Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmar72013 KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on March 7, 2013 in the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B . The following Commissioners were present: Danita Aiu, Chairperson, Stephen Long, Vice Chairperson, Pat Griffin, Jane Gray, Kuuleialoha Santos, and Patsy Sheehan. The following Commissioner(s) were absent: None. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3 : 00 p .m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as circulated. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the February 7, 2013 meeting were approved as circulated. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Re : Follow up on conversation from last meeting with the Planning Department on a proposed Preservation/Historic Planner for FY 2014 Budget. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications . UNIFINISHED BUSINESS Re : Certified Local Government (CLG) Status/Presentation by Mike Gushard, Architectural Historian/CLG Program Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Division. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page Z Chair: Ok Mike thank you for being here and we hope that you tidings of good cheer. Mr. Mike Gushard: Hi Mike Gushard, Architectural Historian and CLG Coordinator for the State Historic Preservation Division. Aloha everybody so my main goal coming in today was to establish a scope of work or at least get in that conversation for the CLG grant funded survey that you guys will have coming up . So I chatted a little bit with our consultant and didn't think it was appropriate for the direction of that scope to come from County bureaucracy or from SP.HO/SHPD so I thought we would have a conversation about that and use that as our guidance for what the work would actually be . Chair: Ok let' s back track. Where are we Ms. Sheehan: Have we hired someone? Mr. Hironaka: Not quite yet. We are still trying to negotiate a scope and a contract. Chair: Ok so this would be the proverbial horse the scope. Today we are doing scope. Does that sound right? Mr. Gushard: I think that would make hiring somebody easier cause they will know what they will actually do . Mr. Hironaka: I just wanted to add where we are at I think I am waiting also for this consultant to give us a preliminary type of scope for the project but I think one thing that' s been kind of delaying that is that we are trying to get this information from the Real Property Division on the age of the buildings and structures throughout the various parcels here on Kauai. So that is something that I have asked them to do . I am trying to now get the information technology division people to tap into that system and get it for us . I think we might be able to gel that: sooner than later, I think that' s an important element even for us to know how many buildings are and I think Mike you were saying it should be 35 years old? Mr. Gushard: Yes. So one of the many things missing for a while was State guidelines on surveying and inventory, every other state has a set of guidelines . The 50 is the kind of lose rule about what is in store. That rule isn 't set in stone any more but its State law 6E. You usually want to go a little in advance of that so that your survey information your survey data is good for longer. So if we are not able to do an inventory for an extended period of time you the County and SHPO still has kind of good information about what historic resources are after in the survey. Ms . Griffin: The complication with that is that with $47;000 .00 we are not even going to inventory the 50 year old or 60 year old structures much less getting into more recent history and so again it become important on what are we trying to here to complete so that as Ricky Tsuchiya used to say the boys at the front desk will know when to flag something. March 7, K.I-I.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 3 Mr. Hironaka: Well the good think about the data that we are trying to get it' s just basically giving us the age of when they were built. So now we can development two different lists. One that will be 35 years old and one that is 50 years and then we can see how many buildings we can get. But you are correct you know unless of course we can enter into this, but I don't think I can extend the contract in phases . I think each time the monies might become available I would have to make a different contract. So it' s kinda hard for us to be- like a continuing type of a project with the same consultant. Mr. Gushard: We could think of it as phases and it doesn't even have to be the same consultant. You can have multiple contracts for it especially once a research design is kind of created for one section it could be exported to other sections. Ms . Sheehan: I guess I missed the point, Myles, of you trying to find an inventory now when we haven't are you still talking to the four or three people that might be the . . . Mr. Hironaka: I am talking we - are following procurement laws where we . . . . Ms , S heel n: But have you narrowed it down to one? Mr, I lil .olIgka: We are following the procurement laws that allow us to first deal with the highest ranked consultant and then seeing if we can negotiate the contract. Ms. Sheehan : I think in January we said maybe we will be done by February and now it' s March. Mr. Hironaka: It' s just taking that much loiiger. Ms. Sheehan: So there procuremkent rules and regs lead you to picking one person? Mr. Hironaka: Well ultimately there will be one consultant. Ms. Sheehan: Yes but you haven't done that yet. You haven't even picked that one yet cause you are doing the procurement. Mr. Hironaka: Well we are hoping we can deal with this particular consultant. Ms. Sheehan: But you haven' t picked him and you haven't given them . . . Mr. Hironaka: Well we are waiting for them to give us a scope of service. Ms. Sheehan: Who is they? . Mr. Hironaka: The consultant. Ms . Sheehan : I am confused you haven't picked him but you are asking him for a scope of work. Am I missing something? March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Hironaka: Well its procurement laws that we are trying to negotiate a contract and a scope with the highest ranked consultant. If that is not to our satisfaction we are now able to go to the second ranked consultant. Ms. Sheehan: We don't have a scope of work yet? Ms , GriffZn: That' s whist he is here to tall: about. Mjl T liigj aka: Yes. Ms, Sheehan: But we don't have anything that we are going to home down on from a clear piece of paper we are starting? Mr. Gushard: I think so yes. I am not leaving until We have a scope. I am on the 6 :44 pm flight. Chair: And you are catching a ride. Mr. Long: I don' t have anything to do in Oahu though. (Laughter in background). Chair: Ok let me back track a little bit. At our last meeting we did. talk about the scope a little and at that time Myles had said that you had a suggestion that perhaps we should take a geographic location and inventory that geographic location and that would be our metes and bounds of our inventory. Mr. Gushard; Yes and I think that you get the best survey data when you do that because you are not preselecting what resources you are going to survey. So if there was an area with geographic boundaries that you wanted to set as your survey area you could do the research for that area and ten just capture everything that is there. Mr. Long: What is the methodology for performing the survey? What do they actually do ? And how do they do it? Mr. Gushard: Really generally cause I don't want to limit them to any kind of really concrete specifics you know. They do context research before the go out in the field. So you know if it were Lxhu'e they would be some broad research on Llhu'e town and then they would field work where they would go through acid take data in for every resource. They take data in about the buildings age, and its historic integrity, and its roof style and then they would make determinations and then process that data. It' s not even that you just have this is not you have all the historical information and then you have the great context of this is what's eligible and this is how many we have. Ms. Santos : I like this you know the way this is set up. March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 5 M5 S p g -tin : Can I ' List add then if we slid a certain area like we were talking Kapa` a or . something; and something was happening on the west side that was more eminent to change things. I mean development happens in different places so I mean I don' t know we were talking buildings and not anything else or residences and not anything else. So really this person has got to get on board in April and be finished in August? Is that what I understand? Mr. Gushard: You know I think that is completely possible. Before my life here at SHPD I did this kind of work on the mainland and I did % of (inaudible) which is the size of Oahu in a summer and was able to get that done fairly quickly. I think we have enough time. We can get a real quality survey done. We are getting to the point whore maybe 'Are might run out of time. We still have enough time to take a project. Ms. Griffin: It' s always frustrating to me when County government and State government are doing things at odd angles and it happens or even different departments that can happen and I would like to suggest that the County is funding now the Planning Department to do two development plan updates. Lihu'e district which is the north fork of the Wailua River to the western boundary of Kzpu and the South Shore plan which. includes KOloa, Po'ipu, La"wa` i, Kalaheo and these development plans you know they happen every 10 years the last one we are working on the one we are working on for Lihu'e was ratified in 1977 . So they also take a while but it' s easy at looking at the future to forget the past in these development plan updates . So I would like to throw out that if we are looking for potential portions of the island that those two looking at an inventory for those two regions could produce something that could be enormously helpful to the consultants at> d the community discussions as we go through these development plan updates. Ms. Sheehan: Would you do only buildings or would you do historic sites or landscapes? I just feel like you only did part of it if you didn't do the open spaces that were important too . I am fine with doing what the general plan update is working on but it' s not just buildings it' s space. Ms . Griffin: Right and that' s still in the scope. I feel that way about things like the County lawn which is on the National Register of Historic Places and yet new things have cronked up there and plantings and so are the pavilions at Lydgate is you know there are things that I would like to say aren't in danger of change because they belong to the County and the State, the Police Department. That was a Rothwell design that had a fountain in the middle and was one of the most beautiful police stations in the Pacific. So yes that is a question if you all think that' s a reasonable boundary then the question is what' s in it. You know what are we looking at? Ms . Santos: Why not put all the communities in a hat and pick two and call it a day. You know what I mean? Ms . Sheehan: I think the General Plan for this to be a real resource document I think it' s great. The timing would be really, really good if our consultant can do that much in four months. Ms . Griffin: It' s budgeted right now for those two districts . March 7. K.1I.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page G Chair: That' s like the wish list yea eventually. Ms. Santos : Really? I thought it was more. I thought it was everywhere that they are updating. Mr. Juniz : The General Plan update updates the 2000 General Plan but I think as of right now only the tech studies have been issued. Ms. Griffin: Right they have only budgeted for the tech studies whereas the consultants are on board, SSFM, and they are starting to work on the L .hu'e Development Plan Update now and we won't talk about the east side development plan. Chair: I have been on that committee for eight years and you thought ten? Mr. Long: I have a comment. I am not a member of the committee so I am not fully familiar with everything that you have been doing and architects also tend to be a little bossy but I will tell you what I would do because they are asking us and Vihat I would do is I would go to the assessment office I would have the IT guy rlun a print out of all the buildings 35 year and older or 50 years and older. Do that. I would have somebody take the TMK book and go through and yell out every TMK that is mentioned on that list and I would have the consultant drive around in the car with somebody who lived here and drive around every single neighborhood on the island not one specific geographical area. I would have him ride down every street and sit in the passenger side and check off buildings that we really felt were historically significant and you know deserves an additional look see and additional study to them. So that way you would identify buildings that were a certain age and you have taken a look at every single one of the them on the island and if you have time left then you go to the top of the list to the really, really great buildings and you start doing a real inventory on them and then you don't have something complete for two neighborhoods, you have something that gives a pretty good idea on the whole island and then whenever you get more money for consultant fees you already have the list. You already have the checked off ones. You have the ones that have had additional work done. The ones that are just next on the ii,t. So I guess what I am saying is I wouldn't limit the geographical area because of the high level of you know research to be performed. I would perform a lower level of research on the entire island so then I could go in and tick them off in chronological orderly manner. That' s what I would do . Mr. Gushard : Can I respond to that. So I think that completely makes sense, this actually plays on what you were playing on the State and County kind of sideways with each other. We actually have another level of government here. The money that we are used comes from the Federal Government that we pass through to you guys and they have the Secretary for Interior Standards for evaluation that kind of dictates how surveys are to happen and the reason that we have to have that higher level of research is that is what reaches their standards and since it funds part of our office we can't spend that money on anything that doesn't reach that standard. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mr. Long: Well I understand that. If you are doing research on properties that you have indentified. Mr. Gushard: What was that? Mr. Long: You are doing the research on properties that you have identified as being significant right? So what I said was identifying properties that are_ worthy of further investigation. Mr. Gushard: And the method of identifying which properties are worthy of further investigation through the eyes of the National Park Service is that higher level of research. Mr. Long: Yes but I hear about research to familiarize themselves with the town of LThu'e when somebody who lives here doesn't have take that time. Mr. Gushard: Well yes and that is so that, cause the document that they will provide will be used by more than just the people in Lihu'e. You lriow for us to pass through the money it has to be a document that is going to be useful for a long time for people who work for the SHPO or people doing research and that's what the Secretary of Interior Standards for evaluation/identification was kind of built to do so that it was an exportable document that can be used by lots of different kinds of people. I completely understand the communities that we deal with we have people who are so committed to those communities that understand them so intimately we sometimes forget about all of the other people kind of standing in the margins who, federal agencies for instance, who end up having a nexus with these resources so the Park Service came up with that standard so that all these parties could use the document and it would be useful in the local/County and State/Federal level . I think what you said completely makes sense where we have that kind of bureaucratic stand that we have to be held too . Chair: But I think it' s important what you said because the end document should be used for more people than the people who are in L-ihu'e to be able for a consultant or a developer to come in from Los Angeles and pick it up and say oh this is what Li-hu'e is about. So it' s important. Mr. Gushard : And that' s the hope that there is a 146 process that happens that if someone who works for a federal agency that' s based in Los Angeles or San Francisco or Portland can look at the document and say ok this is what' s historic and this is not and this is why. Chair: Go ahead. Ms. Sheehan: So does that mean that you are saying this 'certain level it' s a certain truly documentation (inaudible) pages instead of two . I mean when you say the bureaucratic level is higher does it translates to more paper? Does it translate to more hours? Mr. Gushard: It translates to more paper and more hours. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. MectingMinutes Page 8 Ms . Sheehan: But is it a form that you just, in other words instead of three pages in your form you have got a ten page form. Mr. Gushard: - Usually most states have a form which is their accepted form.. I am actually the one so if there is any issues with our survey process I am the one to yell at. I have gone through and tried to figure out how we can keep collecting survey data and moving on in the future. So I don't actually have a prescribed form but there are headings for what we want. There is like one row of what we want. It' s like one row on spreadsheet of all the different aspects of a resource. So that would be the standards and I picked those headings on what meets the secretaries. Ms. Sheehan: I guess what I am getting at as if you. want a level of investigation you have that standard. We can't maybe do it as generally as we were hoping but in coming up with a job description we can say here you have to do this . This is it. Mr. Gushard: Yes absolutely. It has to follow the Secretary Standards and the State ' s guidelines for surveying. Ms . Sheehan: Well I don't want to waste time finding out what those are. I want it in a piece of paper so you could give it to him. Mr. Gushard: They are, the kind of first choice who we have had very preliminary discussions with has that. I can share it with you guys if you would like and Myles has it too. Ms . Sheehan: I just want to expedite the fact that if we are talling to someone and we are asking them to do a certain level of data and inventory. Mr. Gushard: They are well aware of what level it is. Ms. Sheehan: So part of the job description is to say you are going to work at this level and you are going to fill this out and you are going to do either the whole island or part of it. I mean that is part of the job description we are trying to nail down. Chair: Or we don' t have to get so micromanaging into it. We could just say this is what we want. You are the expert. Tell us how you are going to do it since you are the expert. That is kind of what 1 was thinking for being this person they should know cause we are not getting ;foe off the street right. Ms, Sheehan: I thought Myles said that we can't leave it so open cause if we can 't do that Mien we are going to have to go back and do . . . Chair: We could get the scope, you know give the scope. Like I go in to the beauty shop and say make me look like 20 and the girl goes aunty you gotta be Ridding me right. Ok what can you do for me, you take care but this is what I want. So I am thinking that we say this is what we want. We give that scope but when it gets drown to the knitty gritty we allow them to tell us how they intend to do it and if we think we know better then tell them what we want. We have two March 7, X.H.P.R.C. Meeting Mhiutes Page 9 proposals on the table right now and like you said you want to get out of here today with and I think you are right because we got to move along. We have got to decide what we want to do and it may not please all of us for this time and then we still can, there is a next time. But if we start I was looking at what Spencer Mason did and she kept it more along the lines of what you said. She talked about communities and she put it in with the community development plans. So she had Waimea, Kekaha, Hanapepe, Eleele, KOioa, Po'ipu, Kalaheo, she had L7ihu'e as one and Kapa` a/Wailua and then the north shore including Kilauea. So our choice would be if we made it with the plans and I personally think that' s good it kinds of specifies things that we would say ok LThu'e or Wailua/Kapa` a as well south shore. Is that going already? Mr. Hironaka: We have the contract for this. Chair: Ok so those would be and yet we could still use cause his idea is about how to operate this could be said to the consultant like say hey here is a good plan. Go to the T.MK map and look at this and look at our inventory. Mark off what we have. I think the (inaudible) that you are suggesting is good and can be presented to them as how we want it. I had also thought about maybe we should do subjects like bridges, churches, bridges that was for you, you know houses and then th4t would take up the whole island but in discussing that with Myles he thought it would be better cause we don't have that much money to limit our self to this and then maybe as we do this we will even get more ideas of what we want and I think like he says we should start with a 15 year and then move along but it doesn't have to be as hard to use your suggestion cause it is hard to use your suggestions. So what I am going to ask for now is everybody kind of ready to take a vote on this to decide (inaudible) or . . . Mr., Lon;: Well I believe what that what I was talking about isn' t feasible within the bounds of what the job description is . So I am in support of using this historical survey to coordinate with the other consultant work that is done on specific neighborhoods and that makes a lot of sense for me. Ms. Griffin: I am wondering if you have shared all the wisdom you have to give us? Mr. Gushard: I actually think that was a great play. You brought up kind of dovetailing doing the historic resource survey with the development plans a couple of meetings ago and I thought that made the most sense cause that would maximize the use of the resource surveys, Ms. Griffin: And then the contracts hadn't been signed but now they have. I can't speak to the east side cause I don't think they have gotten more money to finish it up . So it is still in limbo. By the time its pau, but that would be I think a question of how big that would be. Mr. Hironaka: But that would be a possibility that they could even go into the east Kauai side. You suggested that. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 10 Ms. Griffin: Then those poor guys in the outer (inaudible) that is the north and west side lose out again. Chair: Of course I am for Kapa` a/Wailua. She is for north shore. But because the historic, the seat of our government is here, and the airport is here and the piers are here and the sources of transportation. Ms . Griffin: Higher education is here. Chair: Yes many things . . . Mr. Long: The suggestion is not to limit it to buildings if they are going to limit it to a geographic area and they are going to do a good job then they ought to do everything railroads, bridges, everything. Qj,Li�r: Yes whatever they can. Like your spaces . IVIi; L otig ; Right all improvements . Ms . Griffin° I should say at this point that the State in terms of bridges and other historic things we have been playing defense forever so that its sort of always kind of a battle but the state is trying to get ahead of some of that and there is a contract. There is work being done on identifying inventorying and discussing all of the historic bridges in the State and they are not limiting to State bridges. It is State and County bridges. I sit on that committee and Fung Associates is working on it. Fred Reyes is on it from here and we get our teleconference here and there are a bunch of people in Honolulu. So in terms of bridges there is some hope at this stage that a management plan will come out of it and some sort of guidelines and it gives me hope that we won' t be seeing the places where most of see the rest of the laa*-ldscape just disappear one by one by one. So anyway in terms of bridges there is that on the outside that we should be aware of Ms . Sheehan: So do we vote? Chair: Yes I was waiting for the discussions to be pau. I noticed in here that all the Hanalei cultural landscapes survey instead of just inventory of historic places. Then they could do more things . Cultural landscape surveys. So I don't know that' s something to think about, one thing at a time. So I am going to ask for the vote now to say would you agree to have a scope be geographical and we are not going to say where . We will just start with that and I am going to roll call it. Jane? Ms. Gran: Yes. Ms. Santos : Are we breaking rules? March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page I I Mr. Jung: I was just trying to identify if that was a motion because a motion needs to be seconded unless you are just getting a consensus. Chair: Ok let' s go for a consensus . So we got the consensus. Would you do a movement? 1yIs, Griffon : I move that the scope of work the first definition be Lihu'e Lind South Shore districts an(] i f' there is enough funding East Side. Chair: Wait:, wait I just want to get that it be geographical that' s all for now. Ms. Griffin : I move that the scope of work be defined by geographical definitions. Chair: Thank you. Second? Ms. Santos: Second, Chair: Thank you moved and seconded. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) . I already got the consensus. Now we can move along. The big question where? Ms. Sheehan: Now v,Te can determine which geographic. Chair: Yes so we already said we going geographic now which geographic. What do we want to do? Do we want to do Uhu'e? Do we 'sATant to do someplace else? Ms. Sheehan : I move that we do Lihu'e and the South Shore/Po'ipiaMloa geographic districts first as defined by this County. Ms . Griffin: It' s the State. Mr. Jung: There are six planning districts in the CZO so if you want to link it to the CZO ' s definition of planning district as how the development plans are you can look at doing that. So Lihu'e is Uhu'e District. Ms. Sheehan : As defined by the CZO . Chair: Or community development plan. Mr. Hironaka: It' s our general plan and development plan. Ms. Sheehan: As defined by the general development plan. Is that really differ from your definition. Ms. Griffin: No it' s ok. Mr. Long: Whatever you decide. Mard 7, K.H.P. R.C. Meeting Minutes Poge 12 Ms . Sheehan : I would take those two districts first and add to it geographically if money allows or time allows us to go forward. Chair: So in prioritizing we w1..11 do Lihu'e first. Ms . Griffin: We can get two of them right. The Lihu'e and the South Shore. Mike can $47,000. 00 do a, I am not sure how far Kaldheo that district, hqw far west Kalaheo goes? Ms . Santos : To the Mormon Church I think. Mr. Tuniz: I know the names I just don't know the boundaries . Ms . Sheehan: McBryde is part of it? Ms . Santos : No I thought McBryde was Hanapepe. I am pretty stare Brideswood is not considered Kalaheo but I might be wrong. Ms . Griffin: So I would chunk those up as being important. Chair: Ok so consultant what do you think of that? Mr. Gushard: I might. You are kind of in a, if you chunk them all out it makes three priorities. This is Mike your friend instead of Mike the SHPO guy you lose the negotiating power of making them do two but if they can't do two you might want to choose Lhu'e or south shore. Ms. Santos : Can we just lilot it in order and give it to them and then they come back and say hey on this list we can only do the first two or three. I mean why do we have to be like you only do these two and if you have extra money cause of course they are going to say we don't have extra money. Mr. Long: I have a question. You say to this in a former life you have done this . So $47,000 . 00, give us some idea. Ms. Santos: Don't you want to take a vacation for thtee months? Mr. Gushard: I have come reticent about making those comparisons because everything here is so much (inaudible). I can make the time comparisons. Time wise I think they can get it done because of the amount of area I was able to cover on the mainland but money wise? We haven't had a survey done in so long that I don 't have any precedent to go on. Mr. Long: As a business man (inaudible) . Ms. Sheehan: I guess I am going back to time because what is the time? I mean it' s March. Mr. Gushard: They have until the middle of August. March 7, K.RP.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 13 Ms. Sheehan: I know so they are not going to start till April maybe or May? Mr. Gushard : April or May yes. Ms . Santos: Why do they have to have a time limit? Mr. Gushard : It has to be, there is a two fiscal year period that it has to be spent in. Ms . Sheehan: So do you think it is feasible? They won't start till June I and they have two months or two months and a half, I mean that is just crazy. Do you think that they can? Chair: That' s why I prefer just one district and that' s where I am going to vote for just the U u'e district. But when we say a survey and I am asking this I would like a little history to go into it. I just don't want a list and say County building it should have a little history and that' s how the other surveys were. So Pat and I stood out here one day and we looked around at us, I forget who was with us Randy and all of us could point to that and say that used to be Kauai Stores and then it changed to the County building and now it' s this and that used to Gems Store. This is what I am looking for because I know this and she knows this but my lids might not know this and that' s what you are saying other people need to use this. So I would prefer instead of a large geographical area that it be more thorough and that people who did it know these things. Mr. Gushard: So there is two levels of survey. There is reconnaissance level survey which is kind of generally what we are talking about and you go through a wide area. You take in data on all the features of the building and then an expert makes a preliminary determination — this is eligible and this is not eligible. Then there is intensive level surveys which I more like what you are talking about and they are almost in the beginning of a National Register nomination where you take the properties well I wouldn't say that but usually the best way for the process to work is you do the reconnaissance level survey. You come up with a list of what' s eligible . Then you go through and go back and do the intensive level survey on those eligible properties so that when something comes up you have all the information you need about the eligible properties and we haven't had any kind of survey in a while so it might be good to do the broader reconnaissance level survey just in case you pick up any eligible for the National Register properties that may be were not on the radar or so that you . at least get those determinations of eligibility down on paper and then accepted by us cause then we end up kind of (inaudible) 106 and 6E even in the absence of that kind of more detail there and information.. Chair : I found to that part of this you have been saying to us even before that you had wanted to see more historic and national register. Ms . Santos : It' s a requirement isn't it? Isn't a requirement? Aren' t you, isn' t it your job to make sure that we get something on the list. Isn 't that part of our. . . March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 14 Mr. Gushard : There is kind of loose rule that yes you all are supposed to get something on the register like once a year. It's almost like the 50 year rule with the register which it,,, Ms . Santos : Yes cause that' s why I came up with that cause he was like you know, yes, he was like you know you guys are supposed to get something on the list cause it' s kind of like a rule. I was like we haven't done that so that' s why I kind of came back and push because he was like it' s kind of important. Remember? Mr. Gushard : Yes I remember that. Chair: So anyway we got step number one. Now step number two is we are going to need to have a motion. Was that a motion? I kind of got lost now. Was it? The motion was on the L1zu'e/Po'ipu. Mr. Jung: You didn't get a second yet. Chair: Ok I need to get a second. Ms. Sheehan: I know I can't. 1 made the motion. Ms. Sheehan: Second. Chair: Ok so I am going to clear my head again and say we are now voting to have this geographic district be Lihu'e and the south shore Koloa/Po'ipu/Kalaheo. Ms. Santos : And I think Po'ipu for me I think it contains Omao and Lawa`i just so you guys all know. Chair: Wow. Ok so all in favor of. . . Mr. Jung: Discussions. Chair: Discussions? (None.) Ok all in favor say aye. Not in favor say no . That' s me ok. I lost that rotund. (Laughter in background) . Motion carries. Ok what should we discuss next so that by the time you Ieave here you feel like. No, no it' s good because we keep saying we are going to do it and then you know. Ms . Santos: How are we going to do it? Like what's our format? Is that next? Chair: Or we leave it to the consultant right. Mr, GuShardd : The broad standard that they are supposed to meet I have outlined for them . How they do that; is kind of up, the actual nuts and bolts of the methodology is up to them . Ms , Santos: We want if digitalized. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 15 Mr. Gushard: It will be. That's one of the reasons we don't have a paper form is it' s all going to be digital. There is also going to be GIS iriformation attached to it. So there is going to be GIS layer of historic structures. That's one of our new requirements for these. Chair: More questions of our consultant? Qk do you have a next step that you guys want us to do? Mr. Gushard: Think about what you want to surveyed next cause I am hoping that we can get. . . Ms. Santos: More money? Mr. Gushard: We can get more money, before we get to that I am hoping that piece meal we can get the entire island done and we have another application period that ends in April because of sequestration I am not sure exactly how much money we have but you know there is going to be the 2013 CLG funds in 2014 in perpetuity so thing of surveys and other projects that you want to do always. Ms. Santos: And Maui doesn't want this? Is Maui putting in an application this year? Mr. Gushard: Maui is putting in an application this year. Mr. Hironaka: Is that for 2013 ? Mr. Gushard; Yes that' s for 2013 yes. Ms . Santos: And what are they doing? Mr. Gushard: I am going to wait until they actually give me my application. (Laughter in the background). And then there is that kind of preservation basics trainings that I want to have it on t11e islands that participate in the CLG. So that would be a small portion of the money as well. So tt won ' t be the complete complimented money that we have available. N s GrIf n , Do you have any time frame for the training because that' s an ongoing issue and 80111.0 of LIS sitting here now have not had training and it's just not fair to commissioners to be tossed in to this that has so much in the way of law and standards and rdgulations without having that kind of training and right now see we are a nine person commission. We have only got six of us right now. So I am asking for the time cause hope springs eternal the two vacancies that the council appointees and the vacancy that' s a mayoral appointee will be able to came in and we won't have to hold our breath about having a quorum every month but those people will need training. Mr. Gushard : Thank you for dove tailing perfectly. It' s like we had planned that. I was going to ask you what the open seats were and thank you for answering that. The training that I am planning if it' s approved by the Park Service would happen before August. It has the same March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 16 timeline, the same deadline as the survey. I will of course be in touch with you in the next month or so to say if that is going .to happen and that would be all of the basics of historic preservation. There is also an allotment of money for training in this grant that we will be giving you and I was going to ask about what types of training were interesting to you and it sounds like maybe the more procedural types of training would be what you would want. At least from that one convent. Ms . Sheehan: Is this a one day? Mr. Long: I need training on 106 and I am an architect and I have submitted and have had applications for National Historic Register accepted and I would like training on historic preservation. Ms. Griffin: Yes 106, Secretary Standards that just that general what' s rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, destruction. Mr. Gushard: I am actually hoping that the basics training that I have planned will hit on all these points in one or two days. I am fairly certain we will be able to do that and just, they were supposed to be here this week but weren't able to because of sequestration and I was going to ask when they were all here and so now I have to go through our normal channels which is like(inaudible) it takes them forever to get back to me. -Qlr& Ok so [ am going; to us back to the next step to like what you said was what do we want to inventory , So suggestions? ,' ,. GLIShtlyd: Inventory'? Chair: Was that your question? I asked what was the next step you would like me to take and you said what would we like to used the term survey. What would we like surveyed? That was the next step . Mr. Gushard: Everything within those boundaries. Ms . Griffin: Everything. Mr. Gushard: Now in doing the early research the kind of architectural research they should be able to come up with information about infrastructure. Bridges would probably be something you would want to not focus on because we have a bridge inventory that' s. about to come. You don't " want to duplicate that effort. But the focus of the consultant would probably be on buildings just because there are different kind of consultants do different things . You don't want an architect focusing too heavily on making determinations about landscapes because they are not going to have the tools to kind of vocabulary to really cirticulate what inakes a landscape special but it think asking for (inaudible) that are important in an area. Those things kind of j ump out at you. Ms. Sheehan: So everything meaning a fish pond in Nawiliwili. Are you going to, I mean would that be something? March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 17 Chair: I don't know what everything is . Ms. Sheehan: Well I am just saying. I mean you said an architect won't know too much about one thing . . . Mr. Gushard: All structures and I think the fish pond would be something that can be written in the historical information and described but then maybe not have a determination made on that without somebody who has a little bit more expertise in fish ponds. Ms . Griffin: Break waters? Mr,, {:1 s .10rrd: You I think, I don't know getting into this level is a situation. KM Ui Jfljn : Well I only ask cause when you talked. about structure you know we are going to just. put this in perspective on how recept 50 years was. Next year Kuulei you can put that building next to us, the Pii.koi Building, on the National Register. It was built in 1964. The Kauai Surf; the Marriott mid 60s. You can go right around this island so everything is good but I would like to see that everything like the pavilion at Niumalu. There are places that are so easy to overlook. Ms. : Grove Farm' s rail. The old rail which they have now the right of way. Ms . Griffin: They don' t have to do the mill. Chair: Also, things are done already. So I hope we are not spinning our wheels on things that are done already. Ms. Griffin: They will have the list. Mr. Gushard: I talked about this a little with Myles. I kind of gave him a non answer when he asked for guidance on do we want to duplicate something or not. It' s not a bad idea to resurvey things after, especially since 1998 because you know what' s there and what' s not there. So it wouldn't be a great plan necessarily to avoid things that had already been surveyed. I am hoping we can get us on a regimen like every 15 years or so and getting everything surveyed. We will see if that happens but that is kind of good practice to you know. Ms. Sheehan: Do we need to vote on that? That we encompass other significant markers other than buildings in a geographic place like Linu'e. Chair: If you want to ipake that motion we should. Ms. Sheehan: Do we need to do that? Mr. Gushard : That might be something that just has to be hashed out between the consultant and the County cause they are going to know what they can do and what they can't do and you really March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 18 want to get the most bang for your buck out of this. So if it' s you have an architect and you have they are subcontracting; and that' s taking money out of your survey is getting smaller and smaller and 4lrriader so if you focus broadly and you say do all the buildings . Let' s talk about the slruct.ures without having to go into a great level of detail on all the different types of structures we end up with a document that describes the historic features and that gets us determinations literally every building In the area. And I feel like that with the description of the features would be enough that if there was a project in the area the community would have that document to say this is what is important. We could say this is highlighted in 2013 survey. Ms . Griffin: And it may be a place where the development plan update can be very useful if people are aware of trying to identify those spaces and I am wondering how Open Space Commission cause they have a list of heritage corridors and various things -and I am wondering if that is something we can whisper in the Open Space Commission' s ear about enhancing some survey and some inventory that they may already have. Mr. Gushard : Whenever the person is hired you might direct them to the, talk to the Open Space people and learn about the open spaces then you can write abgjut the open spaces that was . . . Chair: Myles I have here the contract with Gary Canner so if you don't have that you can make copy but it gives what that, Mr.. Gushard: I feel confident that we will be able to move forward. Ms . Sheehan: And do you, I don't know how we can get any surety that this person, whoever it is, whoever they find would they start by June? Mr. Gushard: You know I am riot going to make any guarantees on that because it' s between them and the County. I really hope that they start by June. Ms . Griffin: Just think more people working on it less time. Mr. Hironaka: I think this really helps for us to focus more on the scope with the consultants. Hopefully that will speed that along. Chair : Ok anything else for the consultant while we have him here? Mr. Gushard : Ok and then the training we talked about, 106 and register training any kind of training about being on a conimission. Chair : The County does it and they do it frequently. Mr. Jung: They just did it last week Thursday. Where were you guys? Chair: Anything else gang? I am not adjourning I have one more thing to talk about. Mat-67, ICt [.I'. Et.C. MeetiaigMituttes Page 19 Ms . Griffin: I have a last thing which is can you give us a brief update on the feds not coming and where the SHPD process is? Mr. Gushard: Ok so we, are you guys all familiar about the (inaudible) plan? Ok so about two years ago the National Parks Service funds the State Historic Preservation Office through the Historic Preservation fund/grant. About two years ago I think it was the Parks Service felt that Hawaii SHPO/SHPD wasn't living up to the obligation of the (inaudible) money and put us on a corrective action plan. My hiring cause I was part of that corrective action plan. That plan ended in September with the close of fiscal year 12 and a team of reviewers who were supposed to come to the office and review the progress that we did make now this week starting from Monday through Friday and then they were going to make a determination about what we will be moving forward on. Because of sequestration all travel has been halted forte Parks Service so they weren't able to come out. So we had spent all this time getting ready for them and nothing is happening. It' s like a big disappointment. They said that probably something in eight weeks they will come out. They kind of want to do a mini corrective action plan. So probably end of next week we will have some new parameters, some new milestones that we want to hold ourselves too . But they don't have a concrete date yet. So that' s where we are . Ms . Griffin: Can we go back just really quickly but one of the things I had hoped to hear Angle ' s experts at the palace talked today. She talked about inventory 50s neighborhoods but I came here from Honolulu to be on time instead but I think in the survey that one of the things that would help instead of just having discrete buildings that it would be helpful when, you know Umi Street, that has an identity as a neighborhood and Akahi, Elua too and you all can look around and I don't know if your forum will talk about that but I think that having some notation about what those you know, when there are structures and that' s in business districts too are part of a larger whole. It would really help as we look at things later. So that' s the first and the second part of this that is often lost is landscaping around each building and I know that when the first inventory was done of Kokee they really talk about hydrangeas or any other you know that landscaping which is such an identifying part of the character of various places. So I would encourage as we think about the scope of work that something about historic landscape be part of the observation. Mr. Gushard: In response to that one of the headings that they will be filling out when they see a resource one of the things they have to answer about is this part of a grouping or district or part of a potential group or district that is eligible for the National Register and I think you will start to identify where districts are and one of the other requirements of the report that they create will be recommendations for future works. So one thing hopefully that they will look at each time we have these potential districts we would recommend nominations for these districts and then for the landscaping I actually look at it as one of the headings is site features and landscapes . Ms. Griffin : Excellent. March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 20 Mr. Gushard: So because it' s ybu are collecting data in discrete little boxes you don't get rushed descriptions . It would be one (inaudible) that would be enough to where a resource is impacted we will have the start of the conversation about the landscaping. Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Chair : Anybody else? Thank you. Mr. Gushard: I always look forward to coming to Kauai. Ms . Griffin: Well we always love seeing you. NEW BUSINESS Re: Yagihara Residence Chair: Yagihara Residence. You ready? Mr. Scott Ya ig hara: Yes. Chair: First I want to thank you for a job well done. Really nice presentation here and thank you folks for allowing us the opportunity to look at the house and for trying to keep it the way it is. It' s a wonderful house and that whole neighborhood with the stone houses. So thank you very much. Mr. Yagihara: You are welcome. Chair: Go ahead. Mr. Hironaka: The applicant, Scott Yagihara, is here today. This is what is called a stone house over in Kilauea. It was built sometime in about 1940 from what our records show. So there is a house and attached to it is also a covered carport. The car port was built sometime in 1971 . So that was added on to the stone house. What the applicant wants to do is there is an existing, roughly six foot wide window. There is a photo of it and they would like to remove that and install a standard size three foot wide, sort of like a mahogany grained fiberglass door. So that' s one of the improvements that they want to do . They also want to do some interior modifications. The floor plans that they presented shows some before and after and I think with respect to the entry door that they want to install they are removing some of the stones from the building so the bottom portion they will have to leave some and what they intend to do is sort of fill in the areas that needs to be filled in. So they are trying to reuse the rocks as part of their renovation. Mardi 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 21 Chair: Thank you Myles. Anybody else? Mr. Hironalca: And Scott is here to answer any of your questions . Ms . Griffin: I have a question about the existing windows that will be removed. Those don' t look like 1940 windows . So you would actually be removing things that aren' t historic. Mr: Yagihara: No the historic windows were replaced but it' s a similar type windows, the historic windows were wooden framed. Chair: Anybody else? Ok what should I by asking for? A movement for just acceptance or we accept the plans as shown. Mr. Hironaka: Right. Chair: Last week I was forced into this position of Chairman even though I was here. So excuse me as I go along and figure this all out, thank you Myles. May I have a motion to accept the proposed changes as shown? Ms . Sheehan: I so move that we accept the proposed changes as shown on the plans. Mr. Lou: I second. Chair: Thank you. We have to vote. All right all in favor? (Unanimous voice vote.) Mr. Loniz: I would like to thank you all for coining before us . This is exactly the type of presentation that we have been requesting from everyone. You are replacing a window with the door and here you have an existing and proposed floor plan, a site plan, you have a spec sheet on the door you are going to use. Thank you very much for malting our job easy. Mr. Ya ig hara: (Inaudible) . Chair: Yes we figured that out cause I was looking at an old picture that I had but like you said it is connected to the carport. Thank you. Re: Letter (2/23/13) from Michael Hunnemann, KAI Hawaii representing the Department of Public Works, County of Kauai requesting to present the preferred design alternative for Kapahi Bridge, Federal Aid Project No. BR-0700(53). Mr . .q i�iQ1 .Hunnemt im : Good afternoon n-iy name is .Michael Hunnemann. I ant with KA.I Hawaii and we are contracted by tl�e County of Kauai to rehabilitate/repair/replace Kapahi Bridge. Tl>.a.nk you very much for sitting and listening to lriy presentation . I was here about six months ago where we presented several different design options to the commission and what was decided upon, it was an informal decision, but what was decided upon was basically what we are March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 22 going to be presenting today with some modifications that the County has asked us to add. So if I may I will proceed. So the purpose of this meeting is to present to you with the County' s preferred option and also in fulfillment of the Section 106 process. The bridge is located at the corner of Kawaihau and Kahuna Strearkis. This is the plan view. This is Kawaihau here. This is the stream and this is Kahuna Road here and the brown is the bridge. So the Kaphi Bridge total length is a little over 38 feet. The distance between curbs, curb to curb dimension is almost 14 and '/2 feet. Originally, constructed in 1937 and reconstructed in 1977 with the exception of the abutments which are still original. The main span girders are steel. The decking is timber. Fung and Associates did and architectural inventor survey. I believe you should have a copy of that with you. Also in 1989 Spencer Mason Architects did a Kauai Bridge Inventory Study and the classified this Kapahi Bridge as a category three which is little historic significance. The bridge is rated for five tons. This is looking toward Kahuna Street and this is looking from the other direction and this is an elevation view. You can see that on the near side there is two water lines that we will have to work around for this project. The purpose of the project is heavy deterioration of the girders. This is a finger sticking through the holes in the web and there is heavy corrosion on the flanges as well top and bottom. This is plain view of our proposed design. It' s a little bit light i.n some areas. This is the straight direction here and this is the bridge in this direction here. This is the travel lane. We have a bicycle lane over here and a sidewalk here and you can see in the cross section view here we are redoing the existing abutments, building new abutments behind them and (inaudible) . So the existing abutments will remain in place. Cross section view, we are using steel girders similar sized to what is existing now and the difference instead of a timber deck we are putting in a concrete deck that will be strong enough along with the steel girders working together to support of.' fill legal loads. This 1.8 the sidewalk I mentioned and this is the bicycle lane right here. In our last meeting it was requested of the commission for us to use this type of a steel railing because it most resembles what is out there now and yet it is still crash tested preapproved railing. These kickers might here are not necessary. They are just there to mimic what is out there now. If you want we can leave em if you don't want em we will take them off. We can paint this white to match what is out there now, the railings . And these are the two water lines here . We may have to move this water line over this way just a little bit. So that' s our proposed design and if there are any questions. Chair: Any questions? Mr. Long: I have a couple of questions. Are the existing abutments structural? Mr. Hunnemann: They will not touch the structure at all. March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 23 Mr. Long: Now you say you are going t paint the railing white but is it possible to have something a little bit more permanent like an anodized surface rather than something applied. Mr. Hunnemann: We would hot dip galvanize it first and then paint it. So that should withstand the elements for a very long time. Mr. Long: Hour long do you think? Mr. Hunnemann : Galvanized itself could last. It' s inland so 20 to 30 years. Mr. Long: I am talking about the white finish not the protection on the steel, the white paint. Mr. Hunnemann: We would use a high grade epoxy probably. I don't know really know. Maybe five to ten years. Mr. Long: I am looking for a way to get a more permanent surface on the visual elements than merely paint. 1Y1 �; __i_�t�it • n< nn: I could look into the anodized. There is not a County representative so I could iaybc slit) it into the budget and cover the cost. MA!L,_ .Loggl And does anybody have any thought about, what would you cal those the side abutments . What are the triangular side supports that can be remove.? Mr. Hunnemann: These things? Mr. Long: Yes what are you calling there? Mr. Hunnemann: Just kickers. Mr. Long: Kickers ok does anybody have a thought about the kickers aesthetically or functionally? And those are my questions . Ms . Griffin: When you say that its 14. 4 inches curb to curb, there aren' t curbs at this point. So where were you measuring? Mr. Hunnemann: That was just terminology. In that case it would be from the existing inside facing the railing, inside facing the railing. Ms. Griffin: It is . So it' s not edge to edge. Qk one of the things we talked about a year ago when you subsequently got a letter from Historic Hawai'i Foundation and others was the importance of maintaining the width of the bridge but it' s not maintained. It' s being expanded from 14 .4 to 19 feet and that will definitely compromise the historic feel of the bridge which brings me to my next question. You are talking about a four foot bicycle path how big are the bicycle paths on either side of the bridge that it would connect to? March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 24 Mr. Hunnemann: It's just a shoulder. Ms. Griffin: So how close is a bicycle path? Mr. Hunnemann : (Inaudible). Ms, Griffis: What about pedestrian walk ways? MrA.j tua!,ernann: It' s the road. Ms,. GinifUji : So what we are being presented is affectively a 1. 6 foot wide road with another three lcel fog• pedestrians wlio don't have airy real specific walkway on either side of the bridge and again carbed walkways like that are not part of historic bridges as they were designed. As we went through in the past, this particular bridge, the problems and the accidents where coming from the misalignment from the next little road and how people had to go around. It was my understanding that there was discussion about realigning the bridge and using this bridge as a pedestrian bridge in the future but maintaining this as it is and I am wondering what happen to that because what we are getting from the look of residents and drivers is the abutments are important no question about it but it' s not really what people will see. What people are going to see is not the one with the wooden railing they are going to see some steel and we don' t have a really good picture you know just seeing the sides of it but just seeing the sides doesn't really look that much like what is there. I know that there are, because Hanalei Roads went through a significant conversation about this some year ago and I know that there are steel backed wood that is being accepted now. So I guess seeing pictures of this steel railing would make me a lot more comfortable but enlarging/widening the bridge like that. Where is the EA process? Are you not having to go through the environmental assessment? Mr. Hunnemann : Yes we are. Ms. Griffin: Ok cause we typically see that before we start making decisions and I think that, that would give us a much greater level of comfort to see community conversation and what. the environmental assessment is because I don' t think that, that community has changed significantly and so you have this historic, very rural character. How many motorized vehicles go across this bridge every minute, every hour? Mr. Hunnemann: The County did a traffic study and I just got the results an hour ago . Ms. Griffin: Well it seems to me that we don't have the information and I don't know where you are in the 4F process either which states really clearly that federal funds can't be used to destroy an historic structure unless there is no reasonable anti prudent alternative. So I don't know where this project is in looking at 4F. For me having that EA, having actual rather than a sketch like this really slowing how this structure will maintain the heritage of the area is pretty important. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 25 :M.r,_ 1_l !►_mle, nann: Tbo County added the sidewalk for safety purposes after hearing some feec:lback turd as you ki:low there was a lot of opinions in either direction for sidewalks , So it was the County' s decision to (inaudible) on the side of safety. Ms. Griffin: But the discussion was using this as a pedestrian bridge and putting a bridge cause like I said looking at the accident reports, the accidents aren't occurring on the bridge it is the approaches that are causing the real issue. So from March 2412 to know we haven't heard anything and so this is a really significant alteration and we talked a year ago about actually cantilevering/putting a pedestrian walkway outside and not having one of the options that we were shown last year which was actually to have a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk which seemed intrusive to the look and feel of the bridge and that' s what lead us to talking a little bit about cantilevering and having an option that didn't fundamentally change the look and feel of this structure. Ms . Sheehan: Can we go back to the picture that you had where the bridge (inaudible) . Yes so you were saying that, that alignment is Ms. Griffin; Right with the road that is going between the two white structures. Mr. Santos: That was one of the options we had last time you were here. Mr. Hunnemann: Yes we were to look into that and the County looked at the additional costs involved in doing a realignment of the road and decided not to do that. Chair: Patsy do you wish to make a comment? Ms . Sheehan : Can you explain why you are going to in the small print it says faux wood. Are you going to paint it? Or are you going to put wood on it? Mr. Hunnemann: Ross Stephenson from SHPD suggested that we look into doing something like that. Ms . Sheehan: So what is it, the wood that you are putting on top of the concrete? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes . Ms. Sheehan: Its wood you are putting on the concrete. Mr. Hunnemann: Yes it' s either real wood or false wood. Mr. Long: I thought you had said that the decking was concrete? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes the deck, the structural deck is concrete. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 26 Mr. Long : Ok so then the wood would be a lament ,over? Mr. Hunnemannl: That' s correct either transverse or longitude. Mr. Lon)z: In the photo it was transverse yes? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes. If we put it longitude it might be more quite and smoother! Ms. Griffin: You just mentioned Ross Stephenson, has there been a formal response to this from the State Historic Preservation Division? Mr. Hunnemann: Not a formal one it' s just his opinion to look into using th;.t. Ms . Sheehan: Then the sidewalk and the bikeway is going to be? Mr. Hunnemann : Either board or concrete. It might be best to be concrete less slippery. Mr. Long: Is this a two lane bridge? Mr. Hunnemann: One. Mr. Long: One lane bridge with signs on either side? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes. Ms. Santos : So Myles why would they come before us if they are not quite at that point? Why are they? Mr. Hironaka: I think they are asking for your comments. I think this is part of your 106 that we are doing? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes. Mr. Long: I wasn't at the meeting last year and I am not totally clear on your greatest concerns so could you go over that please, the existing bridge is how wide? And I can't read the dimensions in the drawings. Mr. Hunnemann: 14.4 feet and that dimension is from the inside face of the railing to the inside face of the railing. Mr. Long: From railing to railing. Ok and the new bridge? Mr. Hunnem.ann: The new bridge, the deck will be 12 feet plus a four foot sidewalk plus a four foot, five foot bike lane. March 7. IC.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 27 Mr. Lonz: Five foot bike lane? So that' s 21 feet? So it' s gone from 14 foot to 21 feet? Ms. Griffin: I think it' s twelve, four, and three actually. Mr. Hunnemann: twelve, four, and four. Is it three? Ms. Griffins I thought it was three on the sidewalk but my eyes. Ms. Sheehan: There is four on the bike line. Mr. Lon : Ok so it's 19. I am just trying to think of this so that just being introduced to this for the first time. Ms. Griffin: I am sorry it' s four so it' s 20 . Mr. Long: 20 feet? Ok so 20 feet. Ms. Santos. That changes the historical value. So if that' s the case can we just reject it? Can we just say no we don't like it. Mr. Hunnemann: But in this particular case this bridge is not historically significant as determined by the architectural inventory survey that Mason Architects. Ms. Griffin: But Mr. Hunnemann there is a large difference between historically significant and historical. The Puuopae Bridge was a category three non.-significant bridge too until it went on to the National Register. But if this is National Register eligible then it fits in to all of the categories on 106 and 4F and I know that we have had conversations in is this bridge historic? It was reconstructed in 1977 but you keep coming up in front of us so we have to respond as if it were an historic bridge but I wouldn't confuse the significance for a lot of people around it and for the heritage of the area significance is a swirly terns. Ms . Santos : Why would they come to us if it' s not historical I don't get that. So if he saying that it' s not historical why are they here? Mr. Hunnemann: It beats being on 0 `ahu. (Laughter in background) . Chair: He is doing the 1051 Ms. Santos; Oh so they have to come here. Mr. Hironaka: Well they are asking for your cornrnents as part of 106 . Mr. Long: I have an additional question. If this is a one lane bridge then why do you need an additional four foot of bike path on the bridge? March 7. K.H.PA.C. Meeting Minutes Page 28 Mr. Hunnemann: The County is following the new (inaudible) guidelines that they adopted a few years ago . And in those guidelines they are recommending a bike lane. Mr. Long: Recommending or requiring? Mr. Hunnemann: I don't know. I guess if you have obligated yourself to following (inaudible) but I don't know . . . . Ray do you have the answer to that question? Mr. RayMcCormick: The County might be requiring it. Ms. Griffin: Well but honestly there are ten foot wide lanes and this is a very small you know low miles per hour requirement that' s going on here and if you have your, you can have a ten foot lane and a four foot bike path and still end up with 14 feet. And it' s only; I am pretty slow cyclist I can do 38 feet without too many seconds going by even at a little break. So I am not sure, I mean I question taking the entire 14 feet a lane which is a very urban width. Mr. Hunnemann: I might be able to add a little bit, this line here that' s the line, the striping that will delimitate the bike lane and this is the abutment we are putting in. This is the existing abutment and you can see that it is quite a bit beyond the existing abutment. Our civil engineer when laying out the bridge there are certain guidelines he has to follow for turning radius and that minimum turning radius is reflected by this here and so we needed a 12 foot lane and used up part of the bicycle lane to accommodate that radius. Ms . Griffin: So 12 rather than 14? Mr. Hunnemann: the 12 feet is the preference of the County and we needed this additional space right there for this turning radius. Ms . Sheehan: Of the cars? Mr. Hunnemann: Trucks. Ms . Sheehan: I see Trucks. INI.,, Gl:i_fTigj Well how are people doing it now? It' s only 14 now. M it,_tl4l;ltiennann: They can' t go across the bridge. iV , Grii'rjn : So you are talking emergency vehicles? Mr. Hunnemann: Fire truck, big fire trucks. Ms . Griffin : And there is only one way in there for emergencies? There is only one way up and down for the people who live up there? It' s my' understanding that there are two ways going up and down Olohena or going across and that it' s not a single entry and exit. Mardi 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 29 Mr. Hunnemann: Yes this is not the only. Ms. Sheehan: But what you are saying as it is now it cannot support the tonnage. Mr. Hunnemann: That' s correct. Ms. Sheehan: So what does it support now? Mr. Hunnemann: Five tons or less . Ms. Sheehan: And this would support? Mr. Hunnem;ann: This will support five tons or less . Oh the new one? Whatever truck it had to support the legal limits. Ms . Santos : We don't like it. Mr. Long : Is there a bike path on either side? Mr. Hunnerriann: So here is the catch 22. Ms . Santos : Can we say that we don't. I mean you came for our opinion right? Can we just say we are not happy with it; we don't like it and move on. A'1 t O��l� a : 1 think we can say that as long as t11e new abutments don' t: really show and conflict with (lie view of the historic bridge and will assist him in. raising the tonnage for modern usage, lMat. we are ol�. with that, I think that it's important for us before we make aay final tlaiaig is to get it copy of the EA, if there is, State Historic Preservation Division correspondence. What we get with that and that we are resistant to the idea of widening the current historic width to almost 150% of what it is now. And that we believe that the width in so far as is possible should be retained, the c=ent width. Ms. Santos: I second. Do you guys want to add anything to that? Ms. Sheehan: So in the process of that they would come back to. us with this new information? Ms. Griffin: And the railings if we are sculpting a motion. I think that we should see the railings and a decision on a little bit more flushed out on the deck because I think that wood, even the sound of wood going over and it potentially it is outside our scope but having wood and having that sound is a potential traffic calmer so I don't know how that would change being on concrete but I think it' s worth seeing a little bit more clearly what that railing would look like and what the deck would look like and that horizontal rather than vertical is a part of the feel of the bridge. March 7. L.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 30 Mr. Long : And that' s one of the beautiful things about going across an old wooden bridge is [sound] . We find that esthetically pleasing. Ms. Santos: Do you want to say that in a motion? Ms. Griffin: Can we just add that to the motion? Mr. Jung : I think, remember these are recommendations to the Department of Public Works so you want to be clear in what you are trying to do . So if you could restate the motion to make it clear. So I think, procedurally, what should happen is withdraw the motion, withdraw you second, state it clearly what you hope for in the recommendations and then they can take it back. Have you guys finished the EA yet? U , Ig1i�iein : No we are just waiting for the final design concept. � . (1 dffl : Ok and I have not started. .Ms, �Aos: I withdraw my second. Ms . Gri.:lf= Ok and i an withdraw my and so I move that the KHPRC waits for a forin.al advisory opinion until we have received tlae environmental assessment, we have more complete plans on the deck, the railings, and that we think that it is important to retain the current 14.4 inch width as part of the historic structure and that the abutments and the underpinnings, that' s probably not an engineering term, the underpinnings looks like sound improvements as long as they don' t interrupt the historic feeling of the bridge but will allow additional tonnage to bring the passage why up to contemporary use. Mr. Jung: It' s clear but a little long. (Laughter in the background) . Ms. Santos : I second it. Mr. Jung: And I think. this is to fulfill the section 106 process too. Ms. Santos : Yes we asked all those questions. Ms. Sheehan: Danita is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak to this? Chair: I am still digesting this motion. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second and now it' s open for discussion of course with our group and then if anybody else wants to come forward. Anybody here? Ms. Gray : Did this bridge suffer some damage a few year ago with the big rain. Is that the one that is freshly painted? March 7, K.11.P.K.C. Meeting Minutes Page 31 Mr. Hunnemann: Yes the railings are replaced fairly regularly because of the flooding. So the railings are new and I guess some of the decking as well. Ms. Griffin: And it suffered from other flood damages within the past several as well. It happens. I understand that the Department of Transportation has hired a preservation architect? mijjg itiemann: That was the plan. Mk ,_ Gt.l!'.(i.p : It. was rely understanding that the state. Mr. Hunnemann: They have yes. Chair: They have hired '? Mr. Hunnemann: Yes they have. Ms. Griffin: That would be a good person to chat with. Chair: Any testimony from the audience? Anyone here to talk to the bridge. Yes. Unidentified member of the pubic: Can we ask questions, not so much about the Kapahi Bridge? Chair : We have got to stay on the project. Unidentified member of the public: It' s more about procedure. Chair : Ian? Mr. Jung : You have got to come up and testify though. Chair: Is it about this bridge? It has to be about this bridge? Unidentified member of the public: It' s about every bridge. It' s about procedure. Mr. Juniz: I will talk with her. Chair: Ok all in favor say Aye. (Unanimous voice vote) . Opposed? (None). Motion is carried. Thank you. Re : Letter (2/27/13) from Jim Hayes, Planner, Parsons Brinckerhoff requesting feedback as part of the NHPA Section 106 process on the ICuhi` 6 Highway (Route 560) Emergency Slope Stabilization in Lumaha'i in the vicinity of MP 5. 1 to 5.3 , Federal Aid Project No. ER- 16(002), Chair : Ok Jim Hayes . <, m-0 ?, K.l f.P. lt.(.'. Meetnig Minutes INgo .32 Iylr, Jim Hayes : Does everybody have a hand out? Ms. Santos : Is this a new thing? Your hand out? Chair: What does your hand out say? Mr. Ilayes: Myles did you reproduce it for them? Mr. Hironaka: Yes it' s on D.3 . Ms. Santos: It is in our packet. Chair : I don't know. Ok we got that and then you need to introduce yourself for the record. Mr. Jim Hayes: Ok my name is Jim Hayes. I am with Parson Brinkerhoff. We are consultants to the State Department of Transportation. This is a project in Lumaha'i on the North Shore of Kauai . The project is considered an emergency project because the highway Route 560 in Lwnaha'i was damaged during the heavy rains in March of last year almost exactly a year ago today. Since that time there has been efforts on the way to maintain the roadway and repair the damage that was caused by heavy rains. As part of that, after the rains the Governor declared a disaster for the State of Hawai'i and that disaster proclamation actually removed certain requirements within Chapter 343 and other State level and County level ordinances related to planning and designing the project of this nature that you may be used to seeing in similar situations but with the disaster proclamation some of those were removed however the federal requirements were not removed and one of those federal requirements that' s been coming up here is for Section 106 and so we have been working on Section 106 and in the summer time we embarked on what was the first step in Section o 106 which is to identify end notify Native Hawaiian organizations and other organization and individuals that may be interested in this project area and ack owledgi�,ment of resources in the area. So we did that. We had advertisements in the newspaper and we sent out letter and we worked on the design of the project. It was easy to identify historic properties in this area because the highway itself is on the National Registry of Historic Places already so we learned that actually later in the timeline of things. But once we learned that we reopened the Section 106 process and 'invited the Hanalei Roads Commission to be a consulting party in the Section 106 process and about two or three weeks ago we sat down with the Hanalei Historic Roads Commission or committee and discussed the project with them and got their feedback through the Section 106 process . Since that meeting we have made some modifications to the design of the project and those modifications are reflected in the handout that you guys have before you. So I will go through what' s in the handout. The first thing here is to sort of to get you to know where the project location is and it' s just around the corner from Hanalei Bay as you are going further north, mile March 7, K.RP..R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 33 post 4. 9, almost mile 5 so after you come around the corner. I believe the next thing in your package it will be on 8 1/2 by 11 paper but there are some design plans or it could be some photographs. The photographs are taken from the time soon after the rain. I believe there is a date on there. March 8th . So these photographs were talcen pretty quickly after the rains occurred and that' s the down slope side. So there was a pretty significant landslide in the area that affected the highway and the shoulder of the highway. So those are photographs showing the condition of things pretty quick after the rain. Now the other drawings or these drawings are the current designs following our consultation with Hanalei Road Commission and it shows b6th the existing highway and the proposed changes. I just want to point out a couple things. The main focus of the project is to restore transportation between points farther north and Hanalei and in order to do that we need to work within the boundaries pf the existing soil, properties, and other things out there. So the primary element of the project is what we call soil nails and that' s to stabilize the slope out there so that it doesn't continue to slide down toward the ocean and in order to do that you can see in the side here the soil nails and a wall that is creating an embankment for the roadway. And then the other things that are happening is the start of the mauka side of the highway we are looking at installing a drainage swale of five feet so the water that' s on the mauka side coming down the hill can collect there and run down the highway to a drain inlet. Then we are looking at two ten foot travel lanes . Then a two foot shoulder and then a guardrail we are talking about our typical guardrails and then a planting strip a couple feet wide and then there will be a rock wall that sits on top the soil nail wall. So that' s the proposed improvements and like I said. Oh I forgot to talk about the plantings, between the guardrail and the rock wall and there will be a naupaka planting and down below the soil nail wall which everything slid away during the storm but there used to be quite a bit of forest, a lot of trees down there . So we will be replanting some trees and in consultation with the DOT and the National Tropical Botanical Garden we have identified the species listed there and so we will be planting trees down there as well . So originally in our design when we spoke with Hanalei Road Committee the first time we had a different guardrail and a different wall there and they had some objections and suggestions on how to improve on it as far as the historic character goes and so we have made some modifications to the wall . It' s shorter and the roadway widths are going to be, we had originally proposed 11 foot wide lanes . We are not proposing ten foot wide lanes. It is also to help maintain the historic character of the highway. So those are kind of the things that we have done and we are here today as part of the Section 106 process similar to the last project to get your input on our proposed improvements and listen to any advice or comments that you may have and then the next step in the process is obviously we take that and put it into consideration along with any other feedback with other consulting March 7, K.H.PA.C. Meeting Minutes Page 34 parties and make changes to the design if appropriate or make a determination and move forward with the project. At this time the Federal Administration which is responsible for making a deter-nination in the Section 106 process is anticipating a no adverse affect determination so that the project can move forward and the emergency repair can get started. So with that any input would be welcome. Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Commissioners? Ms . Sheehan: Could I just ask you also showed us this reap with the lines, there is a white line and a dark line. I don't know it' s black and white . How long is this improvement and actually it has an arrow in one place but it looks like you are doing a third of a mile. How much is this project. ' Mr. Hayes: Ok if you look at the other engineering drawing here. Ms . Sheehan: Is the white line what you are talking about? You are realigning it from the black to the white? Are they related? Arp those lines related? Mr. Ha rimes : Can I look at your drawing real quick. They look different in black and white. Ms. Sheehan: Yes I know I wondered if the black and white lines are related. Mr. Hayes : No they are not related. Ms . Sheehan: So what is the black line mean? Mr. Hayes : That is just an artifact of the program that we used to print that drawing. So as a GIS overlay artifact. Ms. Sheehan: The white line is the actual road that exists now? Mr. Hammes : Yes the white line is the existing highway yes . The length of the project, let see, 500 feet. Ms. Griffin : It' s my understanding that Hanalei Roads Committee they are the guys with the slippers on the ground as far as I am concerned but it' s my understanding that they had a couple of comments on, recently, on the road and perhaps drains getting clogged and I was wondering if anybody from the Hanalei Roads is here and if you could share information before we go any further. .Chldr: Ok for one mit)ute I want to finish. with my commissioners, '111a11k you.. Any other C0111111h sioners have anything to say before we turn it over? No Ok thank you. March 7, K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 35 Mr. Brian Hennessy: Hi Commissioners my name is Brian Hennessy. I am the Co-Chair of the Hanalei Roads Committee. I have been with the Committee for about 12 years . You had some questions . Ms. Griffin: Thank you. I was just wondering if you have more recent comments about Mr. Hayes ' , what we are seeing now. Mr. Hennesm: Yes they provided me the modified cross section there. I haven't seen the .rest of the packet that you have seen here and I guess one of the main concerns that the roadway itself is actually intact and we are still using it today and the plan is calling for moving that approximately six feet towards the ocean which basically is moving it off the cliff so to speak and the wall is going to have to be much higher and it' s not the original alignment and since the original road is there we obviously want to keep it as it is . Ms . Griffin: So Mr. Hayes how do you feel about that. Mr. Ham: Well I can explain. One of the problems with highway problem with the drainage right now the water that comes off the hillside above collects on the highway where the travel lanes are and blows down the highway in the travel lane and so what the Department of Transportation is seeking to do is to install this drainage ditch on the mauka side of the highway to collect that water and in order to keep the water off of the travel lanes we need to install that line drainage ditch and when you install that you have to move the roadway a little bit further makai than what it currently is. So that is the primary reason for the roadway shift. So right now like I said there is some areas where you can install that line drainage ditch without moving the highway but there are other areas where that hillside just conies down and you are driving right alongside the hill side and there is no room. So we are looking at installing that five foot wide ditch which is going to bump the lanes out a little bit. So that' s the reasons why and then the overall thing is right now they are able to drive on the highway but when there is significant rain there are puddles on the highway which makes it less safe and we don't want to have a situation where in the next big rain the ou.lAside rain slides down into the ocean, So we need to have structural stability in the road bed and embankment and that' s the reason for the soil nails and when we have that opportunity we axe going to look to improve its overall. . sct:l'cty chcrira.cteristics of the highway as well and that' s where the guardrail and other things that are presented here. Ms. Sheehan : I have a question. If you are only dealing with use of 500 feet or so and you are only doing a swale and a concrete drain for a little bit you know the toad is much bigger than that you could still have a mud slide and cover the road outside of the 500 feet or are you connecting up to something? It seems like the mauka side that has a mountain that could also give way and slide down. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 36 Mr. Hayes : This is one small section of a ten mile long highway and there have been other repairs done to other portions of the highway that had experienced similar failures and there are some of those other areas right adjacent to this and the Hanalei Roads Committee has worked with the Department of Transportation on ways to address those other failures and. we have been learning what works and what doesn't. What we originally proposed and similar to what had been implemented in other parts of the highway relatively recently and the roads committee reported back that well when it was on paper we thought it would be good but then when it was actually put in the field it didn't look so good and so we are modifying the design from what it had been in previous repairs to hopefully better address the historic nature of the highway, But yes things could happen in other parts of the highway and there may be other emergencies but at this point in time we are addressing the immediate problem which is failure of this portion of the highway and we have Federal funds available to address that and we are trying to take advantage of those opportunities. From our perspective we didn't see moving the road out as being really a priority so that you don't take away an historic inventory just for a swale and the swale in this location frequent mudslides and this drain that this drain leads to is going to get clogged in the first big rain and it overflows onto the road at that point and it' s always kind of occurred in this location. I have driven through it and its pretty dramatic selling the toad kind of all under water in that location. The big pond but the drain always clogged and moving the road to put a swale in is against all thai . So we want to maintain the drainage pattern. and if the drain does clog it wilt go off the cliff and not. si.t on the road there. 11: So where does it drain? I mean once the swale goes to a drain and its supposed to do what'? .Mr. 1-tayes : Go under the highway yes. There is a pipe under the highway from the drain. Ms. Sheehan: And is that before the turn? Mr. Ham: It' s right after the turn and it' s a frequent maintenance location and one of the reasons that we want to install that swale is to improve the maintenance so that the Department of Transportation can better respond to the small mud slides and have a place where when the mud does slide it doesn't slide right into the lane. It slides right into the swale and it is easier to collect and pick up and maintain overall. It certainly wasn't our priority to realign the highway in anyway but given the physical attributes of the what' s out there this is our best fix and at the same time trying to make compromises to maintain the historic nature of the highway. Ms . Griffin: So given the committee' s concern is there a plan B ? Mr. Hayes : Is there a plan B from this? Like I explained earlier we are still collecting input from your board and we have an email from Brian responding to this most recent design and so the 106 process requires that we take these inputs into consideration and that' s what we will be March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 37 doing over the next couple weeks and then working with Federal Highways Administration to determine what ' s appropriate and move forward from there. Ms. Griffin: But you all are ok with the W barriers and stuff. Mr. Hennesv : Yes we live with them. The painted them and they are crash rated.. Ms . Griffin: So it's the move of the highway in that portion and your sense that it won't solve the problem anyway. That' s your concern right now: Mr. Hennesy: The are talking about having a wall continue all along the road there and actually block some of the existing overflows and. after they are done with the wall they are going to remove those overflow 1)oints because they Kure not going to contain any water anymore cause the wal l N blocking it. I haven't seen how they are going to address the drainage, Mkt.,.. 41 Ito DO you guys have an idea of what or how to fix it? Your corn_11-.ittee? Mr. Hennesy: We would just like to see the wall be shorter and those overflow points that are there remain in place. The DOT recently fixed those up last year this one main overflow and they made it really nice protected area for the water to go and this plan is proposing to demolish those. So we are still wondering how they are going to handle the rwioff as it overflows the road. Mr. Long: Thank you Brian for coming and sharing the views of the community and I also note that you are a professional engineer and have some insight into these technical questions . So from what I am hearing from the community is that they would prefer to leave the road at the existing road depth and when I look at this drawing I see a five foot wide side swale that I don' t know if it needs to be five foot but it is five foot wide which is really wide so there is some (inaudible) perhaps. You have got a hillside instead of filling and I don' t know the economics of it but it seems to me that cut is less expensive than fill. And then you have I see Here two feet from the edge of the road to the guardrail and five feet to the wall. It seems to me like there is a lot of fluff in those dimensions, the swale dimension and the dimension to the landscaping. It' s almost six feet which is why you are proposing to spend. We are grateful that the federal government has given us disaster funds but it' s really not our role to spend all those funds if we have too or just to spend all the funds. So when I look at this. The soil nails and I look at the fill and the trees and the wall. It seems like there is a lot of fluff in there that could be reduced. to achieve the goals of the community. Mr. Heuuuesv: I think it' s just shoulder that had disappeared you know and the historic roadway is there and the alignment is there and so from our perspective it is really hard to say oh well we need to move it. If it' s in tact and it hasn't slid away. I mean if a little further down the road if you have place that the road was sagging and we move the road more into the mountain that' s kind of the general direction you want to go when the road is being washed away. So to have it be moved out it .just didn't add up for us. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 38 Mr, Long : I understand. W.&_(ID y_: You know when I went out there recently that area seems as a driveway very fragile. 1,111it ' s the impression when I drive there and I think I always inake this conimeiit like I kind of sc utse that the, ground is so fragile that I can see it cascading down. I mean the whole thing possible when a car is crossing. So I am kind of thinking and this is not in my kuleana but maybe it is ok to do one lane in a certain area. Just one car and the tither car on the other end would have to wait rather than trying to do both lanes . I know that sounds crazy but kind of makes sense cause the land there is so limited that you almost want to maintain what' s there and also plan on the outside where these photos show that it' s just all exposed now. So you have got to go in and save the land from erosion and look at the pitch it' s very steep . I know Patsy lives up that side but it' s very fragile and i kind of sense that, that' s due for another landslide if we have another big rain. Mr. Hennesy: I think after the rains for awhile last year it was one lane for awhile. Chair: Anybody else. Ms . Sheehan: I was going to just reiterate. My concern is like Brian said is the drainage because I think we have seen that they actually took the mountain down the road from this they just shaved the mountain back and moved the road in. So to the degree that you can shave the mountain down, you might not do it quite that radically but for me if there is a slide it' s going to be part of the mountain coming clown and it is going to clog up the drain. I just don't see how the DOT will run out on a Sunday night at 12 o' clock and dig out the drain. I mean this is something that is going to stop traffic and keep people home so while I am not an engineer I am not comfortable with this kind of a drain saying it' s going to work because there is so much of the road that isn't being addressed. This one little piece being addressed doesn' t solve the problem. It may happen six feet past their project and there you go you have mud all over the road again. So I would hope there is a plan B somewhere along the line. Mr. Ha ,: Can I make e a few, regarding the realignment and the way it is going. It is a very small realignment but like I said the overall project is 500 feet long. The area that is a realignment is about 150 feet long within that 500 feet. So it' s a relatively minor realignment is b and the only reason for it is because of that drainage swale and we don't want to cut into the mountain and make it steeper that it already is which would just invite more landslides on to the road surface so that' s the reason for keeping it, we are really trying to keep the road as close to its current location as possible at the same time as we reinforce the slope and the embankment that the toad sifts and the swale nails. So it' s certainly not our intention to go out and realign the road. It' s a minor realignment and primarily related to the drainage and we are working with this and we have the existing condition where the road the water collects on the mauka side and runs down the drain and yes that drain may become clogged from time to time and it will require maintenance at the same time we are going to have ways for the water to get passed the rock wall on the makai side if the drain is tv9urcli 7, k.:. l l. I', R .C, Meeting Minutes {'ngc 39 clogged and we are removing, as Brian mentioner , we are planning to remove one place where that was happening and that was like the main spot it happened but we are going to engineer it so that there is a new spot where the drainage can occur and you kxlow not result in a foot of water on the highway just because the walls that are on the edge . There will be gaps in the wall. It won't just be a solid wall and we will share this with Brian. We are still working on the drawings now so it doesn't show on the drawings we provided you today but we are working on addressing those drainage issues . Chair: Anyone else from the Commission? Mr. Long: What I just heard from you is a justification to your design and a minimal insignificant portion of the road is an incidental realignment but what I am hearing form the community who lives there is that it is not incidental and it is important to them. So I guess I would really have a (inaudible) and if you are communicating with the roads committee how did this design get this far long when it' s different from what they have been talking to you about? Mr. Henessev : I guess these discussions have happened relatively recently. We missed the notice in the newspaper and didn't really know about the project until a couple months ago , Mr. Long: A couple of months ago is time enough to come up with plan B . Mr. Hayes: Like I mentioned earlier we had revised our plan to coordinate with the Hanalei Roads Coxxamittee. So you are looking at plan B . Plan A looks significantly different than this and we have evaluated design based on their input and we've come up with this compromise. Mr. Lon>7: I guess would you like to see Flan C Brian? Mr. Henessev : Well I would like to wait until I see what else comes of their revisions that they are in the process of making. Chair: Anyone else? Ms . Griffin: Well it sound like, first of all we really appreciate being part of the discussion before things are set and it' s being presented more as a (inaudible) and it sounds like both groups are talking to the right people. I personally feel comfortable that the process is in a reasonable stage and we will wait to hear how you all respond to the possibilities and roads are tough but being historic and that is something that hasn 't been greatly understood in government or even communities even with preservationist and yet there is a statement in certain circles that the quickest way to ruining an historic neighborhood is to put up curves that weren't in before. So I think all of us understand how difficult some of the decisions are but it' s the little changes along the way that can make or something in the end that bares very little resemblance to what was an historic place. I don't know if we need any, Madame Chair what do you want for us. Chair: Ok so first of all is there anyone else who wishes to speak of this. Ray do you have something? March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meetnig Minutes Page 40 Mr. Ray McCormick: No we are still ir'i preliminary stage. Chair: Ok anybody here for that? (None) , Ok so Ian and Myles? Mr. Jung: Yes it is still part of the consultation process so it' s for information only. You guys could receive the presentation. Chair: Do I need a motion on that? Mr. Jung. You can do a motion to receive if you want but not necessary. Chair. Ok received then. Thank you very much for coming and sharing this with us. Mr. Hades : And if I can make one other comment. If you do have any input in addition to what Brian has provided us now is the opportunity for this board to way in and provide input on the 106 process . In absence of any input today I will assume probably that you are comfortable with us coordinating with the Hawai'i .Roads Commission as we move forward on this. But this project is going to move forward relatively quickly so I just wanted to share that. Ms. Santos : We still have to be in the loop, you can' t just you guys two run off in the corner? Mr. Long: Are you saying this is the last review in front of us? Mr. Jung: This is a little unusual because they have the emergency proclamation which sort of exempts them sort of from the State requirements because it' s just Section 106 I think the information and the feedback they have given you through verbal communications in the meeting I think you can incorporate into your commentary. Mr. Ham: I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything more. Ms. Griffin: Then I do think in that case that we should have some form of memorandum that we send saying that we believe that discussion with Hanalei Roads Committee will you know satisfy that their experience with that historic roadway should give the input that' s really necessary preserving and maintaining the historic road and that we encourage Brinkerhoff and the Historic Hanalei Roads Committee to come to a solution together that they can agree with that maintains the historic integrity of the road. Ms. Sheehan: Second Chair: Was that a motion? Mr. Jung: Just to clarify you can't necessarily force them to but you can encourage them to. March 7, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 41 Ms. Santos: And say if they can' t work together than they can come backer here or no ? Like if they don' t get along. Ms. Griffin: Sounds like they are doing pretty good. Ms. Santos: You never know. It' s only the begi=ing and it' s still fresh. You never know you know what I ain saying. Let' s put you in a room with a person for three weeks and we' ll see what happens. Chair: Actually I am a person who always felt that it should come from the community and if the community is satisfied then that' s enough for me. I noticed Dave Fujiwara was working on this and he is a person I respect very much. I talk with him a lot about historic preservation. He always goes to different classes . He is up there with exactly what kind of cement you should use and so trust him and use him cause he is always learning more things . Mr. Hayes: I didn't mean you guys had to snake a motion. We will take what we heard and that' s fine. Mr. Jung: Now you are asking for it. (Laughter in the background). Ms. Sheehan: But in the process will they come back to us again? Mr. Jung: You know I don't think they are coming back. Mr. Hammes : Unless there is some significant change. Ms . Santos : Unless you two can't get along. Ms. Griffin: It seems reasonable. We have had an extended conversation and it seems reasonable to respond with a memorandum that doesn't necessarily state what we think should be done for the road but the process we think is important to use and that process is an understanding and agreement between the consulting and engineers and the Hanalei Roads Committee. Chair: So are you making a motion? Ms. Griffin: Well I thought I was just making a comment. Mss Sq tos: The motion was made and she seconded it. What was the notion.? She said that was a comment:, t&s,,,( rf1b: I. move thtit the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission rather than taking 1i specific stand on any component of the plan recommends that the engineering firm Parsons Brinkerhol:i' and Hanalei Roads Committee come to an agreement based in historic standards on how to deal with the completion of the project. March 7. K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 42 j Chair: Ok and is now for a second. Ms . Sheehan : I do. Chair: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) . Ok motion carries. Thank you SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Chair: Ok so I am going to quickly bring this up. Today I went to see the Hanama'ulu and how happy I was that she was going to put it back in the same way as much as she could. It was really nice. She gave me a little history. She is knowledgably. She said you know I am having so much trouble with the insurance company. They are telling me I should put it back X, X, X. So she said could you possibly write a letter to possibly say how important this was in the community and a little bit of the history so that they will know that it' s not just her saying this. So I wanted to get a motion that you give me permission to write a letter from us saying how happy we are that she is gping to try to put it back in the way and I will say something about the importance of that. Mr. Jung: Wait, wait because this is not an agenda item there is one of two ways to deal with this . I think if the body collectively wants to make a motion and do some kind of resolution, it doesn't have to be a formal resolution but you know policy statement we can put it on. I think you all should evaluate what was discussed and you can bring it up in a report at the next meeting. But if it is something that needs to be done now because our meeting is a month away then you can move to amend the agenda, you need a 2/3 vote and allow Danita to write her own letter and not on behalf of the Commission. hqb•: I warrt:ed it to be, advocacy should be a Commission duty. 1,111 f t►.tWe Well the probt�m because we have to give notice in case somebody wants to come and tesi.lfy against what you guys maybe doing then you have to put notice under the Sunshine, Law to give that opportunity to the public tq bring up their own testimony. Chair: So the choices would be not to, for me to just write it as my own person which I don' t need them to tell me that right? But that' s not what I am asking. Ms . Griffin: Or wait a month. Mr. Jung : Or wait a month and we can put it on the next agenda. Chair: Well I guess I have to wait a month. Ms. Sheehan: I am not going to be here next month so I just want to make sure that if you delay a month. March 1, K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 43 Ms. Santos : I am not going to be here either. Merrie Monarch right? Isn't that the week of Merrie Monarch? I am going to Merrie Monarch, Mr. Jung: We can look at moving the meeting one week up. Ms . Santos . Can we move it to the end of March? Ms. Sheehan: I am going to leave on the 3rd? When are you going to leave? Ms. Santos: I am leaving on the 2"d. Ms. Sheehan: I was going to say can we do it on the 2"d. What is that a Tuesday? Chair: When is it that weekend? Ms. Sheehan: It' s that week. Wednesday through Saturday. Ki...._ .l�ujjg: We can try to move the meeting to Monday the 1St. No, no March. Where am I? April . Ms sautos : If you guys have it that week I can 't come cause I am leaving on the 2"d 1 will be bone from work for a wcek. It will be hard i:or me to come op the 1St Chair: We might not even have a quorum then. Ms . Santos. You might have a quorum without me. Ms . Sheehan: I can come on the first. I mean that' s ok. I just don't want you to delay something and then riot be able to execute it. So whatever, if you avant to do it after Merrie Monarch that' s like the 10`}1 1 Ms. Santos : Why can't we. do it the last week. Oh no cause that' s not enough time. Ms. Sheehan: That' s a Monday. Ms. Santos : If we do it on the 1St is it only me that or? Ms . Sheehan: Can you do it on a Monday? Mr. Jung: I can -but we have to check with Myles but we can tentatively schedule it now and if there is any complication then as the Chair we can coordinate that with you and then we can blast an email for scheduling purposes. March 7, KET.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 44 Chair: Shan has to reserve this building. Mr. Jun>?: Monday afternoons are usually not a problem here or Piikoi A or B or we can also go to the Liquor Conference Room, Chair: Ok this meeting is adjourned. Ms . Sheehan: So officially it' s the 1St and we will be told yes or no. MNL.(:?.riffilg: Unofficially it' s the 1St. AV I O II.K.N MENT '['he meeting was adjourned at 5 : 33 p. m. Respectfully Submitted, ax ee U. Jimenez Secretary Date: MAR 2 5 2013