Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutnov12012KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation romniission (KHPRC) was held on November 1, 2012 in the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Pat Griffin, Vice Chairperson, Danita Ain, Jane Gray, David Helder, Stephen Long, Patsy Sheehan, and Randy Wichman. The following Commissioner(s) were absent: Kuuleialoha Santos, Chairperson. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Griffin called the meeting to order at 2:57 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Ms. Griffin: Before we approve the agenda is there any objection to our removing the first three items to the end and start with items under D, New Business. Ms. Aiu: So moved. Mr. Long: Second. Ms. Griffin: Thank you there is approval of the agenda. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote). Opposed. (None). Thank you. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the October 4, 2012 meeting were approved as circulated. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS There were no announcements and general business matters. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 2 UNIFINISHED BUSINESS Re: Appointment of investigative committee members and discussion to scope tasks for an investigate committee to identify potential amendments to Article 25, Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code, 1987 as amended, including to but not limited to changing the name of the Commission and clarifying the role of the Commission. Once formed and the tasks completed, the investigative committee will present its findings to the Commission in a duly noticed meeting for decision- making. Ms. Griffin: Unfinished business, appointment of investigative committee members and discussion to scope task for an investigative committee to identify potential amendments to Article 25, Chapter 8 our historic preser�=ation ordinance. Mr. Junk: I was just going to let you guys know we are going through the CZO update, phase II, it would be the changes to the CZO and I was going to talk to Mike about incorporating some of the changes. So if the-committee is formed today then I can work with the committee to identify some of the changes and then we could either do a separate bill or try lock it in with the CZO phase II update. So there is two options available really. Ms. Griffin: ?Do you have a recommendation for us? Mr. Jung: It's up to you. I mean timing may be difficult with the CZO Phase Il update. So if it is critical to move a package out quick then you might want to do a separate bill but you know if timing isn't critical to you guys then we could wrap it up all in the CZO update. Ms. Sheehan_ What's the timetable for CZO update? Mr. Junk: It's a big project. Ms. Sheehan: Two years? Mr. Jung: Two years but it could get caught up in Council cause. there is a lot of substantial changes that are occurring in the -CZO so there are pretty big policy calls. Ms. Sheehan: I think the task force could come up with an answer before two years. We may have to go on our own. Ms. Griffin: So you are recommending that we actually build a P I G now? Ms. Sheehan: Do you think we would do better on our own as far as passing anything? Mr. Jung: It all depends on what the outcome is on the recommendation, what the changes are but standing on its own can be good and can be bad at times. November 1, 2012 KA.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 3 Ms. Sheehan: Well if we don't pass on our own we can just hook up two year from now with the CZO. Mr. Jung: Right, Ms. Griffin: So why don't we start the P I G now. Does anyone object to that? (None). I would like to suggest that Kuulei as our chair and the person who actually initially brought this up be on the committee. We can have up to four. You were asking, Steve, about being on, would you like to be on. Mr. Long: I am not clear on what I am raising my hand for. Ms. Griffin: It's to review the ordinance and what our M O is. Mr. Jung: Basically looking at the code provision and whether or not the role should be expanded or clarified. Ms. Sheehan: The name change too. Mr. Jung: And the name change- right. So all this has to be within confines of certain federal provisions but technically you could look at adopting new roles and responsibilities. Ms. Griffin: Is that something. Ok so we have two people anybody else want to be part of reviewing our ordinance and... Mr. Helder: I am up next month. I am at the end so... Mr. Wichman: December will be my last meeting. Mr. Helder: Me too. Ms. Griffin: Patsy? Is this something you would be willing to do? Ms. Sheehan: I thought I was doing the other one? I am already doing the inventory one. Ms. Aiu: You are. Ms. Griffin: I will at least pro tem with the group and we will just get going from there. Mr. Jung: You can always appoint. Ms. Griffin: Do we need to vote? Mr. Jung: As the chair you can just formerly make the appointments. November 1. 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 Ms. Griffin: Thank you. As the Chair I will do so. So the appointment as the three of us. Ms. Aiu: So you have Mr. Long, Kuulei, and you. Ms. Griffin: Yes. Ok so is there any other discussion about that. (None.) Re: Certified Local Government (CLG) Status Appointment of investigative committee members and discussion to scope tasks for an investigative committee to identify properties for nomination to the State and National Register of Historic Places. Once formed and the tasks completed, the investigative committee will present its findings to the Commission in a duly noticed meeting for decision - making. Ms. Griffin: Ok Certified Local Government Status, Ms. Aiu: Ok presently there is nothing new to report. It's at a standstill. He has turned in the... Mr. Wichman: The application. Ms. Aiu: Not the application to the Finance Director. Mr. Jung: The funding cert? Ms. Aiu: The what? Mr. Jung: The funding cert? Ms. Aiu: No it starts with a P. Ms. Griffin: The RFQ? Ms. Aiu: And that's where it stands right now. Ms. Griffin: Probably next month rather than being the appointment of the investigative committee it would be report or something since they have been appointment. Mr. Junk: What we did is just we put the same agenda topic from the previous meeting so you could at least give the status where you have been after the appointment. So we just linked it back to the original appointment agenda item. Ms. Aiu: Yes we are all in already, committed. Ms. Griffin: Ok any other discussion on the CLG status? (None.) November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 5 NEW BUSINESS Re: Robert Lober, TMK: 2- 8- 07:16, Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii - Proposed alterations to include French doors and canopy to existing retail building. Ms. Griffin: Moving on to new business, D.1., Robert Lober and this is for proposesd alterations to include French doors and canopy to existing retail building at TMK: 2 -8- 07:16. Ms. Crystal Lober: I am Crystal Lober. Mr. Robert Lober: And I am Robert Lober. Mine is slightly less complex then the last one. Mr. Wichman: You should've been here a little bit earlier (laughter in the background). Mr. Lober: -Shall I begin? Ms. Griffin: Please. Mr. Lober: This is an existing retail facility and it's in. the Old Kcioa Town. Those of you have a packet. Ms. Griffin: We all have it. Mr. Lober: Ok our proposal as tenants of the space and as part of retail tenant improvements our proposal is actually to increase activity in the courtyard and so our proposal is actually to take out some existing windows and - replace them with glazed French doors and that actually will flow into the courtyard space and that activates the courtyard quite substantially. As part of the doors we would like to put a small canopy faxed with six foot extension of the basic door line. The character of the complex I would say is plantation. Many of the buildings are of that era and they have maintained that and our proposal is to keep that flavor. So it's not a radical departure. The first exhibit that we have included is a location plan. For those of you are familiar with the area the Salvation Army is the grey thatched building. The courtyard space is indicated on the plan but nonetheless it's that space and the project location is circled. If you would like I have photographs of the existing complex which I could pass around for those of you who would like to see. Mr. Helder: Do you have the photographs of the existing entrance? Mr. Lober: I do. Mr. Helder: Ok. And it's relationship to... November 1; 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page b Mr. Lober: And it's included in your packet but there is more amplified versions of it in the hand out that is going around. Ms. Griffin: Continue... Mr. Lober: It's a fairly straight forward proposal. I think our intention is to malama the courtyard and to improve that space. It is an historic building I suppose or district and I think one of the ways you can enhance and preserve the historic buildings is to give them economic life and I think that this is a logistic proposal. Ms. Griffin: Questions? Mr. Long: I. have a question with regards to the window /ventilation jalousie windows above the two sets of windows that you are replacing with the French doors. What's your intention? Mr. Lober: We are still evaluation whether does can actually be reconfigured or if they actually function as ventilation elements. Our proposal is to actually remove the first bank below and to put glazing into there and replace those louvers with glass. it's a tall- vaulted space so that allows some light up high in the space. Mr. Helder: Can I ask, is this on our purview because of just exclusively the age or there has been something special about this little area or this particular building or is it just because it's 50 years? Mr. Lober: If I may... Mr. Helder: This is a question for the Planning Department why this came before us. Mr. Jung: I think it would trigger a Class I permit and it's in the Special Treatment Cultural District. Mr. Helder: So it is a Special Treatment Cultural District which involves all these little buildings. Mr. Jung: And there are all these historic structures. Mr. Helder: Are they in their original locations? Mr. Jung: The door? Mr. Helder: The store. The building, were they all originally here. In other words was the alignment the way it is now. The entrances. The orientation of light. How the traffic flow. Ms. Griffin: I can speak a little to that cause I remember back in the 80s actually when Old Kola Town was developed as a shopping center in the 83, 84 and Koloa Fish and Chowder House was a tenant in this building and they were clients of ours and actually was the whole building. It's November I, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 been halved but it's been quite a bit of work and then it became Mangos who was also another client of ours. Then it became Pancho and Lefty's you know and a lot of the buildings here, what you see of these windows I think is from its restaurant days and so all of these have been altered. Furthermore, it's not really on the roadside. It's in the courtyard. So it's not something you see from. Koloa Road or any of the pastes but I think the long and the short of it is that the face of the building has lost its integrity over the years. We are not worried about character defining changes. That's our verbiage here. Mr. Helder: Got ya. That was the question -I was asking. So -you are not changing the siding or any of that? Alright. Ms. Griffin: And the doorway, right in front of it. I haven't seen the pictures yet but are you all going to change the plantings in front of it. Cause to put the doorways in the middle. Mr. Helder: Could we see the photograph. Mr. Lober: In order to get the doors to out swing you have. to remove a portion of that rock wall. Ms. Sheehan: Could you tell us about the age and what history you know. Mr. Lober: Prior to 1980 this building was moved to this site. The Planning Department, Dale Cua, informed me that from his sources that it was not over fifty years old the building itself What triggered it was the location in the district. In fact it almost had to go before the Planning Commission but they determined that they could do through Class I as opposed to-Class 11. Mr. Helder: I don't see it having any drawback to the rest of what is going on in the rest of the district. You know. It's kind of adaptive reuse. Mr. Wichman: Yes adaptive reuse at this point. Mr. Helder: It doesn't look like they have made modification to it. It's appropriate with what is going on there in the shopping area. Ms. Griffin: The door at the right and it is a French door already. Several of them are. Mr. Helder: The integrity of the building is already compromised. Ms. Griffin: Would you like to make a motion? Mr. Helder: I move we accept the plans as presented. Ms. Griffin: Second? Mr. Wichman; Second. November 1, 2012 . K.H.P.R_C_ Meeting Minutes Page 8 Ms. Griffin: Further discussions? (None.) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote). Opposed? Hearing none the motion is carried. Thank you very much. Re: Kaumuali`i Highway (Phase 1), Lihu'e Mill Bridge to Rice Street, Federal Aid Project No. ARR- 0504(036), Lihu'e, Island of Kauai, State of Hawai'l, Pre -final bridge railing design for Lilltu'e Mill-Bridge. Letter (10/19/12) from Mr. Pat V. Phung, P.E., Leed Civil Engineer, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration to Kuuleialoha Santos, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. Ms. Griffin: The first item of new business is Robert Lober? Let's move to D.2., Kaumuali`i Highway (Phase 1), Lihu'e Mill Bridge to Rice Street, Pre -final bridge railing design for the bridge, gentlemen. Mr.. Jim Niermann: Good afternoon my name is Jim Niermann a planner with R.M. Towill Corporation and I am here on behalf of the Department of Transportation, Kauai District and Federal Highways too. I will be careful as far as speaking for' them. I know we have authorization under the 106 process but I will reserve my comments for what I know. Mike Okamoto is the project engineer also with R.M. Towill, and Stanford Iwamoto with DOT is waiting in the wings if we get into trouble. So we are here on behalf DOT to present the pre -final design for Lihu'e Mill Bridge railing as well as to address two of the other items that were in the motion from previous session we attended. One of which pertains to Hoomana and as far as what our mitigation for the impacts to Hoomana Road- overpass and then also there was a motion to work with the residents who express concerns about the project and so I can give you an update on some of the things. One of the question I had is did you all receive the Federal Highways letter, not just the invitation to the 106 meeting but there was- another letter. Ms. Griffin: The memorandum agreement? Mr. Niermann: No it was actually a letter, a formal letter requesting to be on today's agenda. Ms. Griffin: We had an email from Myles to Shan that was from you or to Myles from you. Mr. Niermann: The only thing that I would be missing from that, which I can go over just verbally is some of the outreach efforts that we have undertaken and then a follow up with that information in written format. So let's see (inaudible). From the meeting on the P we have presented three alternatives for the guardrail on the bridge. This up here is existing conditions on the bridge and kind of the characteristics the three alternatives we have presented. One was to replicate this because it November 1, 2012 K..E.P.R..C. Meeting Minutes Page 9 cannot be crash rated was to put an additional railing crash rated railing between the existing railing and the travel way on both sides and adding that extra element and then there were two variations kind of in the period of a bridge railing (inaudible). So the motion was to pursue or in support of this direction. (h°laudible) but this what we presented as the direction we would go. There were two variations. The first one was replace the pointed arch with a curved arch and then to eliminate the top (inaudible). So this is actually taken from the pre -final design drawing so this is actually a design from the design drawing and got the curved arch. The existing rail is 39 1/2 inches tall. That's what the existing top is. This is 42 to meet current standard. It will be on the other edge of the sidewalk on the makai side. On the mauka side of the Lihu'e Mill Bridge there won't be a sidewalk. It will just be a three foot shoulder and travel lane. On the new bridge which is yet to be named it will be on both sides. Again the sidewalk will be on the mauka side and then on the interior side there will be no side walk. It will be just the shoulder. So it will have an intersection between two bridges there will be a railing here (inaudible). So that railing will be repeated four times, two on the Lihu'e Mill Bridge and then twice on the other bridge. So that's what's propsed. I can go into the other motions. Ms. Griffin: Let's stay with the Lihu'e Mill Bridge and then go to Hoomana. Is that what you are... Mr. Niermann: Yes and that's essentially it as far as the deign details. The crash rated railings need to be installed. Changes to the Labu'e Mill Bridge would be removal of the existing deck and rails. The substructure remains intact. There is the addition of the new pier at each column to all for the widening on the mauka side -of the bridge but the existing steel structure underneath remains intact. That's what's proposed for the Lihu'e Mill Bridge. Everything from the deck up is demolished and replaced. New deck and guardrail and a wider section. Ms. Griffin: Are there questions of Mr. Niermann? Mr. Wichman: If I may say something. Ms. Griffin: Yes please. Mr. Wichman: I think most of us have been in the process since the beginning and where we started off and where we are now is a vast difference and again at this particular point these bridge designs from what was originally intended to right now are really nice. Mr. Niermann: Ok thank you that's good to hear. There was a number of concerns. Mr. Helder: So it won't have the steel on top? It's just going to be concrete? Mr. Niermann: Yes it will just be concrete and is it cast in place. Ms. Griffin: And you mentioned Jim that the new bridge is going to replicate that same design? November 1. 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 10 Mr. Niermann: No it will not replicate this design. That was one of the options we had considered. Mr. Helder: No this one the new arch one. Mr. Niermann: No it's... Ms. Griffin: You said you are going to have essentially four rails that look alike even though that one is new and... Mr. Niermann: Correct. All of the railings are going to be based on this design. Mr. Griffin: Are there other questions? (None). I read that you are looking 4for us to accept this to vote approval? Mr* Niermann: I know that the language in the MOA is to provide opportunity to comment. So it's pretty soft in terms of what we are thinking but we would like to, I don't know if we need necessarily approval or disapproval. Of course it's always great to get voice of approval. Ms. Griffin: Right. This we will be asked to concur on the design. So we have the option of concurring or accepting. I am not hearing anyone suggesting it be changed. Mr. Helder: Are you splitting this in two? Ms. Griffin: I would like to cause they are two different designs and... Mr. Helder: Ok. Mr. Wichman: Motion to approve the Lihu'e Mill Bridge pre -final rail designs as is. Mr. Helder: Second. Ms. Griffin: Ok it's been moved and seconded that we approve the railing designs as they have been presented here today. Is there anymore discussion? Ms. Aiu: I just want to make a comment. We are approving quickly today because it was so good the last time. We had a lot of time and a lot of information and I know we voted on what we wanted it and we see it here so thank you very much. Ms. Griffin: Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak on this? Hearing none it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? [Ayes - 6 (Wichman, Helder, Gray, Long, Aiu, Sheehan) and abstention - 1 {Griffin)]. Ok so on to Hoomana. November 1; 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 11 Mr. Niermann: Hoomana, this is just a plain view of the future bridge. This is the existing highway here. This is the Lihu'e Mill Bridge on this side. Hoomana Road, existing, comes up this way. These are pictures of the guardrails on Hoomana Road and the new bridge alignment on the mauka. side. We are going to -have about 25 feet on this side that will have to be demolished and about 35 feet on the other side that would have to be demolished. That's shown in red. The blue is going to be tied into the guardrail on Kaumuali`i Highway that widens this section, the westbound lane and the proposal is to essentially replicate the existing guardrail design as is. So the railing will be replaced with what looks like the existing and that would be realigned. Before that happens SHPD has asked that we do HAER documentation for this bridge as well as for there is a small bridge right here that is made out of railroad railings that used to carry the railroads tracks down the dirt road here underneath Hoomana Road and then into the mill. So they asked for that also. So we are doing both of those. They went out last week to take the photographs. So they are working on that documentation now. It will be packaged as a nomination package for the National Registry. And that's what's proposed for mitigation for the railings on Hoomana. Ms. Griffin: How long are the railings now? Mr. Niermann: In total I am not sure. They extend from him all the way up out of the frame -here. So I don't know off hand but it is several hundred feet on this side and on the other side not quite a hundred feet on that side. It looks like a third of it is being- demolished. One of the neat things about this railings is it's one of the few railing designs, it's not just on (inaudible) but it's the whole roadway guardrail is the continuous design all the way up and which apparently doesn't appear elsewhere on Kauai or the State. One of the other historical significance of this bridge is that the bridge itself was built in 1928 but it was maybe the first and last bridge that was built entirely with private funds. It was built without federal funds or any other source. So apparently after this they got wise. Ms. Griffin: It's_ also -one of only two bridge railway crossings that you know where the train went underneath the road like that. It's significant as is the steel structure of the Lihu'e Mill Bridge. So are there other comments or questions about the removal and replacement on the one side? I would entertain a motion. Mr. Helder: I move that we accept the project as proposed with the designs as presented here today. Mr. Wichman: Second. Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on Hoomana? Can you sit down next to Mr. Okamoto and introduce yourself. November 1., 2012 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page ] 2 Mr. John Mceveety: I am John Mceveety. I am just interested is the guardrails going to be painted red in the future or is it just highlighted? That's soldi you can't see through it. Ilow high is that? Mr. Niermann: It's a little over 36 inches I believe. Mr. John Mceveety: It's 36 inches high? Mr. Niermann: Actually I don't know right off hand how tall it is. Mr. John Mceveety: I thought it was like 30 inches high. I was just concerned because I know the requirements are... Mr. Niermann: 42 if you have (inaudible). Mr. John Mceveety: I walk by coming down that street very often. When I have my kid I hold .her hand because it just seems like it's a little short. Is Hoomana that old bridge is it going to be a foot bridge? Mr. Niermann: it's going to remain from this point up there is going to be no change. So it is going to be converted over to a foot and bicycle bridge all the way up. Mr. John Mceveety: Who is going to maintain it in the future? Mr. Niermann: It is still going to be County and I believe, correct me if I am wrong on that. There will be no motor vehicles. It will still be maintained for vehicle access for the Department of Water because the water lines are not going to be relocated. Mr. John Mceveety: Alright thanks. Mr. Wichman: I believe that the motion that we are entertaining essentially is within the guardrail design and this only applies to this portion of the project. Ms. Griffin: Anyone else have questions? Hearing none it's been moved and seconded to accept the Hoomana Bridge rail changes as presented. All in favor (Unanimous voice vote). All opposed? (none). Hearing none it carries. And I read in here that there will be a HAER study for the Lxhu'e Mill Bridge as well right? Mr. Niermann: Right in fact that documentation has already been done and it's already in the Library of Congress. It's not on the register but the documentation, the research, the photographs are on record now. Ms. Griffin: Is it possible, may we ask you to give copies to the Kauai Museum and to the Kauai Historical Society so that they will be part of the island's records as well. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 1.3 Mr. Wickman: There is a stunning mural photograph of the bridge shortly after construction behind the Pepsi case in Tip Top Cafe. They have some beautiful black and white photographs but as you enter into the restaurant there is the Pepsi case and look behind it there is a stunning photograph of this bridge. The vantage point of it is really cool as it overlooks the gulch and into Lihu'e in the 1930s. Mr. Niermann: So it's taken from the Lihu'e side? Mr. Wichman: The mill side coming across. I am sure the museum has the photograph. We don't have it the museum does. Mr. Niermann: The other thing we will provide when it's complete is the archeological inventory survey. Ms. Griffin: There is also the 1936 photo of the just finishing work from just beyond Hoomana looking towards the mill and until that bridge was constructed people went makai of the mill to get to the west .and south side. So that was a real game changer for Kauai when the depression funds, the public works projects came and it had (inaudible). Mr. Niermann: My understanding is the fund were specifically for grade separation for railroad safety. Ms. Griffin: And you know that made a difference. Well thank you for presenting it. Moving on to... Mr. Niermann: There was a third part of the motion too, that was to continue to work cooperatively with the residents of German Hill cause they had some other concerns a -bout project impact on German Hill. Mr. Wichman: Where are you standing now with that? Mr. Niermann: With the... Mr. Wichman: Yes with the residents in the area. Mr. Niermann: They can probably speak from their perspective and from our perspective is there has been, we have gone out several times to meet with Annie, John, and Vic in particular -and then since the last meeting we had here we have had, this was on the 3rd I think on the 2nd of May we had a first preconstruction meeting that we sent out invitations out to all the residents on the Hill. We had a very big turnout. We had a packed house at the DOT facility and we heard a lot of concerns about construction related impacts to the historic character of German .Hill. There were concerns about the design of the road. So short term and long term concerns to the design and actual project and also concerned to impacts to German Hill itself. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R..C. Meeting Minutes Page 14 We subsequently had a meeting (inaudible) that was also open to the community. A lot of the same issues came up and a lot of them not to overly narrow them down but it came down to road design issues, sight distance concerns, noise is a big concern that it increases noise, vegetation removal was a big concern, and then the kind of aggregate impacts that that would have on the characteristics of German Hill so overall the change of the quality of that neighborhood. There is also another concern related to road design which is the amount of cut in the slope and how close is that approach to particularly to Annie's house. So there has been a couple of meetings on the site with both the builders, Kiewit, the design engineers, DOT has gone out, I am not sure how many times. I know they have been having discussions on their own with the design team and residents as well. Right now this is showing phase 1. So this is the first phase that would actually affect the residents on German Hill and this is the existing Hoomana Road. This is the new alignment coming up. So the orange on the outside is essentially the right of way line. It comes up here rather than (inaudible) what it is showing is the top of the cut slope. So on both sides that would essentially be the footprint of the grading /excavation. These two squares right here those are the garage that was moved over here. Well actually it was from this one right here and this line right here is the property that was acquired by the State as part of the right of way acquisition right up to this line. So that is the property line between the State owned property on the side of the road and the Mceveety's house /residence. So when the-road goes through the structure is still standing but it is going to be demolished, the garage will be taken down. Trees along there are also going to -be take down by that cut. So as far as what we are doing to work with the residents is to look at tree planting along this edge to try to provide some vegetative screening. We did do a noise study bringing this up with relation to the screening. The noise study was based on the federal standards and did not indicate an increase in noise that would trigger abatement according to federal and state guidelines. Nevertheless there is still that psychological perception of, I mean there is definitely an increase in noise and there is also jus the psychological perception of the increase. Federal or state guidelines don't allow or they don't allow vegetation to be a mitigation for noise and there is kind of a caveat which is you need at least 200 deep thickly forested vegetation to actually get rid of noise that would justify the abatement. So putting vegetation in here is not triggered by the noise or cannot be used as justification for that. That is something that DOT is discussing with the residents to plant along here to replace the vegetation and to provide at least the visual screening. There is concern about safety not that there is a cut right there since it is at the edge of the property line. Right now the plan is to have a chain link fence fronted by some kind of vegetative screening on the front side of it and that would fall along the orange highlights going through. Mr. Wickman: Is there any new historical... Ms. Griffin: Hang on just a moment. Can either of you tell me exactly the boundaries of that historic district because if it is outside, if we are talking outside I know that Hoomana is an historic district but if it is outside it is also outside of our purview, I believe, if it's included as November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 15 part of the historic district then I think having visual barriers is important as a mitigating factor to the changes below it but the noise may be outside of purview. So I need legal counsel here. Mr. Jung: I have to go look on the maps to see where the specific district is. Mr. Niermann: Can I speak to -that real quickly. It might guide your effort. What we found is that there were no boundaries defined. When the 106 was going through previously it was identified by SHPD staff as the historic district. It hasn't been nominated. It has gone through the process but it is certainly an historically significant neighborhood. On that basis there was an assessment and the house needed to be relocated and the determination was no adverse affect. So it would have effect but because the house would be relocated with the district I think that was one of the pieces for no adverse affect. The other part was that I had a number of meetings with the residents of German Hill and it may be characterized as the lease worst alternative or at least it wasn't that everybody was saying we love this but it was the alternative that was selected on the basis that it had the support of the residents. That was also the basis of no adverse affect determination on the rest of the neighborhood and that was also based on the fact of the distribution of houses centered around the church was not going to be significantly altered and would remain intact around the church. So those were the basis for determining a basis of no adverse effect. The only place that it was defined an historic district was in the correspondence. Mr. Helder, We don't have enough. This is not in our package at all. Ms. Griffin: I think this was, well I was looking at Pat here but I what may be best action for us at this stage been accepted on the State or National Register at this to be nominated and it does have, as you said, historic can do because is simply accept the presentation as it h way or the other, simply to accept the presentation. Phung. There is this map or part of it in because even though it's not a, it hasn't point that it is acceptable and is possible structures up there. So perhaps what we as been given without having to vote one Ms. Sheehan: That's fine I just had another questions. The new road is a two way road. So tell me again what you are going to do with the old Hoomana Road at the time when the new one is finished. It's not a one way in and one way out? Mr. Niermann: The new one will be shut off to traffic. Mr. Helder: We don't have any guidelines or any instruction on how to approach this particular. I see it here as just spelled out as the approaches in the letter, footprint and approaches to bridge. That hasn't come up before but it has in a sense that they were talking about cutting off the old road and digging through the new one and I think you or one of your neighbors was here for that and they described a retaining wall. Other than what we are looking at here what kind of decision could be made that would be substantive to our responsibility. Ms. Griffin: Like I said I am not sure that we need to make a decision. Simply accept the presentation you know for further study. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 16 Mr. Helder: Ok so 106 doesn't require anything from us in those regards? Ms. Griffin: You were going to tell us that there was going to be another public meeting next week? Mr. Niermann: Yes and we are having the second 106 community consultation on Tuesday. Two separate sessions, one at 2:30 and one at 6:00. It will be the same presentation and opportunity for discussion and then in addition to that because we do realize it is Election Day so for those who have difficulty meeting on that day it wasn't by design you know some people may find it easy to show up on that day and some may not. Those who do not we will certainly make other accommodations to talk to them to hear any comments or to have a discussion, site visit, etc. but that's an opportunity for an update on what we have done so far. By the first meeting which was June 28th we have had the EIS field work done and that identified within the gulch six sites that were plantation infrastructure and that was some water works flumes, rock walls along the stream... Mr. Helder: Those would be in our purview. Things like that are things that we are trained to have some... Mr. Niermann: The EIS, the draft, was submitted to SHPD on September 27th. So we did just get some comments. CSH who is the archeologist tvorking they are working through the comments right now. Of the six features that were identified four of them are going to be directly impacted including (inaudible) up the gulch there is a rock flume that will be buried or have to be demolished because it will be occupied by the new bridge alignment and there is a bit of metal, like sheet metal, flume section that is down there. It doesn't seem. to be in the location, where it is, it kind of just fell in that - location. The bridge across the stream right here we are not impacting that bridge, that was just something that they wanted documented in the context of this area. The rock wall that's holding up that west bank of the stream, we are going to be penetrating that rock wall with a new drain outlet. So we are going to have to reconstruct a portion of that ai those sites and the proposed mitigation which is essentially data collection/data recovery collection and then document and demolish that's what's being proposed to SHPD. 1-think the only issue is the level of documentation is adequate or they want to see more documentation. Mr. Helder: Now if we were going to address the bridge footprint, the approach and the environment I would like to see that. I mean without having saying they have sent it off to SHPD we haven't seen it and so for us to sign off on this without seeing it. Ms. Griffin: Which part are you talking about David? Mr. Helder: I am talking about the six elements that he is describing. If they are going to be impacted we should have documentation. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 17 Mr. Wichman: (Inaudible) an SHPD letter that we concur with or not. Mr. Helder: Yes so I would like to see a presentation here accept what we accepted and then accept this part with the caveat that we would have some presentation of the impact of structures so that we could comment on what we would like to see as mitigation relative to us. Ms. Griffin: Typically we would get you know the environmental studies and respond in some way and that is what you are talking about and we can wait to get that. Just to go back for a minute to the noise and visual mitigation. I think where it falls into our purview is that because this is a very historic road it is eligible for the register which gives it the same cache as already the being on it and heritage corridors are a part of our purviews. So even though I suggested and still suggest that we accept the information without voting one way or the other on it. I do think that the visuals and how this more than doubled highway structure is going to affect that road is part of what we should be looking at. Mr. Helder: You are talking about the old road. Ms. Griffin: I am talking about the old bridge, the new bridge, how it is going to impact for visuals and noise. Mr. Niermann: That was when I didn't quite complete responding to your question but in terms of what was happening here this is where the impact on, direct impact on, the road is here. So this is (inaudible) which is here and then you can see all that distance up the road. Telephone poles are right here. So going out to right about here just slrly of where (inaudible) is what would be completely demolished and occupied by the new bridge. The transitions end to that new bridge is basically going to be a guardrail into a replication into this guardrail and then on this side the existing guardrail with a new end piece would just be terminating at the end of the bridge but the connection between the two is just going to be a pedestrian foot so it would not be wide enough and I think it is at the same grade right down to the elevation of the road (inaudible). And then the road itself remains as is. At the top, at the very top it makes that S loop so right around where you see the pavement ending there would be a cattle gate crossing the road. So it would be a locked access and that would be to allow the Department of Water trucks coming down the road for maintenance and otherwise would be blocked off. The setback just far enough so it doesn't become a parking spot just enough to pull in and unlock the gate and then access through and then at the top it is designed to have a T intersection with the new Hoomana Road realignment. So that's another over view and more importantly to address your question about how is that going tie together. Ms. Sheehan: Yes so I was just asking whether the old road would turn or get skinnier and skinnier but it is going to size down until it hits the bridge and then it's just a walking/biking path. Mr. Niermann: Yes essentially it comes down where it meets the new alignment it's going to get cut off right there. So as soon. as they go through some kind of gate more they will be more constrained by the guardrail not by the width of the road. When you go around that it would be November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 18 the existing width of the bridge right about this far right here. So from that red side to that red side, it would be just blocked off with a guardrail. Ms. Sheehan: So I am just curious is the new road where you turn off is there going to be a light or is it just a side road that takes you off? Mr. Niermann: It won't be a lighted -intersection. It would be a shelter lane for left turning and a shelter lane for a left turn out to allow the traffic to continue to go on and it allow for turning in and out. Mr. Helder: Page 2. It defines ours as the Lzhu'e Mill Bridge, the Hoomana Overpass Bridge, the Lihu'e Public Cemetery, German Hill Historic District, and the Lihu'e Mill exclusively and then on the second page it says that the noise and the concerns of the resident's potential effects on historic neighborhood and working with the residents on noise. But ours mentions nothing about the road. It's not in this project area for, under National Historic Preservation Act according to this letter. Ms. Sheehan: I am trying to find where you are David. Mr. Helder: Ok it is three pages in from the end. Mr. Niermann: I think the road is called Hoomana Overpass /Bridge. Mr. Helder: Yes it is on here and those are two structures which is what we- are dealing with but the road itself, as far as I know Kaumuali`1 is not on historic roads. It hasn't been nominated and we are talking about a district that is off that road, the German district. We are talking about the two bridges, a cemetery and the mill but we are not, if we can't come in and adopt the road. Ms. Griffin: I don't think anybody is trying to do that. Mr. Helder: When we talk about mitigation, the noise, and all the impact, and the construction of the road and how that is going to down that isn't in our purview. Ms. Griffin: It's not the construction of Kaumuali`i we are talking about the overpass bridge and the new connection. Mr. Helder: The design is our purview, the construction and all that is not. We can get lost in this. Ms. Griffin: I think that the design of this bridges is because it's a replacement of two historic bridges and I might add two important historic bridges on the island and very unusual ones. Those are within our purview and when you talk about historic districts, number four here, German Hill Historic District how the road impacts that is also you know what I have asked for is to simply accept his information that we can take best on our further research and their coming back but I believe with my gavel that an historic district, heritage corridors, view planes and November 1, 2012 K.11P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 19 landscapes are all within our purview for historic areas just as we spend several months looking at landscape and so forth for the Kokee region. Mr. Helder: Ok so this is a heritage corridor? That's what you just said? Ms. Griffin: I said I consider it. Mr. Helder: I know but is it listed as one? I mean that is what I am saying. Part of my point is that I don't think that we can. come in and just designate these things without it coming down. Ms. Griffin; Are you saying that you don't want to accept this for further study David? Mr. Helder: I can accept it but I don't think that this is in our kuleana. Mr. Wichman: In one way since we are inside of the heritage corridor the proposed impacts to the realignment of Hoomana Road does affect the historic character. They are under going mitigation right now in order to alleviate some of these impacts to this historical corridor. Mr. Helder: You are saying it is an historical corridor. It's been designated that? I understand.. . Ms. Griffin: It is eligible. An historic corridor is not a capital H capital C like National Register is. Mr. Wichman: Eligible for the National Register which sets up the basic flags but I understand that I think they are asking this commission's advice in the nature of the mitigation of the historical impact this realignment of this Hoomana Road is having. Which_ again you know pushes us out a little bit to the boundaries. I take this under advisement and I think being aware of what all the resident concerns are, it is important for me to know what the residents in the area are doing in the nature of mitigation to these historical impacts. In a way I am anxious to hear from residents. Ms. Griffin: Just before you, please have a seat, but we got a couple of issues. One is the bypass and the other is the mitigation efforts. Is that correct? Mr. Niermann: By bypass you mean the realignment? Ms. Cyriffin: Excuse me the realignment. I got stuck on the bypass this morning. A 20 minute trip took an hour and a half. So I am still sort of bypassing. So we still got two different issues. Is that correct? We have got the mitigation issue that you were talking about. Mr. Niermann: We were talking about the items like the noise, the vegetation, the road design, design related issues. I would like to speak to some of those in addition. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 20 Ms. Griffin: Ok cause we went from noise and visual to mitigation to what was happening with bypass and I wanted to make sure that everybody was comfortable with the information we had on Hoomana Road and you more stuff for it. Stay right there. Mr. Niermann: Real briefly. So the project and I would also Ike to put this context too, this isnt' to just force things along but to put context in too the 106 process the project underwent /completed in the year 2000 with the (inaudible) determination. So the project has been proceeding on that basis. So the basis of no adverse effect/mitigation and the mitigation only addressed the (inaudible). So going back and I looked at these other properties so corning back into it now that the project is that much further along we are really kind of making a good faith effort to mitigate /addressing those concerns without having you know (inaudible) this is an element of historic district that is being impacted and the bridge we understand the road. As far as vegetation those become a little bit more murkier with respect to what is historic and what is not historic. So we go back to the period of significance when we are talking about 1930s when there was railroad going on here and how noisy was that or the other operation. What is the noise level, how big are the trees in the 1930s. What is historic and non - characteristic of the cherished neighborhood and we have not gone through -.that analysis to do that. Mr. Wichman: I still think that the research is still a bit thin because there is no reference to this particular gulch crossing as orchid valley and also that the actual footprint of the Hawaiian village Pua Loke, do not be confused by the subdivision, the village is in this sector right here. The old village. Mr. Niermann: I could find some of that space. Mr. Wichman. Yes so now we have different layers of footprint. My history doesn't start with plantations. Absolutely not, there are two distinct levels prior to the plantation that I think in the research. So naturally the approach is to German Hill and all of that is of interest because it relates to the 1840s and earlier landscape. Ms. Griffin: And to further clarify across the country there are well practiced efforts and standards that have heen developed with historic neighborhoods to protect the view. I don't think anybody would ask to replicate the trees that were there but it's a way of finding ways to protect an historic community and that's not you know starting something here that it's a standard practice that has been going on for a while in neighborhoods and areas around the country. So we are not threading, we don't have our machetes out going through unbroken ground here to be able to accept and hear ways to protect the community and understanding the complications that you have on what Federal Highways would accept as noise abatement and other mitigations. Some of that is outside of our purview arguably on noise but certainly the views and so forth I think stand with an historic community. Do you have anything else Jim? November 1, 2012 K.RP.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 21 Mr. Niermann: There are some other details but I can wait and I. will stay up here just to answer it. Ms. Griffin: Thank you are on. Ms. Annie Mceveety= Hi I am Annie Mceveety and this is my brother John and my husband Vic. Really I want to address because first of all the fact that you guys haven't seen photographs or are aware of these little rock walls surprises me because we have all seen photographs. We have been in the meetings about them. December 15th they break ground so you sit here and discuss about what can we say is fruitless because they have already come to us and told us. Can I show you a photograph? This Randy I have been trying to get a hold of you guys to just show you. That's how they tore down the trees to do their study on supposed graveyard. They walked in with bulldozer and knocked these trees down, just ripped them up without evening notifying us. Now I am not saying it was RM Towill, Keiwit, or DOT cause I don't know who it is. So f know Mr. Wichman was very concerned about that stuff. A chain link fence, a chain link fence is a solution so when you are driving out of Rice Street you look up and you are going to see a chain link fence. This is their solution for security and to keep our neighborhood historical. The bridge is historical: The highway bridge is historical. The church is historical. Why doesn't the new road get affected and treated as an historical neighborhood. You guys are sitting here and they have- already said they are putting -'in a chain link fence and then just to address the sound. Look at the trees they did the sound test after those trees were taken out. You know and now of course 200 feet of trees well I think that is 200 feet of trees but if it's 190 feet of tress that they tore out or whatever was done they do the test after: So guess what? They are just skimming by so here we are in a neighborhood that every single thing that we have been told for six months, which isn't even a long time to prepare ourselves for, you know all that stuff is down to they break ground on December 15th you know and so it's super upsetting and we fight and we try but we don't have any support anywhere because no matter what I had a list of 30 things, every single thing aside from the fact that maybe they will be able to save a palm tree or two and help something up there to be a little better so that we don't see the chain link fence. You know it was the only that was in our favor in our historic neighborhood. This is German I-Ell you know and nobody is doing anything and now we are talking about two months and bulldozers go through and the sound the noise we are already figuring out if we can sell our property cause it's going to be so bad you know and that's all I have. It's just disturbing to sit here and look at this little painted pretty picture of B S. Mr. John Mceveety: I concur with everything Annie says. Vic and . I, and Annie we were neighbors and battle it all the time. What are we going to do, what are we going to do? There has been a lot of meetings and you know we get a lot of okie dokies. Okie dokie meaning we will address it and to Jim's credit he did increase the V cut so it's a little steeper so the road is not as wide. It doesn't encroach on the property. Thank you for doing that you know but as far as the sound goes there was a swatch of trees taken out to test for burial grounds and then the sound was tested after that so it's not a fair test. And I know that it is not really historical but it does impact these houses. These houses are very historical. November 1. 2012 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 22 I have personally restored home in Pasadena, California. That the Historical Society was on by back night and day taking pictures and it was beautiful. I learned a lot from and really respected the Historical Society. They were .fantastic. So I know a little bit about it and do know that these homes, especially the first two houses, our homes are historical. The date from the house that we moved in some concrete said 1909. The. Building Department has 1941 or something because they didn't have permits in 1909 or 06 whatever it was. Anyway when they did the sound testing, this does impact these homes, when they did the sound test they did it like they proposed. I was out of town but they didn't do the sound test inside one of the two houses or on the deck. The house is five feet high. The course is 5 feet high you have direct site. Now we have got a site that you can't even see the road and when they took out the swatch of trees the sound increased tenfold, seemed like tenfold, and the sound goes right up into the house. When I go outside and stand on the grass it's not as loud. In my house it's atrocious. So when all those trees are removed and it's just this clear shot right down to the highway it's going to be murder ill there. It's going to be like on the Hi in Oahu. I invite everybody in this room to please, please come up to our property and walk through our homes and around the grounds and look at it. We don't have to be there. Jim has been up there 20 times but look at the property and look inside the houses and you tell me what you think this is going to be like. It is going to be bloody murder. Mr. Wichman: One of the recommendations we could - potentially make would be the planting of native vegetation. Would that do anything? Ms. Mceveety: That's not the plan. The plan is a V cut with grass. No irrigation. The V cut going up to Hoomana Road is going to be guinea grass. Its not going to be irrigated. It's going to be maximum year. So everybody is ok with that. Mr. Wichman: I am going to dance around the -noise issue a little bit. That's why I want to stick to the native vegetation and the replanting of this particular area which would help at least put back that vegetation barrier but with the native sense and if we were to do a native orchard as orchard-valley really was would that in any way be better than what we are today. Ms. Mceveety: Anything that. you do is going to be helpful for sure. There is many other departments. Obviously you can't solve all of our problems. I understand what you role is but... Mr. Wichman; I think within the native vegetation within this corridor would be an acceptable recommendation that we could make. Ms. Grim: Jim would you talk a little bit further, you mentioned that the federal highways does not accept plantings as noise mitigation but they don't prohibit good willed government agencies from plantings. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 23 Mr. Niermann: Essentially it would be more on say a visual impact cause they wouldn't be able to rationalize plantings on the basis of noise but certainly on the basis of environmental impact. On the impact of removing vegetation and I know that, that's been and I don't know if the DOT has been talking to you already. I know that came up in the meetings. I know they Ray has had discussions with you outside of the meetings. Ms. Mceveety: I have talked with Stanford a little bit today and you know but nobody has really addressed anything really. The only that has is you who has been honest really about what as far as Kiewet and RM Towill is concerned. Mr. Niermann: That's cause I am kind of reckless and I put my foot... Ms. Mceveety: They have a job to do. That's what they are doing really and it's like I think Jim. is a great guy. They just have a job to do and that's what they are really doing and we as a community we have a job to do and that's not to get in their way but to like the sound, the chain link fence you know I just see this... Mr. Vic Allen: Hi I am Vic Allen, Annie's husband and John's (inaudible) but going back to the native vegetation you know that would be on a good will which would be great. At the last meeting we brought up it was yourself who even asked, I can't believe the guy that's is overseeing, but you asked him if it would be possible for a lava wall instead of a chain link fence and he said sure just like that and now we go to a meeting it's like- chain link fence. There is no fences on German Hill. It's even in, if there were bylaws or rules there are no fences on German Hill. You can't put a fence on German Hill and now they are going to put a chain link fence. How does that fit in to an historical neighborhood? Do you remember that Randy? Mr. Wichman: I do. Mr. Allen: And so now it's a chain link fence. So I just wanted to that's a side issue as far as historical sites. I just wanted to bring that up. Ms. - Griffin: Thank you. Can we hear a little bit from the DOT on what your discussions might be right now with the visual mitigations? Mr. Stanford Iwamoto: Sure, Stanford Iwamoto, Highways. We have met with the residents several times and talked with Annie, Vic, and John. We have talked about possibly doing landscaping. We recognize there is a need for a barrier at the top of the slope be it a chain link fence of something but there is a need for something there and we have you know right now we are actually looking at the chain link fence at the edge with landscaping in the back of it. But there is a need for something substantial at the edge and basically we have talked with them and we continue to work with them in terms of native landscaping. You know and that something our landscape architect can look at and has looked at but really it should be realized that the slope next to the road is a one to one slope. So it's very steep. So it's not someplace we want to put trees and shrubs and things. When we get to the flat areas that is something we can look at. I really think you know at the slope itself it will basically be grass. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 24 Ms. Sheehan: How deep is it? It's one to one but will it be high? Mr. Iwamoto: It's 20 feet. Ms. Griffin: 25 to 30 feet. Mr. Niermann: Just to point out on this side is all fill and then right across this access road that connects that existing dirt -road right here it's starts the cut. So the deepest point is probably right about here, 25 feet- deep and going... the design to get up this slope so many things that have been done to the design just-in response those concerns to try to and I know in the face of talking about this kind of cut we are not (inaudible) to bring the road profile up so that it is basically less cut so it's steeper but less cut. The pavement width was narrowed and I think the standard is 24 feet wide so it's narrower. Is it 20? That's as low as it can go for emergency services that the county can go. The concrete is the standard and there will be more grass swales to keep more vegetation. Those were in response to try to minimize within what's considered the safe road design standards. Ms. Griffin: And how far is the roadway from the property form the historic property. Mr. Niermann: This house right here is the one that was previously was here, the one that was relocated. It's about 40 feet from the edge of the lanai. Ms. Griffin: Ok so from the edge of, it's that their property line? Mr. Niermann: No the property line is right here. So from the edge of the property line is about around 20 feet from the property line to the edge of the lanai and from that line down to the orange line (inaudible) to the top of the slope that needs to be protected with a fence /vegetation and at least some of the discussion with doing a vegetation plan. This is all owned by the State right now. When it gets transferred over to the County that orange line is going to be in the right of way of the top of the slope. I know there has been discussions about selling that to the Mceveetys but that's a whole separate discussion. Ms. Griffin: So Mr. Iwamoto this is like, this bride thing is like a 50 million dollar project and so in terms of this mitigation what kind of budget is there to protect this historic properties? Mr. Iwamoto: I don't think there is a certain percentage that's been put a side. I think we will put whatever resources that we feel are necessary to mitigate. I can't tell you how much. Ms. Griffin: I ask because somewhere along the line when it comes into the possibilities and I know you all are new to this whole discussion on you know the impacts that happen and as Randy has said that this is an area with lots of layers of history. Certainly the one that we are dealing with now is the neighborhood and their will be impact no matter what. So that question on how do we maximize the softening. The protection of that historic area and it sound like... November 1, 2412 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 25 Mr. Iwamoto: You know I think we are willing to make a good faith effort towards doing whatever mitigation is necessary. Beyond what we are committed to right now, I don't know how much it would be necessary or what we would commit too. Ms. Griffin: Ok are there other questions? Ms. Aiu: I don't know if noise is our purview. Kind of like you I think we are walking on the edge here and I live in the valley too and I planted my own plants so I am thinking can you guys plant some of your own plants and trees by your chain link fence? We have a chain link fence also. But I just go out there and plant my stuff. I am just thinking you can help yourself like that too. Mr. Allen: I am a grower. We rented that land back from the State where they are going to put in the road through and I had a nursery there so I have been growing just to plant. Ms. Aiu: Oh good you are prepared. Mr. Allen: I have been growing for two years just to plant that area but like you said it's a one to one so if you don't know what a one to one slop is it's about for every (inaudible). Ms. Aiu: I mean your place. I don't expect you to go down in the valley although I like to do that. Mr. Allen: I -had one more other question. You talk about the impact study, the EIS and somehow I don't really get it. I don't understand. I am not an attorney so I don't understand how an EIS is done but to my understanding I thought that they had statutes of limitations on the study. So you do a study back in 2000 -and it is still good for 2013. So thirteen years later they are saying that what impacted back then is now ok. So I don't understand that and I guess that was brought up and they oh well it's because they pushed the paper over here and we discussed this over here. So each year, each six months maybe if you discuss something it keeps it active. I don't know. So the impact study that you are going to look at is done 2000 not 2012. Mr. Niermann: Actually all of the studies that were done in 2000 were redone for the current generation of the project. So the EIS that was done was done for the whole Kaumuali`i Highway project which has continuously been ongoing since that EIS was completed. The FONSI was issued in 2000. So to continue this current segment we just reviewed flora, fauna, stream biology and aqua fauna. We did the archeological inventory survey cultural impact assessment and so those are the main studies. We did the noise study, the traffic study. So all of this says is that the address was departmental concerns and the basis for the FONSI and have that redone on the basis for supporting that. They continue using the ElS. Mr. Allen: Do you have copies of the study, then newest one? Mr. Niermann: I have a copy of all the studies yes. We are going to compile it into one single report. November 1; 2012 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 26 Mr. Allen: Because my understanding when I talk: to the guy who did the EIS who has since been fired. They said that... Ms. Mceyeety: I don't think that he did the EIS. Mr. Allen: He was the one that came up and did the... Ms. Mceveety: He was the one that did the study of the graveyard. Mr. Junk: Commissioners I think just to clarify the legality of the discussions that a recent case, the Kulima case outlines what you have to do to look at whether or not you need a supplemental EA or supplemental El for a project. In the Kulima case there is a 20 year time period. They looked up the time period as being significant but they also have to look at the significance of the change in the scope of project. So if they project doesn't change its scope or in relative time then it doesn't necessarily necessitate a supplemental or reviewed EA or EIS. In this case there is just an EA right and then the FONSI. So there wouldn't be a need for a supplemental EA but the agency that's dealing with looking at that document would have to do what is called a hard. - look analysis and do their own determination on whether or not a supplemental should be done. I am assuming that you probably did that documentation that suggests that hard look analysis was done and no supplemental EA was necessary cause the project didn't change. So relative to time the courts are still unclear as to what that time period should be but you know it's up for a case by case analysis. So there is no specific statute of limitation but the court looked at 20 years as being a significant amount of time. Ms. Griffin: Is there anyone else in the public that wants to speak to this issue? Well thank you all for coming. Is there a motion to accept... Mr. Helder: I do have one thing, as I recall from our seminars on 106 that the end result of the 106 process is a memorandum of agreement right? That's it. At that point when you have the memorandum of agreement it's a done deal. They stated in this letter that the memorandum of agreement was already executed on this. Mr. Wichman: You mean (inaudible). Mr. Helder: Yes and it said that but they are passed the stage now on the EIS. Ms. Griffin: Jim do you want to speak on that? Mr. Niermann: Sure that is correct cause the MOA right now, like I said only addresses Lihu'e Mill Bridge. The other historic properties we are talking about today those are all part of the 106 process. Yes so it did move past. What we are doing right now is really a good faith effort to go above and beyond cause we have more detailed information. We are taking an additional hard November 1, 2012 KA.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 27 look at historic properties and the other resources and the other natural resources as well. So on basis we do not open the MOA but we want to mitigate the impacts to historic properties that based on the information gathered need a second look. We - -know that for instance structures in some cases are to demolish them completely. Either demolish or bury them but they will not be visible on the surface any longer. So we are starting from that point and other than that the real bag of it is on this historic data and where they fit in with the larger context of the function and start doing data recovery is right now the recommended mitigation for that. But looking at those more closely that's the kind of additional effort that we are doing for the project right now on one side of the coin and I know this is not a safe thing to say of this company but I look at some of the features and I say it looks like scrag metal from back in the day and it does tell a story and it is important to understand where it fits into the picture balancing that with the need to move the project forward. I look at the rock wall and think that's pretty cool you know. That's like an architectural resource. You seen the railroad rail which is one of the features of this discovery that's neat because what was it attached to? You see it sticking out of the ground like you are just going to trip over it. Mr. Wichman: At this point it is SHPD's purview. Ms. Griffin: So may I have a motion to accept his presentation. Mr. Wichman: Yes, I would like to make a motion that we accept your presentation and take things under advisement and I would also like to stipulate the recommendations that you consider native plantings to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Griffin: Is there a second? Mr. Long: I have a comment. Ms. Griffin: I need to get a second or the motion will die. Ms. Sheehan: Second. Ms. Griffin: Ok. Mr. Long: I just hear Randy talk about the native planting I also heard the public talk about a solid aesthetic barrier at the top of the slope and that will mitigate both visual and sound. So is that something that we could also ask the DOT to look at? Mr. Niermann: I can speak on the, I would keep sound out of the equation because to mitigate sound with a barrier, Mr. Wichman: Let's keep the wall within the view plane. Mr. Long: Visually and historically aesthetic. November 1. 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 28 Ms. Griffin: So, let's see, are you wanting to amend the motion? Mr. Wichman: Yes. Mr. Long: Yes, Ms. Griffin: Ok so state it again for me. Mr. Long: In addition to Randy's recommendation that native dense landscaping be installed I would also add to that, that a solid aesthetic barrier fence be erected at the top of the slope reviewed and approved by the neighborhood that was more historical and aesthetically appropriate as a visual barrier. Ms. Griffin: Is there a second? Mr. Wichman: Second. Ms. Griffin: So it's been moved and seconded as an amendment to the original motion that a solid barrier and dense vegetation that's native preferably be utilized at the top of the hill to act as a barrier between the road and the neighborhood. Mr. Long: And one that has been reviewed and approved by the neighborhood. Mr. Wichman: Shan will get the language and: the specifics to send. Ms. Griffin: Ok so we will vote on. the amendment and then vote on the original motion. Is there any question about the amendement? Ms. Aiu: Yes. I can either recuse myself because I am not understanding exactly what it is. You said a solid, would you say that part in sentence please. Mr. Long: My understanding is a the present DOT is... Ms. Aiu: Well I got that, you amendment. A solid... Mr. Long: Solid, aesthetically faced barrier. Ms. Aiu: So it could have a number of meanings. Mr. Long: Yes. One might be a lava rock wall. Mr. Wichman: That interpretation is open with the residents and DOT at this point. Ms. Aiu: Then why do we even need to vote on it then? Let it be their kuleana. November 1, 2012 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 29 Ms. Griffin: We are giving a recommendation on a type of mitigation and that is an amendment to the plantings. Mr. Helder: Call the questions. Ms. Griffin: I want to make sure our commissioner is comfortable. Ms. Aiu: I think I will just recuse myself from this one. Ms. Griffin: Ok any other questions or statement on the motion? All in favor? (Wickman, Helder, Gray, Long, Sheehan, and Griffin) Opposed? (None) and one abstention (Aiu). So now voting on the main motion with the amendment that there be mitigation effort with native plantings with the amendment attached to that. Questions? All in favor? ( Wickman, Helder, Gray, Long, Sheehan, and Griffin) Opposed? (None). Thank you. So understanding that there is already work going on to work with the public that is a suggestion having been brought in this commission. Ms. Aiu: Can I just ask a question of the residents. Ms. Griffin: Certainly. Ms. Aiu: Where you live do you want something solid and you can't see? I am just asking you guys what you.. . Mr. Meeevty: I am not talking about an eight foot tall structure. They are talking about a four foot chain link fence. I don't know why not a four foot tall you know I even suggested to find enough lava you know. I don't want to go searching for lava rock or nothing like that. They can even put a block wall and they have guys you have seen the buildings done where they make it look like lava. Ms. Aiu: So you would be satisfied with, is four feet enough for you guys for safety? Mr. Mceevty: I am not going to trip over it. You don't want an eight foot wall cause we are not addressing the sound right now right? Ms. Griffin: Thank you all so much and again do you want to announce the public meeting. Mr. Niermann: Yes so next Tuesday, November 6th after you have gone to the voting booth at 2:30 and this is at the DOT Kauai district office. Stanford give them an address. Mr. Iwamoto: 1720 Haleukana Street, Puhi Industrial Park. Mr. Niermann: And there will be one meeting at 2:30 and an other at 6:00. November 1. 2012 K.H.P.12.C. Meeting Minutes Page 30 Mr. Wichman: Subject matter? Mr. Niermann: It's 106 Historic Properties. The second meeting was the June 28th meeting. That was the one we were saying design issues. So this one we are going to be talking historic properties what we have done with the process and so forth. Ms. Griffin: Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS The next KHPRC meeting was scheduled on Thursday, December 6, 2012. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m. Submitted, Secretar 0 41 3 0 201 Date: Y