Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARIL22015KHPRCMinutesKAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A /2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on April 2, 2015 in the Lniu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chairperson Pat Griffin, Anne Schneider, Althea Arinaga, Victoria Wichman, Stephen Long, and Kuuleialoha Santos (entered at 3:04 p.m). CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:59 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Ms. Griffin: If there aren't any objections, I'd like to move our Unfinished Business Item C on the agenda to the end of the meeting. Is there any objection? (None) Also, I'd like to defer the minutes until next meeting; not everybody might have gotten them. They were sent out this morning, so I think it's worth reviewing. May I have a motion on that? Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we defer 'til next meeting. Ms. Wichman: Second. Ms. Griffin. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES (Deferred to the next meeting) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Ms. Griffin: Announcements and General Business Matters. There is going to be a National Register, how to do nominations, Workshop coming up on the 17th of April. Shan, you have that in our addendum. And it's free, I hope everybody can attend. If you have questions, please ask Shan. It is being put on by the Historic Kauai Foundation with assistance from State Historic Preservation Division. They're going to be doing it on several islands, and we are first. It is 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the library, Friday the 17th. Also, your Chair is going to be giving a talk in the same place next Thursday evening, the 9th or so, from b to 7:30 about the history and development of Lfu`e, if you all are interested. Any other announcements? April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Griffin: Communications. I don't believe we have anything that's unrelated to the New Business topics. NEW BUSINESS Re: Kilauea Plantation Head Luna's House (Thomas and Barbara Trombley) TMK: 5 -2- 09:03, Kilauea, Kauai Ms. Griffin: So moving to D.1. the Kilauea Plantation Head Luna's House, TMK: 5 -2- 09:03, in Kilauea. Mr. & Mrs. Trombley please join us, sit down, and if you can state your names for the record. Mrs. Trombley: I'm Barbara Trombley. Mr. Trombley: And I'm Thomas Trombley. Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Tell us about your project. Mrs. Trombley: The project that we are doing used to be a separate piece of property that we've incorporated into this property. It's going to be a garage underneath with living above it. And we purchased this property in 2007 and it became part of the whole property. Mr. Trombley: We incorporated it as one piece. It was a separate lot. Ms. Schneider: You consolidated the lots? Mrs. Trombley: Yes. Mr. Trombley: Yes, consolidated. Ms. Griffin: You know, that was going to be not to interrupt you, but the county TMK still shows your property as a rectangle, and then a flag lot with the others, so I was so confused. Mrs. Trombley: I wish it was like that because now my son is going to be building on that property and it would be great if it were separate and he could get a loan. Mr. Trombley: Now we're going to have to CPR it, after we build. Ms. Griffin: I see. That answers a couple of questions because I know you all have lived in the house a long time and were owners of it when it was placed on the National Register before Hurricane Iniki. I went up there yesterday. When I was a young Commissioner, on this April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 Commission, the first training we got said you got to go see the properties because blueprint is not a landscape. So I have, and I have to tell you the way you've kept your property is a model of its kind for National Registered properties, and even having the plaque on the post saying that it's a National Registered property is really, great. I know I've interrupted you, and talked a lot. What I'm leading to is that this property addition was not part of the initial National Register boundaries. Mrs. Trombley: Correct, Ms. Griffin: And I'm not sure how to deal with it in that case and maybe our attorney can give us ... because the National Register does talk about this nomination includes all of the property owned by Thomas and Barbara Trombley in 1991 as described by the Tax Map Key. So, Mr. Jung. Mr. Junsz: We ran into this issue with the Coco Palms redevelopment and when they outlined on the site plan where the designation is. If it's dotted around it then it's within and would trigger the 343 Document, but if it's outside of the designated area then it wouldn't necessarily trigger it. So it depends on, I know the text says it, but do you have a map of exactly where the...on the designation? Ms. Griffin: Nominations were simpler in those days. Mr. Jung: Right. Mrs. Trombley: Yeah, I don't think that there's any map does (inaudible). Ms. Griffin: It just says the property is a half an acre, but it specifically says that it includes all the property owned by Thomas and Barbara Trombley in 1991 as described. Mr. Jung: Okay. Kaaina, have we had SHPD comments on this project yet? Mr. Hull: No, we haven't gotten any. Mr. Jung: Okay because what happened with Coco Palms is they found no significant effect when they were going to span the bridges over versus... Mr. Hull: Oh, sorry. Apologies for the late entry. What project are we on? (Laughter in background). Mr. Jung: Trombley. Mr. Hull: Okay. No, the Trombley we do have SHPD comments on. Sorry about that. Mr. Jung: And did they identify the 343 issue at all? Because it's on the registry. Mr. Hull: No, I don't believe so, no. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Jung: Okay. So from common practice then from the last month's project, if they're not affecting the historic structure that is within the designated area, then they wouldn't have to go through the extensive 343 process. But I'm not sure how they reviewed it, so we might need clarification from SHPD on that issue. Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Does anyone else have comments or questions about this? Mr. Long: I have a question. Was the consolidated portion part of the property in 1991 when it went on the National Registry? Mrs. Tromblev: No. Mr. Long: Subsequently since. Mrs. Tromblev: 2006. Mr. Tromblev: The Kingdom Hall was put there and it had three (3) billable lots. The one next to our house was a billable lot, and we bought it from the Kingdom Hall. Ms. Griffin. And we did get from SHPD an addendum recently saying that the archaeologist has sent the letter, but it says "please note that the Trombley residence was reviewed by the Architecture division for effects to the historic homestead - the Archaeology Branch considers the effects to archaeology. Questions that the KHPRC may have regarding the determination should be directed to" the Architecture branch. How do you recommend we proceed? Should we request direction from SHPD? Mr. Jung: I'm trying to find their comment: Ms. Schneider: Can I ask a question? Is there a reason why you consolidated the lots if they were separate lots? Mrs. Tromblev: It's when they subdivided, when the Jehovah's Witness church subdivided it. They made ours into considered it Lot 1, and they're, the ones that put it all together with our property at that time. Mr. Tromblev: And we requested it at that time, which was a mistake. Mrs. Tromblev: Yeah, it was a big mistake. Ms. Schneider: If they weren't consolidated, you wouldn't be before us? Mrs. Tromblev: Right. Mr. Tromblev: Right. Apri12, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 Mr. Jung: So if the properties were two (2) separate lots in 1991 and then you consolidated it, then the area subject to the designation probably did not include that area. Mrs. Tromblev: Right, right. Mr. Jung: So if there is a motion, you can make your motion because SHPD's saying no historic properties will be affected. Then, just ask the Department to verify that information on the subdivision maps just to make sure we're okay. Does that make sense to everyone? Ms. Schneider: So we're asking SHPD for a comment on as to how they reflect on the subdivision map? Mr. Jung: Well, I think you want to ask the Planning Department that because if the Planning Department can verify that it was two (2) separate lots and the designation was a part of one (1) particular lot, then you're not going to be affected by the registry. But if it was not, then and a part of the whole in 1991 if the subdivision was not done, or I guess the consolidation was not done, then it becomes a problem because the whole area maybe subject to the registry requirement. So we can just clarify that, unless you know Kaaina? Mr. Hull: It's what appears to exactly ... I mean I was discussing with Pat earlier today of our confusion on how... essentially what it looks like a different lot and I was unaware of the consolidation at that time. So it looks (inaudible) that's exactly what happened and that because that specific area was not included in the 1991 nomination to the National Registry that in all essence it's not part of the National Registry and therefore is subject to this body's review and action essentially. But we can verify that specifically in writing and get the actual consolidation. Ms. Schneider: Yeah, if we could get clarification (inaudible). Mr. Jung: And just, Mr. and Mrs. Trombley, just so you understand, I mean you are here because it is on a lot of record that currently exists, albeit consolidated, that does have a historic property already. Ms. Griffin: And one of the things that would be important to your proud historic property is to make a clearer division. I don't know, I did not see in the plans where the second residence is going to get access, if it's through the... Mrs. Tromblev: Okay, I have some pictures. There is an access to the Kingdom Hall and that is a right away to that property. There's a fence and then there's a gate off of the...'cause the Kingdom Hall is at a flag lot. Ms. Griffin: Yes. Mrs. Tromblev: And so it goes down that driveway and we have access to that driveway. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 Ms. Griffin: Okay. The flag lot I noticed in my Google Map satellite also looks like it has the access from there. Is that right? Mrs. Tromblev: Right. Ms. Griffin: Okay, so but being able if there is a hedge or you know a way that you can show what is the historic.. . Mrs. Tromblev: Right. This structure is going to be in the back so it won't impede on the historic house at all. In fact, I had a hard time getting pictures from the street because we have a shower tree, we have avocado trees, and so it's going to even be hard to see this new structure from the street. I was trying to get a good picture of it so you could see, you know, but it's set behind the existing historic house. Ms. Griffin: Okay. So, we can make a motion that because this segment of the now consolidated property was not within the boundaries that it is outside of our purview. Is that correct? Mr. Jung: That's correct. Subject to verification on the subdivision maps by the Planning Department. Ms. Griffin. Okay. Mr. Jung: And I wanted to note as well that it appears SHPD is now asking for new conditions on all permits, so if you could, in your motion, incorporate the requested condition by SHPD as well. I mean the Planning Department would do it, but it's better to notify it here now, so they can catch it. Ms. Griffin: Who would like to...? Stephen. Mr. Long: May I make a motion? Ms. Griffin: Please, Mr. Long: I mov lot was not part acknowledge that we would request time of the 1991 SHPD as well. e that in of the the new that the Nationa Ms. Wickman: Second. consideration of the representation that the consolidated portion of the 1991 National Register nomination for the historic home that we proposed home would not have an effect on the historic structure. And Planning Department verify that there were two (2) separate lots at the . Register nomination, and have this reviewed and commented on by Ms. Griffin: Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? None. Do you have any questions at this stage? Apri123 2015 K14PRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mrs. Tromblev: No, Ms. Griffin: Well, thank you so much, and best wishes to you and your project. Mrs. Tromblev: Okay, alright. Mr. Tromblev: Thank you. Re: Rehabilitation/Replacement of the Omao Stream Bridge Federal Aid Project No. BR- 050 -1(30) Ms. Griffin: Hi Mike. E komo mai. Mr. Smith: I think I have met most of you already, but for the two (2) or three (3) I didn't, I'm Donald Smith. I have been here since June of last year now, for the Department of Highways here on Kauai. I am a Design Engineer and glad to be here. Actually, glad to be a part of the process to learn. Hope you find me to be friend and (inaudible). We can find some balance and some reasonable ground to go forward on, so and that part I am excited about. I was not here last time this was brought up. My understanding is, I think from Pat, that that was four (4) years ago. So I think what Mike is going to do here is bring us up to date, summarize what's already been done, and bring us up to date on maybe some work that's been done since that time. Then we'll open it up, I guess, for you guys and discussion. So, glad to be here. Mr. Hunnemann: Okay, thank you Commissioners. My name is Mike Hunnemann and let me first start out by saying congratulations to Pat and Anne for your elevation to your new positions. We're here today for the Kaumuali`i Highway replacement of the Omao Stream Bridge. And the bridge is on the State Highway System. It's owned and maintained by the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Today's presentation really is ... Donald mentioned that it's a continuation of the process that we started back in 2011. This is a requirement of the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 process that was begun back in 2011. This bridge was constructed in 1934. It was designed by William Bartels, who has designed several other bridges here on the island of Kauai. It is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places being constructed back in 1934. So, why are we here? What's wrong with this bridge?. The existing bridge is highly overstressed on several of the members. The first and foremost, the expansion joints here, this is one (1) of two (2) expansion joints underneath the bridge. This allows the bridge to expand and contract with the temperature differentials throughout the day. This joint here is overstressed by 59 %, which means that any kind of safety factor that was originally in the design process is totally eliminated by this point. The other overstressed members are the girders. These are the exterior girders here. This one here and this one, and these are interior girders here, so there's four (4) girders total. Both of the exterior girders are overstressed by up to 17 %. This is a bad picture, but this is underneath the April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 bridge looking at the expansion joint itself. This is the rubber bearing pad here, and this is the sheer crack in the underside of the bridge. This was found by us in 2000 and subsequent to that we did the analysis and found that this was indeed due to overstressing. Our project objective is to provide a bridge that is safe for drivers and their passengers, to ensure that the bridge can adequately support traffic loads that routinely travel on the highway, and to provide an esthetically pleasing bridge for Kauai and the local community. These are the existing conditions; this is the highway, this is the bridge right here. This is Omao Stream, and the yellow lines indicate the property lines and right -of -ways. This is the property line, these are the right -of- ways here. So the project history, as Donald mentioned, way back in 2011 I was here to make the initial presentation to the Commission. And at that presentation we presented three (3) different design options. First one was to do nothing, second one was to widen the existing bridge, and the third one was demolish the existing bridge and build a new bridge. After a lot of discussions, the Commission made a motion that we consider a fourth option, which would include constructing a new bridge that was parallel to the existing bridge. So we brought that back to DOT with us, met with DOT, and they gave us permission to go through the addition design effort to evaluate that fourth option. The fourth option laid out is what you're seeing here. This is little bit encumbered with detail, I'm sorry about that, but I'll try and explain what we have. This is the existing highway, the existing bridge right here, existing highway. This is a match line which picks up again down here, so the existing highway is right here. Building a new parallel bridge would mean realigning the highway in the mauka direction, like this. Which would mean mass excavation of the hillside in this area right in here. You can see this right here is the top of a slope right here and this emblem means sloping downwards. So all this is mass excavation right here, and right here. In order to do this fourth option, we would have to purchase quite a bit of right -of -way, and that area is indicated by what's in the dashed lines right here. And the State would have to acquire almost 150,000 square feet or 3.41 acres of property which entails five (5) plots and three (3) different owners. This option also would come very close to this house right here, so it's a high probability that this owner would ... his property would have to be condemned because I'm sure he would not stand for living in a house that close to the highway. So the four (4) options we looked at, the do nothing was obviously not a good decision. Widening of the bridge was not a good decision either for ... simply because in order to widen the bridge, most of the historically significant features of the bridge would have to be demolished. The third one, third option, demolish the existing bridge and build a new, is still on the table, and the new parallel bridge. The DOT has ... their preferred option is option three (3) which is demolish the existing bridge and build a new. Not simply because of the difference in cost, but because of the...not only the items that I mentioned before where we would might have to do the mass excavation and possibly condemn that landowner's property, but also what would we do with the existing bridge. One suggestion was to okay keep the Lihu`e bound lanes going over the existing bridge, and have the Waimea bound lanes on the new bridge, but in order to do that DOT would have to incur the cost of upgrading the existing bridge to meet current load. Especially the expansion joints that are 59% overstressed with virtually zero (0) safety factor, so they couldn't let that bridge remain in operation in such a condition. The other option is to give the bridge away and let it be used as April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 maybe a pedestrian or bicycle lane, but the State would probably not be able to sell that because it's not on a bicycle and pedestrian access route. If it were over near Kapa`a where you have the nice bicycle lanes, then perhaps they could sell that as an option, but over where it is now, that would be very difficult. This is the new bridge that the DOT is proposing. It's called the "William Bartels Jr. Bridge." (Laughter in background) Mr. Smith: I came up with that, by the way. (Laughter in background) Mr. Hunnemann: It's a two.span bridge. These are round columns, since the existing bridge has square columns, of course they could be changed to square if you so desire. Ms. Schneider: This is in replacing the existing bridge. Mr. Hunnemann: Yes, correct. The new bridge would be two (2) lanes still, but it would have shoulders here, for anybody who wants to walk along the highway or bicyclists. The railings would be very similar to what's there now. This is a type of railing that we just built a bridge in Oahu. It's got the windows here, similar to what on the bridge is existing. This is a close up view of actually the Lihu`e Mill Bridge; the new one which is quite attractive in my opinion. So going forward from here, the next logical thing is to start doing Community Meetings and get the Community's input on this. And if there is an effect, then we would have to go through a 4F process, and then after that, designing and permitting. So, thank you for your time and of course we'll be here for any kind of questions. Ms. Wichman: Madam Chair, I have a question. Ms. Griffin: Thank you so much. Please. Ms. Wichman: Mr. Hunnemann, I have a question about ... you mentioned there's going to be significant excavation of the slope... Mr. Hunnemann: Yes. Ms. Wichman: But what does that mean? Significant? That could mean ... that's kind of arbitrary. Mr. Smith: He actually used the word "mass" excavation. Of course where I'm from that's not very mass, so significant is, ..depends on where you're from as to how much that is. In my experience so far, the excavation that he's talking about is not just significant in the amount, but in what the repercussions of that excavation will cause. So it will affect somebody's property. Ms. Wichman: I see. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 Mr. Smith: So the significance is not necessarily in the amount of excavation, it's more in the impacts to the surrounding properties. Ms. Wichman: Right, okay, got it. Thank you. Mr. Smith: Did that answer your question? Ms. Wichman: Yes it did, yes. Mr. Smith: Okay. Ms. Schneider: And the bearing capacity of the soil there, is it...? Mr. Hunnemann: It would ... the foundation would have to be designed to ... around whatever bearing capacity exists. Ms. Schneider: Yeah, because I know in Kalaheo in places the soil is quite spongey. Mr. Hunnemann: So we'd have to go deep. Ms. Griffin: Being the `Bartels Jr. Bridge" that's reasonable, isn't it? (Laughter in background) Mr. Hunnemann: Yeah, nothing but the best for him. Mr. Smith: And some of the work that would need... all of the work that Mike has done so far has just been preliminary, so I've actually went back and picked up and looked at their, some of all of what's been done today, but again that's all preliminary based on observation, so he's not really went and done any real work yet to actually get into the design. Ms. Schneider: So you'll come back to us when you've done that? Mr. Smith: Well, I guess the idea would be ... and actually I guess Pat you can help here through the community meeting process that would ... I'm not sure would we...I don't think we would come back, would we? Ms. Griffin: Kaaina? Mr. Hull: Yeah, I think ... and I understood it, the reason you guys been coming since say 2011, I think was the first time you came, is actually part of the 106 process. Just the consultation essentially, with the County Agencies and /or Historic Commission reviews. Technically, for the actual building permit itself when you guys go for the building permit that requires actually you to come under the County Ordinance to come before this body. So these kind of preliminary checks have been to satisfy 106, but they don't satisfy the County requirement that you appear before this body when actually pulling an actual building permit itself. So when the building permit gets pulled, you'll be required to come to this body. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 Mr. Smith: I don't think we get a building permit from the County. Mr. Hull: (inaudible) we're actually having a discussion. I know for the roadways themselves, no building permits are necessary, and if there are no building permits necessary for the bridge, then technically yeah, you don't have to come before this body again. Mr. Smith: I think that's correct, but I think the idea here is, is whether we do or we don't, the reason we're here though is to discuss it and make sure that we're looking at, as we discussed before the meeting, are we doing the responsible thing? Are we acting in a responsible way to the Community and the Island of Kauai? No matter what, whether I do or I don't, we don't want to talk about technicalities because we're here for a reason, which is to make sure that we're doing what we can to preserve the heritage, the culture, the history, and all of those things along the way if at all possible. Ms. Griffin: And just to clarify, Donald and I did not talk about this bridge specifically. Mr. Smith: Oh, sorry. Ms. Griffin: But about what the Department of Transportation is doing these days in changing its approach to its operations. No problem. (Laughter in background) Any other questions? Yes. Ms. Arinaga: I have a question. Hi. You just mentioned a minute ago about preserving, keeping things intact, but yet I'm trying to understand why would you change the name of the bridge? (Laughter in background) Ms. Griffin: He's teasing. Mr. Smith: Yes, yes. Ms. Arinaga: Well I don't take it as... Mr. Smith: No, absolutely, no ma'am, no (inaudible). We kind of...when we were talking about it before because the idea is that you're trying to preserve... even if you ... looking at the options that I have available, and I really did you know, since I just came on board very recently, I really did pick this up with a brand new approach and really questioned everything that had been to date. So I really did take a wide open look at this in a sense that what could we do? The idea is looking at all the options is that you know if we can't preserve it, which looking at the options I really don't see a way and I really took an overall approach to it, then how can we going forward, even in the new design, how can we integrate some of those features into the new structure so that it still does have the character of the old bridge and of the Community. Actually, there isn't an issue with naming the new bridge. We had kind of just said "Jr." in the sense that it was predating the bridge before. So in reality we weren't joking, we were looking at physically, if we want we can look at naming this bridge after him. I don't know that there's any problems with that. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 Ms. Santos: I think it should be a Hawaiian place name. If you're going to redo the bridge, it should be the Hawaiian place name, whatever that is. I mean if that the route into the bridge. Ms. Griffin: Other questions? Mr. Long: I have a couple of questions. Clearly the, well it seems clear to me, that the dual bridge solution would be more costly and probably we'll be going more towards the new bridge solution, but I'm curious when you realign the highway, you will realign it to the mauka? As opposed to the other side? Where there was more room in your rightaway, and I'm curious why you decided to do that because if you.. . Ms. Santos: There's a house right there. Mr. Long: Well, I'm just asking that. Mr. Smith: Well actually, no, no, no actually, we did discuss this. We actually, again, trying to look at all the options that we have available to us. The stream goes in an angle on that side, so the bridge would be longer, more expensive, and because of that it does still have an impact on ... we still would have to take some rightaway in the other direction. Now what Mike said earlier as we were discussing this, there's a question as to whether or not we would have to take property if we do it on the mountain side. If we go to the other side, there's no question we will have to take someone's property and house. Mr. Long: Okay, so you did take a look at that? Mr. Smith: Yes sir, absolutely. Mr. Long: I'm curious. How much did it cost to evaluate option #4? In your office. You went to somebody, you asked for permission to design it. Mr. Smith: About $25,000.00 Mr. Long: About $25,000.00. Okay. So if we were to tear down this existing bridge, is there any reason why you couldn't replicate it using current design methodologies? Replicate the (inaudible) square columns, replicate everything, and if you have to bury the structure within some kind of closure underneath the road, is there any reason why all the visible esthetic elements of this bridge could not be replicated? Mr. Smith: There's not an issue with us replicating it as close as we possibly can. Such as Mike just said he had round in the drawing, but we can make them square. That's not an issue, so then we can even... and I do know this because ... I am not the bridge engineer, Mike is, that's why he's here, so if I say something Mike that's completely out of whack please correct me. Mr. Hunnemann: Okay. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 Mr. Smith: But the central federal lands are working currently with us to do several bridges and one of the bridges that we just discussed was ... well I don't remember. Maybe Hanapepe, but the idea was to give the curved just as it is now so that you have the arched spans. There's no reason we could not do that here essentially to sort of give it the same look, but it wouldn't be exact but we can mirror it as close as possible. Mr. Long: You could beef them up, you can put additional steel in, higher PSI concrete you know there's a lot (inaudible) Mr. Smith: No wait, okay well hold on a minute. Okay, I think I'm confused. Are you saying can we encapsulate the old bridge? Mr. Lone: No, Mr. Smith: Okay. Mr. Long: Can you replicate? Replace, replicate? Tear it down. Mr. Smith: And build it back exactly. Mr. Long: Replicate it, replicate. Mr. Smith: Well... Mr. Long: Using modern technology, you have to have four bolt spans. You know you can beef them up, make them bigger, square columns... Mr. Smith: Well, there's one issue. I can replicate it pretty close, except the new bridge will be wider, so instead of four (4) beams, it's probably going to be six (6). Mr. Long: I understand. Mr. Smith: But it'll look much the same. Mr. Long: Great. Mr, Smith: Now Mike, help me here. Am I speaking. ..do we have the ability to...? Mr. Hunnemann: We do indeed, yes. Like the Lihu`e Mill Bridge (inaudible). Mr. Long: Yes, I understand. And with regards to that project, I have gotten a lot of comments from the Community about how beautiful that bridge is, how much they appreciate it; people really like what you folks did there. So my last consideration is with respect to your statement that you do not have to come before us again, and right now you're just giving us some ideas. Oh well here's abridge, maybe it's got round columns, maybe it's got square columns, it sort of looks like April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 this. That's not design, that's just a conceptual, put together, rendering. So I'd like to ask that you come before us again when you have a real design. Mr. Smith: Again, I guess the idea there was to not get caught up in the technicalities of whether or not I could or should or I don't know that I have any issue, once I get everything done, coming back and speaking here and showing you what we are doing. I don't have any issues with that and actually I think for the most part I probably will be back here. I've got thirteen (13) bridges, I think, cause Ray came around the office the other day and he asked our office...he said, "Guys, tell me all the bridges that are on this island that are eligible for social security." I said,. "Ray, wouldn't it be easier just for me to tell you the ones that aren't? It'll be a much shorter list." So, and the reason I say that Steve, is my intent, for the most part, is that I come here is just to put the bridge back exactly like it looks now, except wider, in all cases. I don't know if that's always possible or not, but that's going to be my approach; is to just find a way to technically challenge Mike to give us the exact same thing we got now; except new. And to mirror it as close as we can, so that that is my approach. I have no issues coming back to show you, or to make sure you get the information, or ... nothing to hide. Mr. Hunnemann: Steve, I have a question. Mr. Long: Yes, Mr. Hunnemann: First, I don't mind at all coming back, but the idea of construction costs is always an issue, as you know. The existing bridge has two (2) center piers and two (2) abutments. If we ... in order to save a little money, we could go down to just one (1) center pier. That would save a couple hundred thousand. Mr. Long: Yeah, great. As long as it looks like one of the two (2) center piers, the existing two (2) center piers. Mr. Hunnemann: We could do that. Mr. Smith: And the other benefit to that is the impact to the stream you know, if we can, not have to dig two (2) holes, it's actually preferable so it actually has an environmental impact too, so thank you. Mr. Long: I know Mike can accomplish this goal, engineering wise, so is that a confirmation to my request that you come back before us again and show us the bridge design? Mr. Hunnemann: As far as the ... yeah, that's fine. Mr. Smith: The only thing I don't want to do, I don't see any problem with it, but I don't want to speak out of turn. I don't understand the entire process. I don't see anything wrong with what you just asked. Just understand that I'm kind of new here, and so as long as all that's okay and there's no issues, I don't imagine...I don't know what it would be. ..sure, April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 Ms. Griffin: Kuulei, do you have questions? Do you have questions? I have questions. (Laughter in background) First, thank you, thanks to the Department of Transportation for taking the time and cost to consider that fourth option. I know it's easy for outsiders to complicate processes and that with the best of intentions. Back in 2011 when I reviewed those minutes, there was an EA in process and has that been completed? I was wondering about that literature. Mr. Hunnemann: It has not been completed Pat, but it's pretty darn close. What they're waiting for is the final approval from SHPD on the AIS. I think they're on the third revision right now. Ms. Griffin: Okay. And do you have any timeframe for the 106? Completion and... Mr. Hunnemann: Yes, we want to get done by middle of summer, if possible; that's our goal. Ms. Griffin: Racing along. Mr. Hunnemann: Well, it's been long enough. (Laughter in background) Ms. Griffin: And it sounded uncertain about the 4F. What would exempt this project from going through the National Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4F? Mr. Hunnemann: I think step one would be your blessing today and I think SHPD weighs heavily your opinion. Mr. Griffin: That's diplomatic of you Mike. (Laughter in background) One of the concerns that I mentioned back in 2011 that still is a concern that's beyond you here at the moment, is that we continue to look at bridges one (1) by one (1). And this particular bridge, and it does have a name, "Omao Bridge." It was one (1) of three (3) that were with the Waihohonou and the Lawa`i bridges that were designed as a kind, as a set really, and as part of their time and reflect that and it's frustrating when we deal with things one (1) by one (1), we lose that context. Over the years, Ray and I have talked about that and I would like to know if with this continuing evolution of the Department, if that is going to be looked at differently now with your thirteen (13) bridges. I'm looking at some as a group when they're grouped. Also, this design was used with the. `Opaeka`a Stream Bridge, right past the Coco Palms, but you know we're taking this one bridge, and I understand that bridges... there are reasons why they can't be saved and they are really in preservation circles. There isn't always a push to keep it looking old because part of architecture design is it's expression of its time and place, so you know, but there is this question of how is this bridge going to continue to relate in some way to those other two (2) bridges in that neighborhood that were designed as a group originally. Which leads me to, if this bridge is going to be destroyed, it seems important to develop a HAER report, a Historic American Engineering Record, that will have drawings of the existing bridge, that will have photographs in time and place, and it will have a narrative of this bridge; what it is, what it's been, I'm sure you all know about HAER records. I would think that that would be to archive, to present that record of this particular bridge after its history, so to speak. And I know that we'd all like to see the EIA once it's done. Ms. Wichman: And the AIS. Apffi 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 Mr. Hunnemann: Yeah, it'll be part of the EIA. Ms. Schneider: Mike, how long is it going to take to rebuild the bridge? Mr. Hunnemann: Construction? Ms. Schneider: Yeah. Mr. Hunnemann: Probably close to a year. Mr. Smith: Eighteen (18) months. Mr. Hunnemann: Yeah. (Laughter in background) He's a realist. Mr. Smith: Yeah, he's being a little bit optimistic. Pat, can we go back though? Because then again, to make sure I understand what you said. Are you asking for a HAER report? Ms. Griffin: Yes. Well it's up to the Commission to develop a motion and make a decision, but I would think that a project of this importance deserves documentation that we can have for the future. And aren't you glad I'm not asking to save the old one? Mr. Smith: No, I'm actually okay with what you just asked for, I think. (Laughter in background) I guess the idea would be, what you just asked for seems reasonable. I do not, that I know of, have the authority to say we'll do it 'cause I just don't know. But it seems very reasonable, and I will definitely look into that and not only what you just ... if I understand what you just asked me for, was not just for this report to cover the actual bridge that we're now speaking about which is Omao, but the set. Ms. Griffin: Yes, and back in 1989 there was, at the time, the firm was Spencer Mason Architects. This was mostly done by Spencer Line Webber and it was a historic bridge inventory for Kauai. You've got a pretty good little narrative, just in here, where it talks about Bartels, you know, being the early projects that he did and the other bridges that are related. But the HAER report, when we're talking about buildings, we often ask for a HABS report, which is Historic American Buildings Survey, but being Engineers and that with bridges and things, that HAER is more specific to this kind of work and I'm sure Mike, you know about that kind of report and it's easy enough to get the standards for an inclusion of it. Yes, I think a HAER record is important and then I made the comment about how the DOT can start looking at groupings, when they exist. I mean certainly we've got the Hanalei Roads Committee that's helping the DOT do that up north. They're around and it can be a significant kind of appearance. Mr. Smith: What exactly, when you say "grouping ", do you mean? Ms. Griffin: Well, in this case, the Omao, the Waihohonou, and the Lawa` i Bridges were all built the same time and of a kind with a same design, so if once you all do this bridge, then you come April 2, 2015 KAPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 back and tell us that Waihohonou needs to be destroyed and this one. They relate now, they won't relate in eighteen (18), call it three (3) years. So, if the DOT can look at these projects a little differently so that it's not just bridge by bridge, that would be a real advance. Mr. Hunnemann: I think they were heading in that direction when they started that programmatic agreement project a couple of years ago. It's not done yet. In fact, I'm not even on that Board, but I think that's their intention. Ms. Griffin: Good, good. I was privileged to sit on the DOT's Historic Bridge Inventory that was finished a year or two (2) ago. It did not...I mean it has really good information and my hat was off to DOT for including County Bridges, as well as State Bridges, in that inventory, but they were still bridge by bridge. And so it's just a suggestion about a way to be more inclusive, or more far thinking on what we're doing. Mr. Smith: So kind of what I hear you saying though is that, just chipping away at you little by little, and before long you said oh wait a minute they're all gone. Ms. Griffin: Yeah, Mr. Smith: If I actually came and said okay now this is more of our long range plan, these are what's included, this is what we foresee, then that would give you an opportunity to sit down and say okay, we are concerned about this group, we're not as concerned about these bridges. So it would be a little more coordination from our part with your organization to make sure that we're looking at the big picture and not just doing them a piece at a time. Even though we might end up doing it that way, you would get the overall picture. Ms. Griffin: I think that's a good interpretation. Anne, did you have a question? Ms. Schneider: No, no. I think that's a good... Mr. Smith: That seems very reasonable. Ms. Griffin: Don't sound so surprised when you look at me and say that. (Laughter in background) Mr. Smith: I have not heard any bad stories, I really haven't. Ms. Griffin: Are there other questions? And I would ask for public comment, but there are empty chairs, so may I have a motion? Mr. Long: May I make a motion? Ms. Griffin. Please. April 2, 203 5 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 Mr. Long: I move that as part of the replacement of the Omao Bridge Project, that the Department of Transportation produce a HAER report that incorporates not only this bridge, but the three (3) bridges; Lawa`i, Waihohonou, and Omao Bridge which were designed by the same engineer. Ms. Schneider: I second that motion. Ms. Griffin: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that as part of this project that a HAER report be generated that includes looking at three (3) bridges and not simply this single one (1). Mr. Hunnemann: Pat, before you vote, the Waihonuhou.. 6 Ms. Griffin: Waihohonou. Mr. Hunnemann: Is that a DOT bridge? I'm not familiar with that bridge. Does it have another name? Ms. Griffin: I don't know. Mr. Hunnemann: What highway is that? Mr. Smith: And Mike does inspect all of our bridges, so he has more of an intimate knowledge than even me at this point and time. Ms. Griffin: I don't have the whole inventory with me, I'm sorry, from '89. But.. . Mr. Jung: I think while Pat is looking, remember this is a part of the 106 consultation process, specifically for this bridge. If the Commission wants to take a look at long term plans, you can certainly do that, but just bear in mind that it is a recommendation for them to take along with them. Whether they choose to do it or not, is up to the Agency proposing. Ms. Schneider: But we would like a record of the Omao Bridge, Mr. Jung: Right, Ms. Griffin: Yes, that... Mr. Jung: So you might want to clarify that. Ms. Santos: So you have to make two (2) right, make two (2) different requests? Mr. Jung: I mean, it sounds from the Engineers that they're willing to come back and look at their long term plans. So if the motion can be separated in two (2), it would probably be better, but again it's up to the Commission in terms of how you want to formulate your own motions. Just to clarify, what you think about this particular bridge, and then for future bridges and long term plans, April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 to have them come back with that proposed plan of approach, I guess it would be since it's not a technical plan yet, correct? Mr. Smith: Yes, correct. Ms. Griffin: The '89 plan does mention these two (2), so addressing them as a grouping is already in this senate statement, so it's not necessarily that you will be developing a HAER report for all three (3). I don't think that's what Stephen was addressing... was saying. Mr. Long: That's what was in the motion, but we (inaudible)... Mr. Juniz: Yeah, we haven't had a second yet. Ms. Schneider: No, I seconded. Mr. Jung: Oh, you seconded, okay, so then... Ms. Griffin: We can amend the motion. Mr. Junu: You can amend the motion or withdraw it. It's up to you folks. Mr. Lonj4: We can withdraw the motion and make a new motion? Mr. Jung: Yeah. Mr. Long: I withdraw that motion. Ms. Schneider: I make a new motion that we extend this to just be the Omao Bridge at present time and we'd like to look at the other two (2) bridges when they are ready for reconsideration. Ms. Griffin: Okay, it's been moved that the KHPRC recommends a HAER report be generated for this bridge prior to its demolition and reconstruction. Is there a second? Ms. Arinaga: Second. Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Like I said for me, it's more of a suggestion that the DOT start having that bigger picture, rather than, now there's this one, but you got it. Mr. Smith: Oh yeah. I understand what you just said. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Griffin: Do you all have questions about the motion? Mr. Hunnemann: Very clear. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 Ms. Griffin: Okay. Thank you so much then. Mr. Hunnemann: Thanks. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith: Alright, thank you. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Re: Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. Ms. Griffin: Okay, so let's go back to Item C, Unfinished Business. The discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. There is ... Kaaina why don't you come closer to us and tell us about the California CLG Training and so forth. . Mr. Hull: Good Afternoon, Commission. Kaaina Hull, Acting Deputy Director, for the record. Concerning the upcoming training for CLG in San Diego, Shan will distribute the papers to the Commissioners that could make it. We're looking at departing on Tuesday, April 20 and returning on Saturday, May 2nd. Essentially the Wednesday is looking like they have specific workshops or mobile workshops where you can choose from five (5) or six (6) different buildings or different structural tours to look at in the San Diego area. It's kind of an all -day mobile workshop educational learning experience. And the subsequent two (2) days are actual in house training workshops where you can pick from different things, be them, how to go about the nomination processes, how to go inventory processes, and I believe the material or at least the website was circulated to you all to take a look at those. Those you can all choose on your own. I think Shan will be distributing and requesting.that you pick an actual workshop tour today or Monday, at the latest I think, but she has that list right now for you folks. Ms. Wichman: Do they have like a tiki tour? Tiki village tour? Or something like that? (Laughter in background) Mr. Hull: Which might be the most applicable arguably.to our own environment, but I think for those Commissioners that are able to go, it's not a broad type of a discussion, it's a National type of discussion. There's definitely more than certainly not going to be any discussions about Hawai`i's historical processes, but to look at this as an educational experience of looking how California implements it. From what I understand from Anna folks, California has a fairly robust CLG Program. And people (inaudible) in particular recommended this, so we can kind of use it as a case study on things to work and the things we can improve to somewhat apply what they have done here, here on our own local CLG. Ms. Griffin: Who's going? Mr. Hull: Right now we have set from the Commission, yourself (Pat), Kuulei, and Mrs. Arinaga. And then Shan just sent me. ..so Stephen we got to go and shoot over. I'm pretty sure that they still have that availability, but we got to shoot it over to them because we sent the names. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 Ms. Wichman: Yeah, I dropped out. Mr. Hull: Yeah. Ms. Wichman: I was on and then I had to drop out. I have another thing (inaudible). Mr. Hull: And we had four (4) Staff before, and now it's just three (3) Staff. It'll be myself, Shan, and one of our younger Planners, definitely an up and coming, Marisa Valenciano. So there should be openings, but I know we sent the names and I hope we haven't closed that door already, but I got to check with them Stephen. Thanks. Ms. Wichman: You can borrow my ID. (Laughter in background) Ms. Griffin: Anything else to report on it? Mr. Hull: Not on the educational training thing. Concerning the CLG and the inventory list, I know that there have been some Commission members somewhat biting at the bit to get your hands on the inventory list which is the draft updated inventory list. The Department has been hesitant to provide it. I guess I kind of want to go on the record saying, we're not trying to hide it from you folks. Essentially what's going on with that is that SHPD has come back to us that they have some serious concerns about how that ... the scoping of the inventory list, how it came about and ultimately the end result of the project. This being said with while SHPD had actually provided the scoping to the consultant and when we've gone back and forth with SHPD, while they say they have problems with accepting it, they have yet to get back with the specific errors on where it can be fixed. So the Department's hesitancy in providing it to this body is that therefore makes it public and you essentially have what SHPD is saying is a flawed draft inventory survey out and available to the public. If any of the Commissioners really wanted to see it, I don't think we have any problems scheduling say two (2) by two's (2's) in the Department or further beyond that possibly looking at an attorney appointed Executive Session to discuss it in there. If any of you individually want to see it, we have no problems sharing it with you folks. It's just there is issues about providing it to the public in general when SHPD has deemed is a flawed state. Ms. Schneider: So, let me ask you a question. People come in for a permit these days and my understanding is all they have to do is check off a box that says that the building is not over fifty (50) years old and that's it? Mr. Hull: No. The way that it comes on the permit and the way it's flagged, and the staff in front are training essentially in a sense that if...they'll look at the actual property and if the structures on that property are over fifty (50) years old that they're looking at altering, then it gets flagged and submitted to this Commission for review. Ms. Schneider: How can they tell though? April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 Mr. Hull: There's actually no ... I mean, there's no ... you're right, there's no actual system in place. It's just to look at if they're going to be say demolishing or altering a structure to look into that specific structure. But is there's a system in place, no. Mr. Jung: They look at the permit number and year though, right? I mean, they can look at that permit number and year that it was issued, if it's being altered. That's my understanding (inaudible). So if it's like say 1965 or something, they'll see that. Mr. Hull: Well they can look at some, but you're going to have a lot a structures that aren't ... that don't have a permit because they're non- conformant, they were built before there was any code. Ms. Schneider: Right, so they would be over fifty (50) years old. Mr. Hull: Yeah. And essentially that is one trigger... Ms. Schneider: Because I think things are falling through the cracks. You need to get some system in place that alerts the people on the counter who are signing off on the permits. Mr. Hull: And as we ... and the Department is moving much more rapidly than we anticipated into the use of GIS, the Geographical Information Systems, Ms. Schneider: (inaudible) you finally got it done? Mr. Hull: It's not done yet. (Laughter in background) Ms. Schneider: Because you were working on it when I worked there in 1989. Mr. Hull: No but literally now we have the ability ... say if it's in the inventory right now, if I click on the property, it automatically comes up with a flag and a letter and the documents within the inventory file. So that's already automatic right now, as opposed to, see Anne when you were there, and it's still going on to this day where we pull out the old big pieces of paper, TMK's, and the plat maps and we look. That process is still being used; however, the secondary process which we're transitioning in already ... the first thing that went in there, as far as, we still can pull out say Class 1 Zoning Permits that all of them have been applied to a particular property, but we can pull out any historical documentation on historical structures. Ms. Schneider: So nobody uses the plat maps anymore? Mr. Hull: No, the plat maps are still being used; but we're transitioning into the GIS and it's (inaudible) Ms. Schneider: When I worked there I put all the historic properties on the plat maps, but still people could come in and get signed off and... Ms. Griffin: Stephen, did you have a question? Apri12, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 Mr. Long: I did, just a procedural clarification question. So when somebody comes in with a building permit, is part of the training in your review process, do you go on the real estate assessors records, push the TMK, and it shows you all the records of all the permits and when the house was built? Mr. Hull: It's ... I would say it's quantified as a uniform practice, but there are certain ... and it's just because not all ... the bulk of the permits we're looking at aren't alterations or demolitions. The bulk of the permits we're looking at are generally new construction. So they're not going into the real property on every single review and access. They are going in there should they be looking at an alteration. Is it happening as consistently as it should? No. To be quite honest, no. Mr. Long: But you have that kind of... Mr. Hull: We have that ability, but the GIS system, the way Myles has actually worked it himself, it's absolutely fantastic. You literally just click on the property ... and because you have to click on the property to see if there is any violation notices, to see what the zoning is, to see all this. And immediately, the first layer that was entered into there was the historical references. I think that's partly because Myles was doing the GIS stuff, and Myles was staffing this Commission, so it works out. We're not there a 100% yet because we do still have our guys pulling up that plat map, but we're getting close. Ms. Griffin: Is the old inventory being used still up front? I mean I know it's really dated, but anything that's on that inventory is definitely historic. It was then, it is now. Mr. Hull: Yeah, so the old inventory is what's being used by everybody, and essentially it's because that old inventory is what's been uploaded into the GIS system. Ms. Griffin: Does SHPD have any prognosis about when this fabled inventory is going to be ready for publication? Mr. Hull: Well that's the thing, we haven't even got back to them what the errors are. So without getting that back from them, we don't know how to fix it. Or even, ..and to speak bluntly, or even if it is fixable because we're not sure what their issues ... we know they have an issue with it, we don't know what issues. Ms. Santos: Did you guys pay them already? Are they paid? Mr. Hull: Yeah. Ms. Santos: Oh they got paid. Mr. Hull: Yeah, there's no. 1 . Ms. Santos: There's no retention or... April 2, 2015 KRPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 Mr. Hull: There's no way they're going to provide a final product without payment. Ms. Schneider: And who was it? Ms. Santos: But they didn't give a final... Mr. Hull: For the life of me, I can't remember the firm right now. Ms. Santos: But they didn't give a final product, right? Mr. Hull: They've given a final product. They are done with it and they're open to fixing it, but I think at a fee. So the Department has to look at it... Ms. Santos: Why can't we check it to see what the problem is? Mr. Jung: He's saying you can, you just got to go in (inaudible). Mr. Hull: And to tell you the truth, we looked at it and as we understood it, the Consultant has been working very closely with SHPD and that was the scoping framework that SHPD had kind of set up for them. So we didn't have a problem with it because SHPD had been working with them, and now the product comes in and SHPD turns around and says we've got a problem with it. And our response is okay, yeah officially it's our document. If you have a problem with it, and are not willing to accept it, how do we fix it? And to date we haven't been given a firm answer on how to fix the situation. Mr. Long: Who is the individual that you're talking to that won't respond? Mr. Hull: Oh no, they're responding. They're just... multiple people (inaudible). I don't know what the issues over there. I don't want to point and blame fingers. Mr. Lou: Over there? Oahu, over there? Mr. Hull: Yeah. Ms. Griffin: Thanks Kaaina. Anything else you've got to report to us? Mr. Hull: I think we're good. Re: Discussion of historic properties /structures located within the Mu`e area that are currently on the County of Kauai Historic Resource Inventory as possible candidates to be nominated to State Register of Historic Places and /or the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Griffin: Okay, then the C.2. is about the historic properties and the consideration of.. April 2, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 Mr. Hull: Oh, yeah, sorry, I can go into that, too. So we had originally planned to provide you folks with ... it's still open I think, and we kind of originally said to the Commission that if anybody had any individual properties they wanted us to begin to look at, and then ultimately the Staff would provide this body with up to three (3), or four (4), or five (5) properties to look at as possibly nominating to the register. After the last Commission Meeting, we found out that there's actually going to be a nomination training coming up on April 17th, which all of you have received. We all felt that it would be in our best interest and be prudent to perhaps first attend that training and see various strategies before we actually go public with some names. Ms. Schneider: Could I make a suggestion that maybe we should get a plat map and put out buildings on the plat map for Lihu`e, you know, and see where they exist and maybe even build a streetscape of those buildings, so that we can present something to the outside, to the public, because if they were aware of the historic nature, maybe they would treat them differently. Mr. Hull: Mmhmm. Ms. Griffin: Sounds great. Ms. Schneider: And you have all the background (inaudible) of Lihu`e. (Laughter in background) Ms. Griffin: That's a good idea to have a visual representation. How many of you all are going to be able to go to the workshop on the 17th9 (A.Schneider, S.Long, V.Wichman) Great, okay. Well then, we'll look forward to the May meeting to all be raring to go on the nominations. Ms. Schneider: Can I ask if you could provide us with the plat map of the Lthu`e Town area? So that we could... Mr. Hull: Yeah, definitely. Yeah, and I think at that time if in particularly, we haven't received any names from you folks, at that time we'll probably be recommending some names to begin to look at; or some sites I should say to begin to look at. Ms. Griffin: Great. Thanks. Anything else, any questions? Hearing none. Thank you Kaaina. COMMISSION EDUCATION There was no commission education. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS The next meeting date was scheduled on May 7, 2015. ADJOURNMENT Apti12, 2415 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, IoDarcie Agaran Commission Support Clerk Date: w a4 I ao JG