through the process of qualifying the project for this eighty, twenty match and that will take some work. Mr. Heu: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So the Administration has to say this is our goal and we're going to work on it because otherwise we won't get there, we won't get to that eighty, twenty place. My question to the Administration is given now this possibility of an eighty, twenty match which really addresses the cost issue dramatically, is the administration willing to work with the community and the Council in qualifying us for these moneys which in my mind takes two things, one is the acquisition of a pedestrian easement that connects from one highway and to the other, across the bridge and to the other side of the highway and getting us on the STIP list the implementation list of the State DOT and once we do that we can apply for transportation enhancement moneys. Mr. Heu: And that's all true and again like I stated earlier, our main focus up to this point has been to define in general terms the scope and the feasibility. 53 Ms. Yukimura: And that's been very useful work. Mr. Heu: Right. Ms. Yukimura: But we're moving beyond that now. Mr. Heu: Right so if... Chair Bynum: Okay... Mr. Heu: We haven't considered on a going forward basis those opportunities. I think the Mayor has expressed an openness to continue to receive information and to have discussion so if you're asking are we willing to continue this dialog relative to receiving new information because this whole notion of the scenic byways and transportation enhancement type of opportunities, is something that is now bubbling to the surface so obviously we need time to further, we haven't drilled down to look at those. Ms. Yukimura: Okay so then my question is... Chair Bynum: Are we close to bringing this to a conclusion? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. So my question is given the new information presented today, is the administration willing to look at that possibility and get back to the Council with a decision about whether you're willing to work with the community and the .Council on this or not? Mr. Heu: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, great. Thank you. Chair Bynum: Okay, we're like six minutes to lunch, we have a motion and a amendment on the floor, so I was hoping we would conclude this by lunchtime. Ms. Yukimura: I think. we have some more questions and I'd like to have a chance to put it in writing during lunch time so I prefer if we break now and... Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Committee Chair? Chair Bynum: Yes. Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. You know I made the motion to receive but I'm kind of leaning to another motion to defer. After hearing what I heard today and reading some of the material that was provided and hearing from the Deputy County Attorney and I would have to get the concurrence of the Chair obviously but I would like to get SHPD here at the next meeting, if possible. To answer our questions as far as SHPD's concerns and we can have the presentation by SHPD in the morning and then... by then I think we can formulate our questions and in two weeks I'm sure that we can have a response from Mr. Heu regarding the Administration's desires, I don't think a couple of days is enough because they're busy, they're extremely busy and I think two weeks would be sufficient. That's my intezition to make a motion to defer that. Ms. Nakamura: I second that. 54 Mr. Rapozo: No, don't do it yet because I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to speak but... that's my intention. Mr.. Castillo: Excuse me Committee Chair. If I may? Chair Bynum: Yes the Chair recognizes the County Attorney. Mr. Castillo: Excuse me. I think. with that from Councilmember Rapozo in terms of the Sunshine Law which we'll be talking about at the HSAC conference, the agenda item is for the Administration to be present to update a project. I would think it would be prudent to kind of go... use the agenda item as a guidance and it would probably be a good time for the Committee Chair to do what he needs to do? Ms. Yukimura: To what? Chair Bynum: I'm totally lost. Mr. Castillo: No what I mean is that because the discussion has been outside of the bounds of the Sunshine Law and when... so the way that its agenda, it would be prudent to follow what is agenda. Chair Bynum: So I'm going to follow up with a question. The agenda item reads... requesting the Administration's presence to provide the Council with an update, that's fairly broad I mean everything we've been talking about is related to this project, so I'm not sure where the Sunshine issue is? Mr. Castillo: Well I'm just giving you advice and whether or not you adopt the advice, it's your prerogative. Chair Bynum: So are you saying that we should repost with a broader agenda item, if we want to have a wide range in discussion? Mr. Castillo: Chair Bynum: Mr. Rapozo: Chair Bynum: Yeah, absolutely. Okay, that I understand. Mr. Committee Chair? Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I would still suggest that we defer. I would ask the we post another item requesting that the representative from SHPD be here on that same Committee Meeting, that's not a problem? Okay... is that okay Mr. Committee Chair? Chair Bynum: Yes but let me do two things, we have four minutes... I think we're going to come to some type of conclusion, Mr. Heu is there anything else that you pressing, that you need to speak... you look like you wanted to say one more thing. Mr. Heu: I might be reprimanded for this because it might be off the strict agenda as posted but it was something that. was: discussed in a meeting that the Administration previously had with the. Kapaia Foundation folks at the Planning Commission meeting room a couple months back and it was a notion of entering into a stewardship agreement similar to Rupert Rowe and the 55 folks- down at Kaneiouluma have done. We think that's created a great model in terms of partnering with the community to address some real needs at a county facility and we think that might be something that might be prudent to further explore as these discussions continue. So I just wanted to throw that out and I know that's a little off the... There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: - Chair Bynum: Okay. Thank you. So what I'd like to do at this time is entertain a motion to receive with the understanding that there will be a concurrent posting and we'll get advice from the County Attorney in the mean time to make sure that we're covering any presence by SHPD and making sure we're' not restricting ourselves to discussion? Does that meeting with the Committee members? Mr. Rapozo: because I think... Well I mean, I don't want to receive this Chair Bynum: I'm sorry. Defer. Mr. Rapozo: Defer, okay. Yeah that's fine with me and I'll request a separate agenda posting. Chair Bynum: The current posting... now we had a motion... so... Mr. Rapozo: So the motion to defer will... Ms. Yukimura: I just want to make sure that we follow up with the questions that Mr. Heu has said he will answer but we put it in writing so that that's also part of the agenda item. Chair Furfaro: Yes, so Mr. Furfaro has questions that he intends to put in writing, you have questions, we'll have the staff coordinate that and have it go over and I entertain a motion to defer with the understanding that there will be a concurrent posting to make sure that we're covering all the basis. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Upon motion duly made by Mr. Rapozo, seconded by Ms. Nakamura, and unanimously carried, C 2011-75 was deferred. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~~ ~ Darrellyne Simao Council Services Assistant II APPROVED ommittee Meeting held on June 29, 2011: TIM B CHAIR, ITTEE 56