Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutnov4min KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kaua` i County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on November 4, 2010 in the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B . The following Commissioners were present: Randy Wichman, Chairpers n, Danita Aiu, Vice Chairperson, David Heider, Kuuleialoha SantosVPatsy Sheehan and M Summers. The following Commissioner was absent: Dennis Alkire, nd Alan Faye, Jr. Hof umvmm CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wichman called the meeting to order at 3 :00 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The Agenda was approved. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD All items were received for the record. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The October 7, 2010 meeting minutes were approved as circulated. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Chair: Commissioners are there any announcements and general business matters? Ms. Aiu: I just wanted to thank the County for allowing us to go to the archeology conference here. We sure learned a lot, those of us who were able to attend, it was very wonderful . Staff: Great and I was looking forward to that field trip myself and somehow couldn't make it. Ms. Sheehan: Yes that was wonderful thank you very much I hope we can continue to do things like that. November 4, 2010 KH.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 2 Mr. Helder: Will the state planning conference be coming up also? Staff: The HCPO, our usual annual conference? That will be coming up in September yes. That was, we were scheduled to host that this past September but we ended up postponing it with the agreement of the other counties because we were implementing furloughs. It just didn't seem appropriate that people were working two days less a month and people were being sponsored travel. So it was postponed we are already starting up again on the planning of it for next September. Mr. Helder: It would be here on the island as well? Staff: Yes so they agreed with us as well as opposed to just skipping our turn everybody was in the same boat. So we basically postponed it until next September. Mr. Helder: Thank you. COMMUNICATIONS Re: Letter 10/15/2010 from Pat V. Phung, PE, Lead Civil Engineer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration requesting consultation with the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) regarding the Kaumualii Highway, Lihue Mill Bridge to Rice Street, Federal-aid project number ARR-0504 (036) as It relates to the project to improve Kaumualii Highway between Lihue and Maluhia Road. Chair: Communications. We have a letter from our Civil Engineer, U, S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways in regards to Lihue Mill Bridge. Please come forward. Unidentified Speaker: Mind if we put some posters up? Chair: Not at all. I just want to reiterate that we are the Historic Preservation Review Commission. We try to keep the topics to what relates to this Commission, the historical aspects of it. Not the engineering or anything else. Thank you. Have you guys been caught up to where we have been before? I think this commission was, cause you were here in 2006. Stanford Iwamoto : No I wasn't. Chair: It was Donald Fujimoto . Mr. Iwamoto : We have gone over the records. What' s been done. Chair: Are you aware of the Commission' s recommendations in the past? Mr. Iwamoto : Yes. Chair: You are all caught up. Ok so we will have a little bit of a review. November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 3 Mr. Iwamoto: Yes so what we will do is we will go, have all of the commissioners been here that long? Ms. Sheehan, No. Mr. Iwamoto : Ok. My name is Stanford Iwamoto. I am a civil engineer with the Highways Division the Department of Transportation. I would like to introduce the rest of our members here. We have Domingo Galicinao he is with the Federal Highways Administration and our consultant SSFM we have Kevin Nakamoto. What we are here to do today is talk about our project as it concerns the Lihue Mill Bridge. Some background on what the DOT is doing. We have a project plans to widen Kaumualii Highway from Lihue out to Maluhia Road. That is the long term plan. What is going on right- now is the first phase of the project and that is from just before Kukui Grove to past KCC and that will add two lanes. The next phase of our project is to cover that gap between Kukui Grove and Lihue and that will also include the improvement of the highway to add two additional lanes and that will affect the Lihue Mill Bridge. Kevin has a presentation that he will go through but basically what we will try and do today is update the Commissioners on what has happened in the past and provide a status report and what is going to happen in the near future. Mr. Kevin Nakamoto : First of all I wanted to thank everybody for taking the time to meet with us. Like Stanford said I want to just reiterate that this is an informational meeting only. We are not looking for concurrence. We are just presenting the project and it' s actually a design build project so the design at this point has not been started. The RFP meaning request for proposals and SSFM our consultant for the DOT are putting together the requirements for actual design that is going to take place later this year. Chair: Are we so we are treating this as a pre-consultation then? In other words it is information only and you do not require the recommendations of this commission today at all? Mr. Nakamoto : I think Mr. Chairperson there was a previous (inaudible) done for this project in 2000 and there were a few stipulations in the MOA and the highlights include photo and written documentation and that is going to be a requirement of the design build contractor when the project goes into design and then construction. Also there is a stipulation that the Commission be given the opportunity to review the preliminary and prefinal designs from the contractor design team. So that is going to be a requirement of the design build contractor. Chair: You will be back in an official capacity then for concurrence of various 106 acceptances. Mr. Nakamoto : Exactly. Chair: Ok. November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Nakamoto : There was also an EA done in 2000 as well and the project is following what is said in the EA. I don' t want to talk too much about the details of the engineering. I want to touch on this on the project for your information so you get a context on how the bridge widening and the railing replacement fit into the whole project. So this part of the road widening project that' s going to increase Kaumualii Highway from two lanes to four lanes and this encompasses the Lihue Mill Bridge and there is some features on the bridge that are considered historical features. If you look at the exhibits that we have here, so this first part here is we have the maps of the project. The entire project is going from Uahi Road to Rice Street. The existing Lihue Mill Bridge is on the eastern end of this project towards Lihue. You can see here on this vicinity map. The second exhibit here we have some pictures of the existing bridge. From the underside you can see in photos E and F that it' s actually a steel girder bridge. Most bridges we have not current are designed with concrete. It also has steel columns that is here and as a part of the project it is going to be required to upgrade this bridge to meet current design standards so that includes things like slow (inaudible). It' s going to be upgraded to have a capacity and I don' t know if you can see where you are but a lot of these steel members have some significant corrosion on it. That is going to be repaired in this project and is going to be repainted as well. The most significant historical feature of the bridge are the railings. This next exhibit here and it' s also in your handouts if you can't see it from where you are but the railings are made out of steel and they have this concrete posts every twenty feet or so and it' s in filled with a steel railing. You can see the concrete post have some (inaudible) in it and the condition of the rail is highly corroded right now and some of the pickets are actually detached from the bottom rail so it's in poor shape. Just to give you an overall view of what' s going to be done with. the bridge. This is a four lane project so the existing Lihue Mill Bridge will be converted to two lanes going into Lihue and then there is going to be a new twin bridge in fairly close proximity to the existing bridge that is going to be heading west. To accommodate the new sidewalks that are going into this road widening project the existing bridge is going to be widened and also the existing railings are going to be removed as part of the project and are going to be replaced by railings that need to meet current design standards. So what we are talking about there is impact loads on this bridge. So the new design I need to reiterate that the design is not started yet it's going to come later this year but the new design is going to be different from this design because this design is not built to resist vehicles going off the bridge. It will probably be something in the concrete, steel picket design. Does anybody have any questions on those exhibits? All the pictures in this section is (inaudible). Ms. Sheehan: Could you just repeat again when you are adding on to the old bridge which way is the traffic going to go? It' s coming into Lihue on the old bridge that you are widening? Mr. Nakamoto : Right. November 4, 2410 KAT.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 5 Ms. Sheehan: And the new bridge is going to be on the other side and that's going out of town. Mr. Nakamoto : Yes on the north side of the existing bridge is where we are going to widen it. Ms. Sheehan: And, I am totally ignorant, how old is this bridge? When was it first built? Mr. Nakamoto : 1936. Ms. Sheehan: 1936. Has it been in anyway altered since then? Mr. Nakamoto : I am not sure exactly but we usually when you have steel bridges like this maintenance (inaudible) but as far as altering the railing no. Ms. Sheehan: The design is original? Mr. Nakamoto : Ok, Mr. Nakamoto : There is a summary in your packet here and there is also your letter from 2000 and the last part of the package is (inaudible). Ms. Aiu: This is about the new bridge. I understand you are going to repair the old bridge and then you said the new bridge is going to be concrete. It' s going to be different and to the standards. How different will it look from the old bridge? Will it have these railings and cement between or will it look entirely different? Mr. Nakamoto : From a driver's perspective? Ms. Aiu: From an historic perspective. Would it kind of match with this bridge or not at all? Mr. Nakamoto : I would say that the railings are going to match. Whatever is put in on the existing bridge is going to be put in on the new bridge also. On the section here, so this the railing will match but what is the load on this deck here will be different. There is a lot of factors that (inaudible) and economics of putting in structures that match exiting. So you know we are envisioning that this new bridge is going to use modern construction techniques more likely concrete. Mr. Iwamoto : I think when we build the bridge we will strive for it to match the existing bridge as much as possible . Mr. Helder: But if you are taking off the whole railing and widening the top then there isn't any thing to match. I mean the historical is all going to be done. You are making an historic look again. Mr. Iwamoto: I am sorry it would the match how we would redo the existing bridge. November 4, 2010 K.H.P.Ii .C. Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Helder: Yes but it would be a new design on the existing. So there is nothing that is going to match the existing at all cause the historic qualities of this bridge are going to be removed. Staff: The existing bridge . . . Mr. Iwamoto : The existing bridge is being widened. Mr, Helder: It' s a different bridge. It' s a done deal . Chair: Will this Commission have a chance to review those designs? Mr. Iwamoto : The MOA call for you have a chance to look at the preliminary design and I guess pre final design. Mr. Helder: Is that twice? Chair: Where does DOT stand in our recommendations in the past? Mr. Iwamoto: That recommendation will not longer follow in terms of, it' s something that the designers can use but because it was a design build project they have the option to design or come up with a new design keeping in mind your preferences. Chair: Ok let's also talk State Historic Preservation Division and the same thing so both the Commission and State Historic Preservation Division as essentially what you are saying is overrated? Mr. Iwamoto: What I am saying is in 2006 we came before you and presented the design and that you concurred with. Chair: Schematic number S we did with stipulations. Mr. Iwamoto : Yes so at this point what we are saying is that we don't know if we are going with that design yet. So we are not saying that is the design that will be done but we will have to come back to you. Chair: The purpose of this meeting then? Does this fulfill any of your compliance? Mr. Iwamoto : I would say the purpose of this meeting is we have some requirements on the MOA because it' s been over five years to come back to you and tell you what's been happening. Chair: So compliance means that exactly this then you present the material and that' s it. Mr. Iwamoto: The MOA says that you know at the end of five years that we should come back and consult with you and see if there is a reason to have any amendments to the MOA and that' s what we. . . November 4. 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 Chair: Are you saying that you don't have any intentions of complying with any of the recommendations made on scheme five? Mr. Iwamoto: I am not saying that. I am saying that I am not sure if that would be the ultimate design. I think we would present it to the consultant of our bidders as a design that you folks have concurred with. Chair: Also that SHPD also right? Both the State and County right? Mr. Iwamoto : Yes, yes. They know you approve of ok whether or not they can tweak that and get something better than you can still get your approval I am not sure. Chair: Will we get a chance to review any of that? Mr. Iwamoto: Yes we will come back to as in the MOA. So what we are saying is basically. . . Chair: Prior to the construction, the reconstruction of the Mill Bridge. Mr. Helder: Prior to the final design that' s more the question. I mean basically what you are saying is they are going to do this and the prior design could be out and our recommendations are out so there is really nothing to approve of or disapprove of period. They are just going to come back to us two times? Mr. Iwamoto: Yes. Mr. Helder: Ok one in a pre-design stage with something to look at? Mr. Iwamoto: Preliminary yes. Mr. Helder: And then we will have an opportunity to make recommendations at that time. Mr. Iwamoto: Yes. Mr. Helder: And then the second time we will also have an opportunity to make recommendations that will be heard or it will be presented as a final thing? Mr. Iwamoto : You can make recommendations . Mr. Helder: Both times? Mr. Iwamoto : Yes. Mr. Helder: Ok. Mr. Iwamoto : So the wording is that they are coming to you for your concurrence. November 4, 2010 KRP.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 8 Staff. Stanford would alternative five be implemented into the RFP as a guideline? Mr. Iwamoto : As you know we are looking at that and we haven't decided whether we want to or not restrict them to just that right now. I think as a design build project we want the contractor to be able to look at alternative things and look at different things on there. You know perhaps there is something better that would meet your needs better. Staff: But that would be in the RFP as having been reviewed and acknowledged by the . . . Mr. Iwamoto : We can look at that as including in the RFP. Kind of go back to you know the actions of the commission today. We have this MOA and it asks us to come back to you and that' s basically, and we not asking for and what Kevin was really saying is that we are not asking you to approve the design on the railings at this time or approve the design on the . . . Chair: I think we got that. Mr. Iwamoto : So what I would like to get out was whether or not if the MOA still meets your needs or you want to change it you know. Chair: Well the MOA issue was not in any where stipulated that we were going to review the MOA but if that' s what you want to do we will review the MOA again. Mr. Iwamoto : Yes. Mr. Helder: Do we have it? Mr. Jung: It' s in the packet. Mr. Iwamoto : Yes. Chair: So we are simply receiving this for information at this particular point? Mr. Helder: Is that what you are saying? We are just receiving this are you are going to come back to us or are you asking for that now, today? Mr. Iwamoto: If you are ready I would like to do that today but . . . Chair: If everything hinges around the MOA I need to take some time and read over it. These documents need to be read several times right? No I am not prepared to have any discussions right now. Staff: As a consideration the Commissioner could reiterate what his concerns have always been. Chair: Well yes definitely where is the recommendations of the HABS standards? How does DOT feel about that now? November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 9 Mr. Iwamoto : (inaudible). Chair: Historic American Building Survey. Standard operating procedure when demolishing a bridge of the finest category and essentially eliminating all of its history that some sort of documentation prior to demolition be made according to the Historic American Building Survey standards. Mr. Iwamoto: The MOA has some provisions for some documentation and it is in there. Ms. Sheehan: You were mentioning that, that was going to be part of the RFP of whoever you put the bid out to, they would be responsible for that? Mr. Iwamoto : Yes. Ms. Sheehan: And just an off the subject question are you putting two RFPs out, one for the old bridge and one for the new bridge? Mr. Iwamoto : It will be one project. Ms. Sheehan: So the one successful bidder will have both designs to deal with and do you, in coming up with the design, if we previously had liked scheme number five and that might be an expensive way and the bidder feels he could do it in with a less expensive way would that be a consideration as to you judge which bidder you are going to pick? Mr. Iwamoto : It' s a consideration but it is also a consideration that we meet your needs. Chair: What kind of public meetings have you scheduled in all this? I think it's absolutely important and I know for 106 compliance did you let other agencies and other organizations especially community meetings is very, very important. Do you have anything like that planned? Mr. Iwamoto : We have sent out letters to Hawaii Historic Federation and the other ones we have contacted SHPD and Lihue Business Association and Pat Griffin. Those are the ones we have sent out. Chair: Have you received responses? Mr. Iwamoto : We have had contact with the Hawaii Historic Federation just limited contact . . . Chair: Historic Hawaii Foundation. Ms. Sheehan: Historic Hawaii Foundation. Chair: Yes for the record. Mr. Helder: Because this document, the origins of this MOA are 2000 and at that time as I recall cause I was on the board then that there was a statement found that the steel was not , couldn't be November 4. 2010 K.H.PA.C. Meeting Minutes Page 10 preserved on this particular bridge and is that, are all the conditions that existed then are they the same now? Mr. Iwamoto : Basically I believe yes. Mr. Helder: Because in this they are saying that it does qualify to be on the National Register of Historic Places however the replacement of the steel railings would not. Is that still the case? Or are there other kinds of alloys or other kinds of construction that in the tune of ten years have made possible or changes in the way they have made historic bridges. All those conditions are they the same? Mr. Iwamoto : I think when you are talking about steel railings and pickets if you are talking about replacing them and the type of design it doesn't meet the crash rating. Mr. Helder: Not with that particular concrete and steel but maybe in some other kind. I know in the historic road out in Hanalei there have been some changes in the way that the hardware and in the way that the rulings are applied in historic roads and historic bridges and did not exist when this MOA was written and I wonder if that would be a review that I would like to see done to see what changes cause if we are going to go with using this as a key I would like to know what the differences are between that time the rulings of that time and the rulings and I would clearly like to see that weighed out before I make a decision based upon this particular info. Chair: The Commission also clearly established that the reason of the deterioration of this particular bridge is because DOT has no maintenance plan and that is the reason why it is so deteriorated today is because there was no maintenance program. So therefore it was an important discussion and the point of this commission is a good maintenance program for whatever is coming up next right. And also it was clearly established that there was no plan over the methodology for all the historic bridges on Kauai. Instead of taking one at a time we clearly said to DOT that a long range plan and how they deal with historic bridges, not one at a time but a general plan was very important because you are going to be affecting many historic bridges and by taking one at a time like this is not appropriate. DOT needs a little bit wider comprehensive plan when it comes to historic bridges. Maintenance, replacement and things like that. So those came out of our last and kind of was able to highlight some of the, I think we would like to see a little bit different when it comes to historic bridges and clearly as you know there is a sensitivity to historic bridges. Mr. Helder: So while this is an informational meeting what I would like to do is recommend that at our next meeting you come back and have a fairly clear presentation of the different condition represented not compared to this MOA regarding the steel railings. Mr. Iwamoto : In looking at you know what the literature has in terms of steel railings and you know what's on the bridge now I really did not see anything that showed that, that type of railing would be acceptable. Mr. Helder: And there is no possible design out there that could make a railing that would look in the similar fashion of the, you know instead of taking the whole thing out and ending up with November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 11 another bridge and all they are reusing is what' s left of the support structure in which case it might as well be anything. Chair: This bridge is the gateway into the center of town. It has this art deco feel to it. It is really important and the idea of the standard concrete block bridge is not, but now that we know that the steel underneath is good now, so I guess all of those discussions are not moot because we discussed the different types of columns years ago . Mr. Helder: So that was the representation of the steel underneath was quite different then from DOT these were deteriorated to the point to nothing. I would really like to see a discussion of trying to get a design that would at least mirror something of what we have here now and exhaust that as a feasibility before we just toss it off and go with something that really doesn't have something to do with what' s what and try to make it look old. Mr. Iwamoto : What is the name of that other bridge? Mr. Helder: I was talking about the Hanalei Road and the Hanalei Bridge and the guardrails that are going out there it was pretty exhaustively researched in terms of historic preservation that some of the design elements falls on the same issues. Some of the design elements if you are preserving historic structures the requirements are not the same and I am not an expert on these and someone should be that addresses these issues rather than saying these don't meet DOT standards in the State of Hawaii they may not but in terms of historic bridges they may or some other form of design they may and that' s what I would like to see addressed. I would assume you would have that ability to research that in terms of engineering. Chair: And it must be understood that it puts the commission in a difficult position in that you are taking a bridge that is eligible to the National Historic Register, doing what ever it is you want to do with it which will no longer make it applicable to the register taking away every single historic aspect to this bridge essentially giving this Commission here not very much to say about it at all. Where is the balance point here? I understand I think we all concur that the traffic situation coming here is absolutely mandatory but what we are saying is to move forward and doing what you are doing and obliterate every single historical aspect of this bridge especially the gateway is a difficult thing for this commission. So just be aware of that. Mr. Iwamoto: And in going back through the records basically there was you know and they are more in tune with the historic preservation side. Chair: Especially the 106. Mr. Iwamoto: Yes. Chair: That the intent of 106 is absolutely critical today that it's upheld to the very best possibility by DOT. Mr. Iwamoto : And if I can, you know my understanding of it you know in the past was that we looked at the railings and it was decided that the railings would have to be removed because you November 4, 20 [ 0 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 12 know they were deteriorated to a point that they didn't know if they could not stay so whether or not we did modifications to the bridge the railings would have to be removed and replaced. Chair: Those particular railings because of the deteriorated, that' s a no brainer everybody in the Commissioner couldn't agree with that, that as it stands the railings are usable but it was not saying that you can eliminate the railings all the way completely. Some sort of historical character must be preserved in the design. That was the intent. Mr. Iwamoto : That' s our intent also. Chair: Ok well as soon as we see those drawings we will be happy. Mr. Iwamoto: You cannot review drawings until we get the contractor on board and he comes up with a design. Mr. Helder: What we are saying is the designs that we want to see should take into consideration new materials that may make it possible for this bridge to retain some of it's historic character as opposed to saying we can't do it all this way unless it is concrete with deco cut outs and cute and old looking. Mr. Iwamoto: And that can be something that we perhaps put into our RFP and I would expect the contractor to research that kind of thing and look for a possibility if there is a possibility. Right now I don't think. . . Mr. Helder: That would be great. That is probably what we can look at. Just to say this should be part of what you put out to bid is that this kind of research be done. This kind of information whatever they come up with when it comes back to us they present that to us and we see it then we can make a decision based upon what they. . . Mr. Iwamoto : And then you know that is something we want to see also then we can explore all the possibilities out there. Chair: The position of this commission because it is eligible for the National Register and because there really isn't anything there it will never be put on the register after this. Clearly we understand all of that. Now I think it makes sense in that some of the historic character of the bridge be carried through. I believe it still holds true today. I don' t think any of that has changed. We do have a difficult time on the properties that are eligible for the National Register are just taken out like that with nothing put in it's place. Mr. Iwamoto: And that is one of the reasons why I really didn't want to specify what you guys have approved for because I want contractor to be able to look at different things and perhaps see if there is something better out there. Chair: And my understanding is that also that it's not just about the Lihue Mill Bridge. It' s everything between here and Maluhia Road. So essentially (inaudible) I know we are spending a lot of time on Lihue Mill Bridge but the real objective of the thing is for the concurrence on November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 13 Maluhia to Lihue the 7 . 5 mile stretch and you know there is other elements to this 7. 5 mile stretch that we really need to get to right? Cause you are essentially going for everything within the 7. 5 mile stretch. Mr. Iwamoto: The MOA is specific to the railings so you know for that purpose itself it' s very specific. It' s not for the remainder of the project. Chair: Yes which in other words we need to spend time in other corridors right? And having a greater understanding of the larger objectives of DOT and the concurrence here especially if it deals with the entire 7 .5 right? Yes we have the Lihue Mill Bridge but there are other issues with the 7.5 mile corridor. Mr. Iwamoto: I am sure there are but we will be back before you on these other issues. I know you want to make sure we are not piece mealing this but we will be back. Chair: That the decision's required from this Commission, if this permit says that you are looking for the 7. 5 that we include the discussions for the entire corridor. I just didn't want to limit it just to the bridge right. There are other issues beyond the bridge. Ms. Aiu: I have a question. I am looking at the picture and I noticed that SHPD was interested in these pillars/columns. In this one it looks like it granite and in this one it looks like it' s cement. What is the material please? Mr. Nakamoto: It' s concrete. I think in one of these pictures one of them was painted. Ms. Aiu: Like this one? Thank you. Chair: And the nature of the concrete was different in the 30s then what they use today. That' s why the pattern. Ms. Aiu: So maybe since that seems to be important that might be an aspect that you could keep. I am kind of new I didn't see scheme number five. Mr. Nakamoto : Are you talking about (inaudible). Ms. Aiu: Yes because that' s what gives it the art deco look. Just a suggestion. Ms. Sheehan: I am looking forward to seeing you again. Chair: I guess I am surprised. We have never seen this happen before with DOT. Just coming in for a (inaudible) and I have been on the Commission now for quite a number of years. This is the first time I have actually seen DOT come in just to lay out the information with no recommendations needed what so ever right. So yes it sends up the flags as to what' s going on. Why are you doing this? Why is this so necessary? November 4, 20I0 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 14 Ms. Sheehan: Most of us haven't been here since 2000 and I think we all realize the MOA has expired or requires them to come back to us. Chair: Yes but we weren't asked to make any kind of recommendations and that included the MOA. So that' s why the confusion right? This is out of the norm right? Mr. Helder: You know we are not just trying to be tough. Our job really is to try to preserve what is around here and not have it just replaced and you know the experience is that DOT comes in and says these are the requirements of the State and this is what we are going to do. We are just going to take this down and here this is what we are up to instead of looking at (inaudible) and have some thing that looks like what we have here historically and our job is to try to get you to look the other way and try and make something that preserves the history. And that is what we are going to look at every time you come in front of me. Mr. Nakamoto : I Just wanted to add that you understand that the MOA was done ten years ago and it is unusually but we wanted to come back to the Commission so that when the design build contractor comes back to DOT to present their design they will have some prior knowledge of what was going on in the project and not just have them come up and surprise you with that. Just give you a warning that it' s corning up and also understand what your concerns are so we can submit these things in the RFP. Mr. Helder: Yes that' s why we are bringing it up. You include it then your contractor will look at it. Ok that' s what we hope to accomplish if we can accomplish anything here. Just to have you realize that we are serious about it and this is what we want to do and if you include it in your mandate then we have a chance of coming back with something (inaudible). Mr. Nakamoto : You know to your point earlier about new technology, that is one of the positive aspects of design build is that they are all trying to win this project, all these different contractors, and part of the evaluation is esthetic and they get really creative, It harbors creativity on the contractors to win the job. So you may get things with new technology that matches more closely then other things. Mr. Helder: It would be nice if we had somebody that was on this board to sit on that review committee when it does come up and just having somebody look at the aesthetics from our point of view in terms of the review for those contracts and because we would hope that, that would be a principal point for us is what the esthetics are and DOT might not take that same position. Chair: Commissioners any other questions? (None.) Well thank you for spending the time. Mr. Iwamoto: Thank you very much. Mr. Jung: Cheryl do you want to testify? Chair: I think you understand that this Commission was not required to say anything at this particular point so we really didn't have an input to say. This was just pure communication here November 4, 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 15 to the Commission and that was it. But at this particular point if there are any community concerns lets do it. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake: For the records my name is Cheryl Lovell-Obatake. I am the chairperson for the Nawiliwiliw Watershed Council. We were established in 1999. It was brought to my attention. Of course I received an agenda and I have been receiving an agenda for several years already and this communication had caught my eye and also the section 106 because of federal funding and the Department of Transportation. For the records I would like to understand where the Department of Transportation are they interpreting Section 106 . What sub chapters and if it involves Native Hawaiians, specifically, and this might not be in your purview, the Nawiliwili Stream is in this area of course next to Koamalu that is now beginning to do ground construction. Our concerns would be about water quality and also the bridge construction on the drainage plan that be on the bridge or wherever they are. It would be a concern to us. I would also like to put on the records that and request DOT to notify the Nawiliwili Bay Watershed Council, P.O. Box 366, Lihue, 96766 in my name Cheryl Lovell-Obatake. We would like to be involved and understand the construction and it' s possible impacts that may occur from the runoff or anything that goes down into the Nawiliwili Stream and Valley and because of other historical properties in Nawiliwili especially kuleana lands how this water is hopefully will service all the kuleana aina that is there and getting to understand the quality of the water that will be another department, the Department of Health. I just wanted to put that on the record whether it' s relevant or not relevant but I leave that up to you. Chair: If I may I will follow up with this meeting at next months meeting. I will make that announcement. Anyone else wish to address this? UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Chair: The selection of next meeting and agenda topics. We mentioned who is here from the National Park Service. The request is that we make an invitation to him for our meeting next month and that I think at this particular point with him I think we can review a lot. Not only is our Certified Local Government status the funding, the Federal Funding that was diverted by the State five years ago. We need to find out about that. At the same time it' s just exactly what this 106 compliance is looking at. I think we will be able to get some really good insight as far as November 4, 2010 KARR.C. Meeting Minutes Page 16 why the Feds are here in town and I am frankly quite surprised why the Feds have so far not discussed anything with the Certified Local Governments right, It' s disturbing that they haven't come forward yet to the Commission. So I think on behalf of the Commission we need to send an invitation to this guy to join us. You guys are aware of this right? He was there at the SHA Conference and he was going to make a big presentation but never made his announcements and some how he got (inaudible) we were all like ok let' s wait and see but he never had his say. How do you want to go about doing that? Do you want me to make the call and invitation? Staff: You can just request the department to forward that letter and what that letter should. Chair: I am sorry the name. Mr. Helder: It' s going to be on the conference, his name is mentioned. Chair, He is from the National Park Service. He is, because of the Federal 106 compliance and federal monies a trouble shooter was brought in for a two year review that' s why SHPD is under review. DOT is under review. Everybody is under review at the State. This guy has now been here for three months. Mr. Helder: He has been doing a review of the State Historic at the conference and it would be really nice. Chair: I think it would be really nice to have us chitchat. Staff: Ok so maybe if you can just state what it is we are requesting. Chair: Yes if the Commission can for questions and answers. Staff: To address Commission with regards to CLG funding and review. Chair: And in order for us to help the process along too and also for us to get some continuity on what's been going on. Staff: Ok and the request would be to appear at the next meeting. Mr. Helder: To do a presentation on what his review at the State Historic and what impacts it will have on the Certified Local Government both Maui and here. Chair: And it was a National Park Service Program. Yes I am concerned about the funding having been diverted my Melanie Chinen and still hasn't been reinstated yet even though numerous call to the Feds have been (inaudible) things like that. Mr. Helder: I wasn't aware that the funds were diverted. November 4. 20 10 KAT.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 17 Chair: Yes it was. Mr. Helder: To both Maui and Kauai? Chair: Yes four years ago and the County has been footing the bill since then. Not a dime has come in. Mr. Helder: Where did it go? Chair: Melanie Chinen diverted it for her own stake and then when we pressured her over it she kind of gave us a list ok you are going to do this for us or else. Ricky so no, no you can't be giving us . . . Mr. Helder: I thought they. . . Chair: They were playing hard ball and then they essentially gave a letter to the County that you have one day to fill out this application and send it back if not your money is no good but you will do exactly what we tell you. Mr. Helder: They were supposed to be a pass through agency. It was supposed to come from the Feds to us. Chair: Yes from the Feds to us which got diverted and you know after four and a half years of it you know it' s time to get to the bottom of it, Mr. Jung : Same thing is happening with the CZM process too . Mr. Helder: Well this guy should be able to answer some questions that we have. The people who do . . . Chair: As a Certified Local Government we have priority. Mr. Helder: We do or should have had and it' s supposed to be split. You know it' s supposed to go to Maui one year and us one year and then Maui. That was how, well at least that is how I thought it was supposed to be. Chair: And Ricky was working really hard on it. It hurts because we haven't been able to do an update on our inventory. We have not been able to put anything on the historic register. We have not been able to train anybody. The County has been nice enough to help us out right. So as a Commission we haven't have absolutely no training no ability to update or. . . Mr. Helder: Can we do an in-service thing with this guy? Have we got time to do that? Have we got the funds to do that? That is normally what we used to do is get him here and spend three or four hours addressing all these issues. November 4. 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 18 Chair: The general public would be interested in what's going on. It would help a lot with the various interests to have an opportunity to listen to this discussion that must take place between us and the Feds. Ms. Sheehan: We should just concentrate on him so that we have ten other things. Chair: Well this is business . We have got to keep the business on. Mr. Helder: Are we on too short of a notice before you get out of here? Ms. Sheehan: December 2nd is the next meeting. Chair; Yes as Chair but let' s try full speed ahead to try to get this guy over here. I am always really leery about postponing anything of the Commission' s business right. That' s a priority. Mr. Helder: Let's put it in the meeting and then if we need more let's see if we can set something up. Let' s get it established. Staff. Ok so we will put in the request and as of right now we don't have anything lined up in terms of business because even the one we just did that came up within the last week. Mr. Helder: Well talking to him good be our business. Let' s put him on as New Business, Staff: No all I am saying is as the month goes on there maybe something that is triggered through another permit that we may need to put on but as of right now there isn't anything pending other than this request. Mr. Helder: Yes I would like to see that request and a follow up phone call and say we missed him at the conference. We had some questions that we would have for him and we missed him. Chair: Ok so anymore discussions? Topics? Agenda items? Mr. Helder: Nope. Chair: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Helder: So moved. Ms. Sheehan: Second. Chair: Thank you. The next KHPRC Meeting is scheduled on Thursday, December 2, 2010 . November 4. 2010 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 19 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 p.m. ectfully Submitted, S kee . Jimenez Secretary Date : NOV 2 4 2010.