HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 1, 2015KAUAI 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
October 1, 2015 in the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B.
The following Commissioners were present: Chairperson Pat
Griffin,
Anne Schneider, Stephen
Long, Charlotte Hoomanawanui,
Victoria Wichman, and Larry
Chaffin
Jr.
The following Commissioners were absent: Althea Arinaga, David Helder, and Kuuleialoha
Santos.
The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Kaaina Hull, Shanlee
Jimenez; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi - Sayegusa; Office of Boards and Commissions —
Administrator Jay Furfaro, Support Clerk Darcie Agaran.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Ms. Griffin: If there are no objections as we move to approve the agenda, I would like to place
Items C.2., C.3., and C.4. at the end of the business today, rather than where they appear now.
With that, may I have a motion to approve the agenda?
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we approve the agenda.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Second.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Ms. Schneider moved and Mr. Chaffin seconded the motion. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries 6.0.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 6, 2015 MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Griffin: The Approval of the August 6, 2015 Meeting Minutes. Are there any corrections?
Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve?
Ms. Wichman: Move to approve.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Ms. Schneider: I second the motion.
Ms. Griffin: Ms. Wichman moved
(Unanimous voice vote) Opposed?
carries 6:0.
COMMUNICATIONS
and Ms.
Schneider
seconded
the motion. All
in favor?
Hearing
none, we accept the
minutes as written.
Motion
Re: Letter (9/8/15) from Ronald A. Sato, AICP, Senior Associate, HHF Planners
Regarding Environmental Reviews for Federally- Subsidized Public Hearing Projects
(County of Kaua`i); Section 106 Consultation — No Effect Determination — Hale
Hoolulu (Eld), TMK: 5- 2- 08 :56; Hale Hoonanea (Eld), TMK: 24- 03:17; Hale Nam
Kai O`Kea (Eld), TMK: 4 -6 -14 :105; Home Nani (Eld), TMK: 1 -6- 07:31; Kawailehua
(Federal), TMK: 2- 6- 04:58; Kekaha Haaheo, TMK: 1- 3 -08 :20 & 26.
Ms. Griffin: Item
B.1., a letter from
Ronald
Sato regarding environmental review for Federally -
Subsidized Public
Housing Projects;
Section
106 Consultation.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Where is that?
Ms. Griffin: It's at the end of the minutes, so it's ... let's call it half an inch in.
Is there anyone in the public who is here to testify on the Federally - Subsidized Public Housing
renovations? No. If there aren't comments at this point, may I have a motion to receive the
communication?
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we receive the communication.
Ms. Griffin: Ms. Schneider has moved and Ms. Wichman has seconded the motion to receive the
communication.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: From HHF Planners?
Ms. Griffin: Yes. Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed?
(None) The motion carries 6:0. Thank you.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Re: Letter (7/17/15) from Kimi Yuen, Senior Associate, PBR Hawaii & Associates, Inc.
informing the KHPRC of the Draft .Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Hi'ena State Park Master Plan that has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 343 of
the Hawaii Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 200.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Ms. Griffin: Item C.1., Unfinished Business. The letter from Kimi Yuen, Senior Associate at PBR
Hawaii & Associates informing the KHPRC of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Ha` ena State Park Master Plan. There is a memorandum in our packet, immediately after the HHF
Planners letter. Kaaina, would you like to tell us about this, please?
Deputy Director Kaaina Hull: Yes, just real briefly. During the last KHPRC meeting, essentially
the Ha`ena State Master Plan, the draft EIS, was being presented to you folks for your review and
comment. The ultimate summary that happened at the meeting was there were some concerns,
there were some statements, but overall there was a concern of having time to review the draft EIS
in which the Commission wanted additional time to review it on their own and submit comments
to the Department to essentially synthesize, and then get back to you folks for your review and
action.
So the comments that you have before you now are what the Department received. The
Department is in agreement with these comments and would recommend passage of, or adoption
of those comments to be sent to OEQC for their inclusion in these communications for the draft
EIS.
Ms. Griffin: And that's Office of Environmental Quality Control,
Mr. Hull: Correct. Sorry about that.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. There is the two -page response. Is there a motion to adopt?
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we adopt the comments as Kaaina has stated them.
Ms. Griffin: Second? Larry Chaffin seconded. Anne Schneider made the motion. Discussion?
Mr. Long: This is about the Ha`ena Beach Park?
Ms. Griffin: It's the State Park Plan, yes.
Mr. Long: Right. I have some comments.
Ms. Griffin: About the draft of the memo?
Mr. Lonjz: Not about the memo; about the plan itself.
Ms. Griffin: Okay.
Mr. Long: Is now an appropriate time for that?
Ms. Griffin: The motion has been made to adopt the comments as they were sent in to the Planning
Department from any of us who sent them in, and to adopt them as written. So we should deal
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 4
with whether or not to adopt these; that's the motion.
comments.
And then I will ask if there are other
If there are no comments, the motion has been made to adopt this memorandum as written. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Hearing none, they are adopted. Motion carries 6:0.
Along with the letter, are there other issues? Stephen?
Mr. Long: Oh, thank you. I did have some additional thoughts or questions or comments regarding
the Hd'ena Beach Park Plan. Is there a representative from the consultant or the State here?
Alan Carpenter: Yes.
Ms. Griffin: Mr. Carpenter, please identify yourself as well.
Mr. Carpenter: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Alan Carpenter, Division of State Parks.
So not to step backward, but if I may kind of give you a brief update on things that have happened
from our side since the last time we met.
We wem under the understanding that you folks were going to compile your comments and get it
to us by the deadline, which was September 8th. We held a public meeting on August 19th. It was
very well attended in Hanalei; over three hundred (300) people. It was a little contentious, and
many people at that time asked for additional time to digest the plan because it is a very
intimidating document as there is a lot in there and it's very complex. Subsequently we also
received a number of written comments asking for an extension. We have, in fact, granted that
extension to the public and we have a new date of October 9`b to accept formal public comments.
However, subsequent to that, we also met again with our Master Plan Advisory Committee and
the consensus after that meeting was there's enough dissention and confusion in the community
about the plan that the amount of time that we had given to digest it and the amount of time we
spent presenting the plan in a public forum was not adequate. We agreed collectively that was, in
fact, the case and that we would rather get this done right than get it done quickly. So we have
internally, we're not putting a halt to the OEQC process, but we are going to take more time to
engage with the community, have additional public outreach led by the Master Plan Advisory
Committee who feel ... they've invested so much in the plan that it's really their responsibility to
take it out, obviously with State Parks support. We envision that process is probably going to
allow for another six (6) months of discourse prior to taking the plan to the DLNR Board for
finalization, so there is time. I'm not saying hey, give yourselves six (6) more months and get
back to us, but we will continue to accept comments, particularly from agencies because of the
complexity and the length of the plan, and our own, sort of, misstep in taking it out at such a late
time. There was a lot of public interaction, but it was very early on and this has been like an eight -
year process, so we feel that it's only fair to the community to extend it at this time.
Ms. Griffin: Well thank you. You will be getting a memorandum from the Historic Preservation
Review Commission with our comments as it stands now. There are additional questions I think
that you have.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Mr. Long: Yes, thank you. At our last meeting with you, and thank you very much for being here,
I also understand that our responsibility is towards historical nature of comments, so I'm going to
keep myself to that subject.
Mr. Carpenter: Thank you.
Mr. Long: I had a question about the resources that were mauka of the highway. How are those
going to be handled and access to those?
Mr. Ca erp nter: That's a complicated issue because we have identified rock fall danger
immediately of the cliffs, which includes the highway and a little bit makai of the highway. To
back up a little bit, we originally envisioned taking jurisdiction of the highway from DOT, turning
it into an interpretive pedestrian corridor, which would highlight the caves and the other sites
mauka of the highway, as well as the loci to the makai side. We have pretty much committed,
through a collaborative process with the community, to moving people away from the rock fall
hazard, which is where that boardwalk trail comes in, in the plan, right. That trail is situated so
that it's beyond the 0% rock fall hazard line; that was not originally part of our intent. So there
will be no directed public access along the highway, which gives you the most direct views of, in
particular, the two (2) wet caves. However, those caves will be interpreted from this trail, so there
will be an interpretive waypoint along the way. In fact, there are a couple of advantages to the
boardwalk, and this was something proposed by the folks who are working the loci; not by us.
They direct people and they keep people in a single, sort of, file corridor away from the hazard
zone, but also you are kind of immersed ... this is both a plus and a minus...you're immersed in the
loci system. You are walking right through it, so you get the best view of that cultural landscape
because you're in the middle of it. But you also get a view of Makana, which is a very important
cultural peak that is over lined at the whole park with tremendous significance; a view that you
don't get when you're right up against the base of the cliffs and you're walking on that road. You
can't see it. So it's another thing, you get to see a little bit more of Hacena's cultural landscape as
you move. Now, we are not going to physically barrier anybody from walking down the road, but
you will have to do so at your own risk. I think due to our primary mission of keeping people safe,
we're not going to invite people to those caves.
Mr. Long: There are two (2) caves, the dry and the wet cave, down on the highway.
Mr. Carpenter: They are both wet; one (1) is higher than the other.
Mr. Long: Okay. And then up above, for decades we'd take the kids and go up, and there's this
cave up there where you can go into.
Mr. Carpenter: Right. Okay, yes, the dry cave is back at the County Park,
Mr. Long: About 35, 40 feet up. So that's the cave we'd take our kids to; put lifejackets on them,
take them through various caverns, which was fun.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 6
Mr. Carpenter: Yes. It is and a lot of people do it. Technically, it's not allowed, right; swimming
in the waters is not allowed, and we'll probably keep it that way. Again, that is right smack dab
in the middle of the rock fall hazard zone, so we are not going to invite people to go up there. You
know, it's a double -edged sword. You can go back and look at what we had to do with Kaliuwa` a,
Sacred Falls on Oahu, which is a very culturally important place to a lot of people, but the danger
is so great that we felt that we had a duty to literally keep people out, so nobody can go there today.
I don't know if it will come to that. I don't know if the risk in this area is of that magnitude. I
know the engineers who do the study; I think they do good work. I haven't read the rock fall
danger report cover to cover, and some of its just probability, so I can't say how great that risk is.
I know that when I go to places, I have a very, sort of, keen awareness of hazards now when I visit
places. I see things differently now that I've seen all of these hazards in our own parks. I always
use, sort of, the barometer of well, would I take my kids there? And I think I would. I would
probably take my kids up there. But that's not a ... you can't use my measure, right, so we have to
go with what the report says, and if it says there's a high risk of somebody being injured or killed,
we either have to mitigate that risk or move people out of the way. And that's, you know, we are
going to move them out of the way and simply not invite them in. There's not going to be people
chasing you up there and telling you to get out most likely, but staffing's a whole other issue.
I see you had a concern in here that the cost involved in implementing this is an issue. I think the
first one was, is this ever going to happen? Will this Master Plan ever be completed? The Master
Plan will be completed. Will it be fully implemented? I doubt it will ever be 100% implemented.
It will be implemented in phases as funding allows, and I think little things hopefully will help the
community realize that these are small changes that are for the good. We like to think that the
whole process is going to be a community -based adaptive management strategy. So the
community has been driving this from the beginning, but we have to accept it and we have to
accept the liability that our decisions bring. Anyway, I hope ... has that answered your question at
all?
Mr. Long: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Carpenter: Alright.
Mr. Long: During your last presentation to us, you mentioned something about no restrictions for
traditional gathering rights. I take that to mean if somebody in the neighborhood wants to go
fishing, they got their fishing pole, they can walk down the highway and go fishing. So what kind
of mechanisms are going to be in place to allow that to happen?
Mr. Carpenter: My guess is ... I think the easiest way for us to implement that would be to have a
Special Use Permit that people could get, probably annually. You come in, you give your
reasoning behind your cultural attachment, your reason to get there, and that would be your pass
for that year to get in. It wouldn't cost anything.
Mr. Long: '_ Okay. I know that you are going to have to restrict the number of people by about half.
We don't have the site plan up here, so what happens when somebody drives down to the end of
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 7
the road, and at what point are they told to turn around? I mean, is there a sign like the "Closed
Bridge" barrier that says "Ke`e Beach now full for the day "?
Mr. Carpenter: I think there are a number of ways that could happen, and I don't think we have
the answer. This is largely dependent ... the notion of setting a visitor limit, which is really breaking
new ground, not just here, but anywhere. I mean, there's no National Park that does that, currently.
We don't have a model to go on. All we know is there's too many people there now; too many
cars and too many people. And it's having a detrimental effect on the resource and visitor
experience. There are so many things that have to come together before we can even think about
implementing that. So we have to have the issue of enforcement outside of the park. A shuttle is
almost mandatory to be in operation if we are going to cut down the number of cars dramatically.
To answer your question, I don't know exactly how it will work. Whether it would be you have
to purchase an advanced ticket for any given day, or whether it would be all manifested right there
by a control point and staff in the park; probably a combination thereof. There's a lot of scenarios
envisioned in that plan, and I think that's part of the reason people are very concerned about it
because it looks like we're just throwing out all of these things to confuse people, but we are really
throwing out all of the these things because we are not sure which one is going to work. We want
to be able to implement and adapt as we go to make sure that if we mitigate all of the impacts in
the park, but create a whole bunch outside, that's not a success, right? So, we don't know, but it
probably will start with limited parking and no visitor limit; that will be the first step. And we
may implement a visitor limit without enforcement, and see how that works. I'm guessing it won't.
Actually, out -of -state visitors might comply; I don't think locals will. There's a big question of
local access, and we are hearing a ton about that. If we implement a visitor limit and we don't
have the ability to discriminate between local and visitor, there will be times when locals will not
be able to go. They will be turned around, too. We haven't figured that out yet. Although one
thing we're pretty sure we'll do is there will be a peak period during the day when this limit will
apply. Very early in the morning and late in the afternoon it won't, which means those who want
to go there early to fish, those who want to run down the trail, go surf at Hanakapi'ai, those who
want to come and watch the sunset at 6:45 will be able to come in, as long as there's parking place
available.
But again, to get back to your question, we don't have the perfect answer yet, but it's going to take
experimentation, and hopefully a solution can be reached.
Ms. Griffin: Do you have a date for the next public meeting?
Mr. Carpenter: We don't. We do not yet.
Mr. Long: My final thought ... and we don't have the site plan up here...
Mr. Carpenter: Do you want one?
Mr. Long: No.
Mr. Carpenter: Okay.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 8
Mr. Long: But my consideration is that there ought to be some kind of a turnaround in the site
plan; not a hammerhead, so people get there then it's the easy (inaudible).
Mr. Carpenter: There is a turnaround. There's a turnaround before you even enter the parking lot.
Mr. Long. Okay, that's all. Thank you.
Mr. Carpenter: Okay.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you so much. As the conversation and the plan potentially evolves, I assume
you'll come back and see us, and we may well generate a second memorandum to you.
Mr. Carpenter: We would be glad to. We want to keep you folks involved. A lot of people think
this plan was a done deal. I mean, one of the things was just the semantics for the fact that it was
called a "Final Draft ", but I mean, it's still a draft. We're still very open to modifying the plan,
and I think we've already made some concessions. The plan that you see, it'll change. Most likely
the development will be lessened. I can almost certainly say that, but we are going to hear more
from the public before we make the final decisions.
Ms. Griffin: Great. Thank you so much.
Mr. Carpenter: Okay, thank you.
NEW BUSINESS
Re: Class IV Zoning Permit Z4V- 2015 -41, Use Permit U- 2015 -40 and Variance Permit
V- 2015 -6 to allow installation and height variance for a 53 feet high stealth
telecommunications structure and associated equipment on a parcel located in Lihu`e,
situated at the Tip Top Motel/Cafe and Bakery site, further identified as 3173 Akahi Street,
Tax Map Key 3 -6406 :073, Lihu`e, Kauai.
Ms. Griffin: So moving into New Business. Item D.1., Class IV Zoning Permit and Use Permit
and Variance Permit to allow installation and height variance for a 53 -foot high stealth
telecommunications structure and associated equipment on a parcel located in Lihu`e, situated at
the Tip Top Motel /Cafe and Bakery site, further identified as 3173 Akahi Street.
Mr, Hull.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Thanks Pat. For the Commission, this is a unique review for you folks. The
structure itself is a new structure where it's going onto the Tip Top Cafe and Motel is actually not
a historic structure. It's close to it; it is forty -seven (47) years old. In a few years it will be part of
our inventory, but as of currently, it is not. To give you guys some background on why it is here
before you folks for your review, the application was before the Planning Commission back in
August. What Verizon was proposing to do is put a telecommunication tower there with the
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 9
antennas to meet customer demands, essentially. To take a few steps even further back, over the
past several years, there have been an increasingly large amount of applications concerning
telecommunication facilities. The vast majority of them have come to Kauai and the ones that
have received approval are in the Agricultural Zoning District. One of the biggest issues that
generally arises concerning these sites, because they are often high ... they average generally at 70
to 100 feet, some of them go up to 150/160 feet ... is the ability to stealth them because the
telecommunications tower can have this fairly industrial look, and it also breaches into the horizon
as impacts on the view plain. Over the past decade, the telecommunication industry has gotten
very used to the fact that on Kauai, stealthing of these sites is very important. I'd say roughly
90% of the sites have some type of stealthing capability. Because the majority of them are in the
Agricultural Zoning District, they are actually turned into what make them look like pine trees,
essentially. A handful has come into the urban area, and those that have generally stealth
themselves by going on an existing building of the necessary height and making like a full wall
around the antennas that does not interrupt the transmission of radio frequency (inaudible). As
demand for these sites increase, in particular because of data and the iPhone craze now, the
telecommunication companies are increasing the amount of sites that they need in the urban area.
When Verizon came with this application in Tip Top, the original proposal that they came with
was, and I believe Shan handed it out to you guys, it's one of the paper ones that we just handed
out today.
Ms. Schneider: The monopole?
Mr. Hull: Well actually the monopole is not what they originally proposed. I actually asked them
to provide that to see essentially what it would look like with a monopole at that site. Ten (10),
fifteen (15) years ago I think most applications that's what the Applicant would have proposed.
But the telecommunication industry, like I said, has gotten very used to the fact that on Kauai,
you have to kind of stealth in order to get review by Planning Commission. So they automatically
came in with a stealth proposal, which is the other handout you folks have, in which it kind of just
is that 55 -foot high tower essentially.
Ms. Schneider: Steeple?
Mr. Hull: Yes. When the Department saw that in the preliminary review with them, we had
actually informed them that they can submit that application, but given the protrusion in the
horizon, the impact of what the Department deemed as somewhat monolific, the Department would
probably be recommending denial on that application. So in looking at other strategies that have
been utilized in the urban form on the mainland, per se, is the use of either a water tank or a clock
tower is a fairly common strategy to stealth telecommunication facilities. In looking at that, we
kind of had asked what a clock tower would look like, and they came back with a rendering, which
you guys got in the original packet that was submitted to you guys last week. With that proposal,
the Department did feel that did, in fact, blend with the urban form of the Llhu`e Town Core. It
also served somewhat of a functional aesthetic in the sense that the clock would be functioning.
We took it to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. The Planning
Commission, on August 25h, approved the site for telecommunication; however, they had
concerns about the design. So ultimately, the Applicant has to return to them with a design
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 10
proposal that they feel is appropriate. Aesthetics is a very tricky subject to get into. If you have
seven (7) Commissioners, you are probably going to have seven (7) different opinions on what's
aesthetically appropriate. The Planning Commission actually referred this application to you folks
to see what your design review would be of the site within a historical context, keep in mind, but
that is why, essentially, you have been handed this application. It's not officially a historic site,
but the Planning Commission is requesting that you review the site and do a design evaluation and
possibly if you have a recommendation on one (1) of the options that the Applicant has given. So
essentially you have three (3) options that the Applicant has given to you folks, which
is ... technically you guys have five (5) options, actually. You've got the three (3) that were
previously transmitted to you; one (1) was...
Ms. Griffin: The clock tower, the silo, and the water tank.
Mr. Hull: The water tower. And then you also have these options, which were the original
proposal, as well as just straight going telecommunication tower. The Department still holds by
its recommendation to the Planning Commission that the clock tower is the most aesthetically
appropriate for this area. However, it's here for your review and your comment, essentially.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you very much. Are there questions of Kaaina? Is the Applicant here?
Mr. Hull: She is.
Kathy O'Connor- Phelps: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the rest of the Commission. I'm
Kathy O'Connor - Phelps. I'm a consultant for Verizon Wireless who will be the carrier at this
project. We are eager to get your input. We are willing to basically do any design to get it going
and get it approved. I will say that the owner's preference is the clock tower. He's not crazy about
the water tank and it's not good for co- location if you want to have another carrier utilize that site
as well. I think, Mr. Hull, didn't you say that it was called. the Times Square? He had looked in
some documents from way back when and it called it the Times Square of Lihu`e, so I think the
clock tower fits in just great with that. But if you have any questions, comments, kind of guide
the Commission, otherwise you are going to end up with a pineapple. (Laughter in background)
Mr. Hull: She says that jokingly, but there was a request, essentially, to entertain looking at a
possible pineapple design; a 50 -foot pineapple.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Yes. The landlord freaked.
Mr. Hull: To the Applicant's credit, she actually had their engineers take a look and see if that
was even feasible.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: We did. It was basically going to look like the water tank with the crown
on top of it, so it would not look right.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Are there questions of the Applicant? Larry?
October 10, 2015 KBPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 11
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: We have two (2) packets of drawings. Which one are you talking about?
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: The clock tower was the one that we revised based on Planning's
comments, so that they would support the project, that's what went before Planning Commission
in August. Planning Commission said hey, can you try a water tank, can you try maybe like a farm
silo, something like that? We said absolutely, we can adjust those, so you should have the silo, I
think we have a smokestack, which is basically the silo without a top, and then the water tank. If
you need copies, I have extra.
Ms. Wichman: There's just the one that's just bare, with just the antennas.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Is that the...? Yes. We are just showing a comparison. That's what a
monopole, like Mr. Hull said, that's you know a fifteen -year ago design, but that's what they used
to look like so they've come a long way. We are spending a lot of money to stealth the tower.
Ms. Schneider: Is this the final version of the tower?
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: The clock tower?
Ms. Schneider: Yes.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Yes. I mean, unless you guys have further comments and want something
added to it.
Ms. Schneider: I think a little more overhang on the roof might make it a little more aesthetic.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: A little more overhang?
Ms. Schneider: Yes,
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps: Okay.
Ms. Griffin: What are the dimensions? We did get some plans, but they were reduced down to 8
%2 by 11, which is always a challenge.
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps: Oh, okay. If you want a bigger one, I have one (1). I can pass it around,
but I can give you dimensions.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: It is 12 by 12. So essentially it'll be a 12 by 12. It's not going to be all
the way down to the ground. It'll have the four (4) posts, so he can still put his trash, ..he has a
trash thing underneath there, so he can still utilize that space. And then the antennas at the top,
behind, basically what it is, is a fiberglass that can shoot the signal through.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 12
Ms. Griffin: Other questions of the Applicant?
Mr. Long: I have a comment. Since I have an Whone, I'm in favor of more (inaudible) and
stealthing them. (Laughter in background) My comments, aesthetically, are I support Anne's
comment on more of an overhang.
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps.. Okay.
Mr. Long: I wonder if you even want to do a horizontal soffit with a split pitch.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Horizontal soffit.
Mr. Long: Horizontal soffit with a split pitch.
Ms. O' Connor - Phelps: Okay.
Mr. Long: Your guts of your equipment is all at the top.
Ms. O'Connor- Phelps: Right.
Mr. Long: So you really want a flattest roof as possible. So instead of coming down like this, one
could have a horizontal soffit and /or split pitch if possible within that same volume.
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps:. Okay.
Mr. Long: And the second thing is, in the interest of reducing the mass, since the guts of the
equipment are at the top, and there probably needs to be some circulation ladder going up the pole.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Yes, between antennas, has to maintain a certain space.
Mr. Long: I believe that, design -wise, one could reduce the mass by keeping the top 12 by 12,
which you need to house the equipment, but then you could reduce the base supporting that to
something like 8 by 8, which has precedence in other watch towers historically. They'll come up
and they'll have a little build out up at the top. So those are my comments.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: The only concern I have with the 8 by 8, and certainly we would do it, is
that if AT &T came in later on, they may be before you again to go back out because they have to
fit their antennas in, and I'm not sure what their configuration would be.
Mr. Hull: To give some background for that, so what you see with these sites, and particularly
because, ..not just because they're costly, but because they can be unsightly, the State of Hawaii
has an official policy, as well as the County, when they are able to do so that they allow for co-
location of their competitors on the same pole. So Verizon puts a pole up, they are required to
make it available for their competitors to put antennas at a lower level, as opposed to every single
competitor having their own sites, and therefore, reducing the amount of poles that are on Kauai
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 13
or throughout the State. The only issue ... I don't think that ... that could be part of the aesthetic
concern and that's essentially what we are looking at here today. The part of the concern that the
Commission may have with it is, you are no longer able to co- locate competitors on that pole. And
I say that in a very neutral manner in the sense that if that's what it takes to get this 50 -foot tower
aesthetically sited, then that's what it takes.
Mr. Long: If that doesn't work because of leasing considerations, one can reduce the mass by
additional horizontal bands or a difference in material where you had something at the base and
then something above; board and batten, and then stucco. I'm not asking to do any great
architecture, just ... you can break up the mass with different elements.
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps: Okay.
Mr. Hull: I think one (1) way that's possible, if say this body decides to move on the clock tower
and recommend it, that in going back to the design review with the Planning Commission, perhaps
the Applicant can have different variations, like you are saying Commissioner, one in which you
have additional horizontal lines or ones in which you actually are shrinking the mass to 8 feet
where appropriate.
Ms. Griffin: Are there other questions of the Applicant? I know that there are several different
types of receivers. The one presented here, is that the only one that's available for this particular
placement?
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: You mean, did we go to other owners?
Ms. Griffin: I'm sorry?
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Did we go to other property owners? Is that what you mean?
Ms. Griffin: No. I'm talking about what it looks like on top. There used to be different types of
transmitters, different sizes, and different looks.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Yeah, I mean, what's inside is typical of what it is today. They are 8 -foot
antennas; they are rather large.
Ms. Griffin: Okay.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: And then what we call "remote radio units" gives it a boost in signal, and
then surge suppressors, just in case there is a power surge.
Ms. Griffin: Any other comments? Is there anyone in the public who would like to testify?
Yes, come up Palmer.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 14
Palmer Hafdahl: If I may, I'm Palmer Hafdahl. I'm just sitting here as an interested community
member at the moment. The Lihu`e Town Core Plan has in it allowances for pedestrian access
from the neighborhoods on Elua Street and Akahi Street to the highway. It included options, one
(1) central on Elua Street and then heads up to two (2) connectors from Akahi to the highway. In
visiting the site, it was clear that this alignment through the center of Tip Top property happens to
line up with the Elua pedestrian pathway suggested. Because of another interest I have, I didn't
want to see the possibility of a pedestrian connection, at that point, being missed. Maybe not this
Board in terms of how it looks, but in terms of placement, maybe the suggestion that we allow that
it be placed so that at a term when there is a willing landowner on both sides that a connection can
be accomplished there; just looking forward from the planning standpoint. I appreciate hearing
that it actually is elevated above grade and it potentially allows greater access beneath them, but
it's just something that I'd like to encourage you to look at when it comes to the aesthetics. Maybe
not bringing it down to the ground is a good point, and the possibility of providing that connection.
It turns out that it may be a real principal place to make that much needed connection. Thank you.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Our Commission is always cautioned to be guided by the laws and
standards of historic preservation, and not our own personal taste. So I wanted to say that even
though Tip Top is not quite fifty (50) years old, Akahi and Elua Street are certainly eligible to be
historic districts. Our Town Core plan, which was adopted as an ordinance in 2010, I believe, talks
real specifically about mass and scale. All of these structures, including the clock tower, when
you talk about 12 by 12, that's probably about the ... this much table, and that's really big. I have
some pictures. This one you probably can't see, but this is a historic building. This is the first part
of the Civic Center that became historic almost a year ago. This is a historic building, the Kauai
Museum, and that utility pole has got to be 50 feet tall. Here's another, the light post in front. The
round building won't become historic for another two (2) years. This is the post that's directly
across the street from Tip Top; it's 50 feet. So I'm not convinced that the, let's be honest here's a
cell tower, isn't the best approach. That it's just what it is because I think when people go down
Akahi Street, they don't see these poles. They see the houses, they see the offices, and the same
is true if any of you who parked up on this side with the real tall lights. The Kauai Museum sees
this because they've always wondered why the lights go back across in front of their property and
then cross the street again, but again, we tend to see the museum; we don't see the utility poles.
So for me, looking at this district eligible street that seems like the least intrusive; the actual cell
tower itself, rather than these very large things. Also, it is a variance from the 30 -foot height limit
that is listed on Akahi and Elua Street. I did not attend that Planning Commission meeting and I
haven't seen the transcript of the discussion, but it does look to me like that's the least aggressive
kind of approach. I don't know. Any other comments?
Mr. Long: Yes. I'm picking up on what Pat is saying. There's another option that isn't presented
here, which is the cell tower with some fake metal branches; like up on Princeville, Hoku Heiau,
which is what you're talking about. I mean, you're just talking about the utilitarian bare pole, but
if it's really ... you don't see the telephone poles because you drive kind of like right by them and
you don't look out your window up 50 feet. This is a little bit more in the distance, so you are
seeing more of the silhouette, which is rectangular. Maybe there is another option, which is not to
hide it in a non - existing bell tower. In the city, they hide them in existing church steeples and that
kind of thing, which it already exists; it's hollow, that makes sense. Here you are building a really
October 10, 2015 KBPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 15
large object to disguise something that's really small. So in picking up on what Pat's saying,
maybe if we just disguise the silhouette of it, in the distance, make it kind of like a tree, or not like
a big watch tower.
Ms. Schneider: Or paint it blue like the sky. (Laughter in 7 background)
Mr. Long: That's a thought. Personally, aesthetically I'd have to take a look at both of them, but
I think they are both really valid; both are reasonable solutions.
Mr. Hull: If I could interject, too. These are discussions the Department has had with applicants
for at least the past fifteen (15) years now, as the person who has been in charge of telecoms for
the past several years. First and foremost, concerning the massing, I can understand the Chair's
concern with the fact that the clock tower... all of the other options have far more massing than the
pole as presented. What I think you guys also need to take in to consideration is the pole as
presented is more than likely not what the pole will morph into once co- location happens. The
reason the massing is that large is because the antenna massing is that large, so ultimately what
you could have here, because of co- location is you can see the top has all of those panel antennas
which are roughly going to be about 12 feet in diameter. They are going to have their walls right
around those antennas. There are going to be more coming down, and it's just going to have a feel
of a very large, massive antenna pole after co- location happens, so that's one (1) of our concerns.
And even above and beyond, I mean, the fight that we had with telecommunication carriers in the
beginning to get them to realize that they should be stealthing these sites was the sense, and we
would generally make the position that there's utility poles galore all around. They are exempted
from our review, but why should the utility poles be allowed to not have to stealth, and they are.
Our response is, what always has been and will remain to be, those utility poles do impact the view
plain. They have become, somewhat, background noise to the passenger in the car or the
pedestrian, but they kind of just fold into the landscape because we've just accepted them. But
when you do actually look at them individually, they do impact the view plain. And because
there's one (1) say unaesthetic structure does not legitimize you having the ability to now also put
something that's going to have an impact on the view plain. So that's generally where we stood
with these sites.
Concerning the monopine, because that has been, I'd say, the number one strategy for
telecommunication carriers on the island, and that's because the bulk of the sites are in the
Agricultural District and the monopine blends in with the agricultural area. The trees help mask
it and it becomes camouflage with the trees in and around it. A tree pole in an urban environment
would stand out a bit like a sore thumb; they really do. I mean, do they look like trees when you're
zipping by on the highway, yes, but when you actually stop and actually look at these things,
they're not quite the magnificent piece of artwork that one may think is going into these because
they do stand out. The only reason they don't stand out is because they've got generally fifty (50)
or sixty (60) trees around them. So that's just what I'll put in as the Department's two cents on
the review.
Ms.
Griffin:
Thank you.
Okay, so we
have some choices. We
can choose
not
to comment on
the
aesthetics, we can make
a choice with
one (1) of the presented
options, or
we
can potentially
ask
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 16
for another refined option, but we are responding to the Planning Commission's inability to decide
on the options that they were given.
Ms. Schneider: Kaaina, either way they're coming for a height variance?
Mr. Hull: Yes, they came in for the height variance. Essentially, the Planning Commission
approved the variance and approved the site. However, they wanted further input on the actual
design of the structure.
Ms. Schneider: So could we ask them to come back with some refinement of the clock version?
Mr. Hull: Given the Applicant's timeline, it'll ultimately be if you can come back, Kathy, is
essentially what I think they're asking.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: When do you ... you meet again in ... what are we in...
Ms. Griffin: First Thursday of each month.
Ms. O'Connor-Phelps: So of November? I mean, if that's what it's going to take to get you guys
to let us move forward, then certainly. I mean, would we like to go to Planning Commission and
be done and ready to submit it to Building Permits this year? Yes, we would obviously like that
option better, but.. .
Ms. Griffin: Well if I can have a motion then we can discuss and then come to a vote.
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we ask the Applicant to come back with some refinements
to the clock tower version.
Ms. Griffin: Is there a second? Hearing no second, that motion dies. May I have another motion?
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I have a question. You mentioned trees surrounding this. Are these trees that
you have planted or do they just happen to be there?
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: We've done both. We've done it where there's been trees that have been
existing, and then especially on the mainland in Southern California, a lot of palm trees. We do a
lot of monopalms, and we are told to plant trees around it. This property is way too small. We
would never be able to fit any landscaping. We're pretty tight as it is in there, and there's no. ..we
actually thought about a monopine knowing that Kauai liked monopines, and like Mr. Hull said,
I think it'll stick out too much. We'd love to do that; it's cheaper. (Laughter in background) My
client would be very happy if it was a monopole even, but like Mr. Hull said, the photo Sim is not
showing what could potentially be co- locators on that pole.
Ms. Griffin: If we cannot get a motion to go forward, then essentially we are not going to make a
comment. We will defer to whatever the Planning Commission decides. Is that the choice of the
Commissioners?
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 17
Mr. Long: I'll make a motion. I move that we support the owner's inclination to support the
stealthing of the cell tower in a clock tower construction, and that the mitigating elements on the
clock tower proposal as submitted would be to revise the roof profile, perhaps a split -pitch and/or
additional overhang, as well as reducing the mass of the tower with materials and other aesthetic
elements, and that the Applicant come back before us and present those revisions.
Ms. Griffin: Is there a second?
Ms. Schneider: I'll second the motion.
Ms. Griffin: Alright. It's been moved and seconded that we support the owner by accepting the
stealthing of the cell tower in the clock tower, mitigating the design to revise the roof profile,
perhaps with a double -pitch and longer overhang, and possibly reducing the mass on the post
section itself. Thank you.
Is there further discussion? Larry.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I
would like to
propose that we not tell them
exactly
what to do, but come back
to us with various
proposals, so
that they're not just limited to
this one
(1) discussion.
Ms. Griffin: Great, and it did say "possibly" with those suggestions. Is there other discussion?
Ms. Wichman: Yes. I'd like to mention that I think the point that Paul brought up about the
walkway, that's part of the Llhu`e Town Core Plan, I think that needs to be addressed so that it's
not excluded since that already is part of the 2010 plan, right?
Ms. Griffin: Would you like to amend the motion?
Ms. Wichman: I'd like to amend that. That the pedestrian connection should be included within
this plan.
Ms. Griffin: So Victoria is moving to amend the primary motion by incorporating the Town Core
Plan's pedestrian connection in the concept.
Mr. Hull: I'll just interject real briefly on that. I think you're within the purview of the
Commission to say it should be considered. However, also knowing the fact that (1) the Planning
Commission has already given approval to the site for a telecommunication facility and the actual
requirements say of an access way would be considered an exaction, which Jodi would have to
weigh in on, as far as whether you can do that after approval has been given, and then (2) that
actual corridor requires, not only the Tip Top landowner giving approval to say an easement or
handing the property over to the County, but as well as the abutting property owner as well, who
is not part of this application. I'm not saying that the sentiment shouldn't be in the motion, but
just to caution, as far as to keep it in the consideration realm.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 18
Ms. Wichman: Okay, so maybe I misunderstood. Was the corridor or the pedestrian connection
part of the plan?
Mr. Hull: It is part of the plan, but it also requires, essentially, either the willing landowners
convey that land to the County, or establish an easement, or that the County go in there and
condemn the lands for that corridor. It's a recommended connection to have, but in order for that
connection to be established, it takes one (1) of those three (3) scenarios.
Ms. Wichman: Okay, I understand. So it hasn't been approved?
Mr. Hull: Yes,
Ms. Griffin: Would you like to withdraw your motion? Or.. .
Ms. Wichman: I was under the assumption that the pedestrian corridor was already part of it, so
I'd still like to see that happen. Consideration?
Ms. Griffin. Would you restate the motion, please?
Ms. Wichman: My part of the motion? I would like to see consideration of a pedestrian connection
that goes through the Tip Top properties as planned in the L3hu`e Town Core Plan of 2010.
Ms. Griffin: Is there a second?
Ms. Schneider: I second the motion.
Ms. Griffin: It's seconded by Anne Schneider. So the amendment to the primary motion is that
consideration be given to future possibility of the pedestrian path crossing the property as shown
in the Llhu`e Town Core Urban Design Plan adopted in 20101
Ms. Wichman: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Griffin: Further discussion on the amendment? All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote)
Opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries 6:0.
Going back to the primary motion, is there further discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous voice
vote) Opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries 6:0 as well.
Ms. O'Connor - Phelps: Thank you.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you so much, Ms. O'Connor- Phelps.
Re: Garden Island Service Station, (Aloha Petroleum Ltd.)
TMK: 3 -6- 06:89, Lihu`e, Kauai
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 19
Zoning Permit Z -9846 for the Proposed Demolition of the Existing Shell Service
Station.
Ms. Griffin: Under New Business, Item D.2., Garden Island Service Station (Aloha Petroleum
Ltd.), Zoning Permit for the proposed demolition of the existing Shell Service Station.
Staff?
Mr. Hull: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. Concerning the demolition of the subject
service station, the Department has received the demolition application for the Shell Service
Station. The site is not on the National or State Historic Registry, however, it is a historic site, as
well as on the County of Kauai inventory. The profile that we gave to you folks is actually
inaccurate, and I'll hand out the accurate profile. I believe the profile we handed to you stated
1942, when in fact it's actually 1930, when the structure was constructed. It has proven through
our research to be one (1) of the prime architectural features here on Kauai concerning the roof in
particular, as well as the overall site, but the roof, in particular, has proven to have significant
historical and architectural significance. Actually, it was under consideration, I know, by this
body, as far as recommending movement on nominating it to the State Historic Register.
Ultimately, this is an application for you folks to begin discussions on. I think at this point, more
than likely the Department, at the end of those discussions, will be recommending a deferral. And
that is because it is a fairly complex process, and this is a very important building in the
Department's eyes. With that, I'll turn it over to Pat because I know she has definite insight to the
particular structure.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Are there questions of Kaaina?
Ms. Schneider: Kaaina, is there any way we can induce them to keep this building? Since it is
iconic.
Mr. Hull: Yes. There are two (2) options, essentially, when you're looking at regulations, right?
I mean, you're either going to use the stick or the carrot. The carrot being tax incentives and
encouragement from this Commission or from other bodies to encourage the landowner to realize
that they essentially have a gem within a rough right here that can be utilized for an array of
different things. If that doesn't work, to use the regulatory powers essentially is as to how far you
can actually deny a demolition, would lead to an interesting legal and philosophical debate, let's
say, but it's not that the Department is going to not necessarily go that far. The Department itself
feels that it is a very significant structure and is currently in the process ... I have a draft letter that
we are sending to the landowner; basically to highlight the site and say what a gem this place really
is. Do you realize you have this site? Its significance in Hawai`i's history, and perhaps you may
have other plans for it.
Ms. Schneider: Because we were thinking of having this walking tour on an app for L-ihu`e, and
that would certainly be one (1) of the highlights.
Mr. Hull: Definitely.
October 102 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 20
Ms. Schneider: I mean, it's like a Route 66 element that is here on Kauai.
Ms. Griffin: Is the Applicant here?
Mr. Hull: There's an interesting situation going on with that.
with the Applicant, but actually isn't authorized currently.
authorization to give official representation to this body, or
Applicant. I'm not sure if he might be willing to testify as a in
to this application; he may or may not. But officially, there is
today.
Palmer Hafdahl has been working
He doesn't have an actual legal
any other body, on behalf of the
ember of the public that has insight
no applicant present at the meeting
Ms. Griffin: Okay. Well, the next item is whether or not there is anyone in the public who would
like to come up and testify.
Mr. Hafdahl: Aloha. I'm Palmer Hafdahl and I just want to say I have worked with this applicant.
I submitted the application for them. I'm kind of their representative here on the island, and I met
with them this week and have had ongoing conversations with them. At this point, my last meeting
with them is they are happy enough to defer this a bit until they can get their ducks in a row as
well, but they'd certainly like to hear the impressions and concerns of the Kauai Historic
Preservation Review Committee and I'll take those notes back to them.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you.
Mr. Halfdahl: Oh, I did submit the historic review for them as well, so I understand the history of
it. On a personal note, my first trade was plastering and I always admired this building's roof as
it is done with what you calla scratch coat and plaster. It's the first (inaudible) you take at a three -
coat plaster job. It's a unique application. Whether it's historically significant for that, I don't
know. It's significant to one plasterer's son, but that's all. (Laughter in background)
Ms. Griffin: Thank you, Palmer. You all had in your packets, and I'm sure you've read the
information. There was a wealth of information about the history of the building, the exceedingly
important architect, and a little bit in absence, but the ownership. Does anyone have comments?
Mr. Long: I have a question. I noted that there's a demolition permit applied for, so has there
been any development plans submitted?
Mr. Hull: No. It just looks like, currently, it's just a straight demolition of the building. Our
understanding is that they are essentially having some maintenance issues with the building and
there isn't really any plan to necessarily replace the building, per se.
Ms. Griffin: Excuse me, but the letter from Palms Hawaii does say that the demolished structure
will be replaced by an iconic service station canopy and pumps assembly.
Mr. Hull: Yes, but as far as the canopy that is referenced in the letter, as well as the pumps, they
still plan to maintain, as we understand it, still maintain the site as a fuel station; however, an actual
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 21
enclosed structure, as we understand it, has not been proposed, nor have we even seen the plans or
received official plans and application for the new fueling station.
Ms. Schneider: Is there a deadline for you on the demolition permit? Or can you hold that until...?
Mr. Hull: Demolition pen-nits are done via the Building Permit route, which do not have timeline
requirements.
Ms. Griffin: Other questions /comments?
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I'm very concerned that we don't get into trying to design a project that we are
not qualified for. We don't have all of the information.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Other comments or questions?
Well Kaaina's right. I do have some things to say about this, and it relates to our kuleana; the
history of the place and our place. The State Historic Preservation Division. Have we heard from
them?
Mr. Hull: No, they haven't commented at this point. It has been referred to them, but they have
not commented yet.
Ms. Griffin: Okay. As part of the Architectural Division of SHPD, they say, in Hawaii, historic
places play an important role of tangibly linking the diverse modern population with Hawai`i's
unique history. They simultaneously serve as places of memory for those who have always lived
here, while educating newcomers about the island's collective history. Preservation is important;
not only is it a means to remember our past, but to inspire our future.
In what we do, we talk about places being historically significant. (1) If the building is historically
or architecturally significant in terms of its period, style, method of building, construction, or use
of indigenous materials. I'd like to suggest that this building absolutely fits that category. In the
late 20's and early 30's, as the automobile age, the automobile era, was really coming into its own.
Places around the Country really exhibited their own special locations by these service stations.
This particular station, the owner, who was the big political boss here at the time, Senator Charles
Rice, Charles Atwood Rice, Charlie Rice, and he owned that and they were looking at what we
now call plantation - style, double -pitch roof, the old Dickey roof that we know. The architect, Guy
Rothwell, who was one (1) of the designers of Honolulu City Hall, Honolulu Hale, and did a lot
of other buildings, thousands of them in Hawaii in his time, he said no, our heritage is Hawaiian.
This roof, looking like a thatched roof, is a way to represent that, and using moss rock. At the time
it was known as Koloa moss rock. They actually dyed the roof a yellow to look like straw, and
the island for the pumps, red pumps, they painted green. Some of you may remember Al Duvall,
and they hired him to actually do the landscaping with native palm trees, native vines, and things.
It's an architecturally significant building; there is not another one like it in the universe. (2) The
building is a significant reminder of the cultural or architectural history of the City, State, or
Nation. Yes. (3) The building is associated with the significant local state or national event, or
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 22
the building is associated with one (1) or more significant historic persons or events, or with the
broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the City, State, or Nation.
And definitely, this service station talks about the significance that was starting to happen with
transportation, which was the first thing. The automobile era is what got us out of our separate
kingdoms at the different plantations. This building represented that in our own local style. (4)
The building is one (1) of the few remaining examples of its period, style, or method of
construction. Yep. (5) The building is identified with the person who significantly contributed to
development of the City, State, or Nation. It was actually a territory then, but Senator Charles
Rice was absolutely significant in taking Kauai and Hawaii for all the time he was in the Senate,
and his work on the Statehood Commission twice, and what he was doing, so yes. (6) The building
is identified as the work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual work has
influenced the development of the City, State, or Nation. I told you a little about Guy Rothwell,
and Palmer Hafdahl has nicely included information, or SHPD, the State Historic Preservation
Division. (7) The building value is recognized for the quality of its architecture and it retains
sufficient elements showing its architectural significance. Yes. When we go past, there's that
unsightly, yellow, 18 -inch high belt around the roof that really mitigates the view of it, but it's still
there. The fact that there's been malign neglect of upkeep and maintenance does not take away
from that fact. (8) The building character is in a geographically definable area possessing a
significant concentration or continuity buildings united in past events or aesthetically by planner
physical development. That block, when you start right across here where you have the old Garden
Island Motors that we call it western, but commercial vernacular in Hawaii that faults front is
there you go up with the Garden Island Newspaper that's now Kauai Pasta, that's from the 20's,
and then the service station. Next to it, the year after, was built that Spanish mission -style
exuberant Lthu`e Theater, which was, at the time, really special; 800 seats they put in in 1930.
The place is really special and it is special that the choice was to represent our Hawaiian culture;
not simply the dominant plantation era. The National Parks, there's a preservation brief on the
preservation and reuse of historic gas stations. It says that historic features that contribute to the
character of a gas station should be preserved. A gas station structural form is of central
importance. The outward appearance of a historic gas station; its size, shape, massing, and scale
often reflected a particular locale. It gives the historic property its identity and contributes today
to a public understanding of when and why it was constructed. The roof's configuration pitch and
covering are also important, and it goes on. I mention all of that because we have a very historic
building in a historic neighborhood in Lihu`e, the County seat and heart of Kauai as we call it.
We also have the Lihu`e Town Core Urban Design Plan that stresses that the architectural and
building design guidelines serve to respect and reinforce the historic context of this neighborhood,
and they are talking about the Kuhio Highway neighborhood. They are intended to protect the
various architectural styles and character of existing buildings; that new buildings should be
designed to relate to the larger communities, streetscape, and neighborhood by striving to be
contextually integrated within the community. Under "Roofs," in this section, it says, new
construction or major renovation shall utilize roof shapes, materials, and colors which are
compatible with the existing traditional and historic architectural character of the area. I would
like to know, from you, if this building is destroyed, is it within the possible use to...because the
Town Core Plan says that a Use Permit has to be granted for gas stations. So if this building is
destroyed, will any new place be non - conforming with, ..if it's purposely demolished, will it be
non - conforming with the plan and our ordinance?
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 23
Mr. Hull: Under Chapter 8, which is the previous zoning ordinance for this area, if it's voluntarily
demolished, then I believe no. They would, therefore, have to obtain a Use Permit. But the Town
Core Plan overrides Chapter 8 on this, so there is a possibility that actually a Use Permit would be
required for any further development, or I should say, any further use of the site after it's been
removed from use during that time of demolition. There is a possibility that could go through the
Use Permit process; would be required I should say, but we would have to look into that further
and particularly, we would have to work with Jodi to get a legal analysis of the non - conforming
use being able to continue without a Use Permit. Or the flip side of that, the non - conforming use
being required to therefore have to get a Use Permit after demolition.
Ms. Schneider: It wouldn't be grandfathered in?
Mr. Hull: And that's what I'm saying. We have to check on that.
Ms. Schneider: Yes, because if they rebuild it within a year, usually it would be grandfathered.
Ms. Griffin: But they're not talking about rebuilding. They're talking about doing something else.
Mr. Hull: And that one (1) provision year you're speaking to, Commissioner Schneider, is
concerning acts of God, essentially. If the structure is destroyed by a storm, they have one (1) year
to construct it, but if they voluntarily raze the building, under that particular Code Section, they
cannot build it. But because the Town Core Plan is much more of a recent adoption, we would
have to clarify that, really.
Ms. Griffin: In that case, I suggest that we do defer until next month when we will have more
information; both about the possibilities for this site. Hopefully some possibilities for maintaining
this tremendously historic structure and possibly the Applicant here as well. If you agree, I would
entertain a motion to that effect.
Ms.
Schneider:
I make
a motion
that we
defer
until we hear something back from the Applicant
and
make some
pitch to
try to get
them to
keep
the building.
Ms. Wichman: I second.
Ms. Griffin: It's been moved and seconded that we defer until we hear something back from the
Applicant and can discuss with them the possibilities of keeping the building. Discussion?
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Yes. I'm concerned that the owner... that we're putting criteria on the owner that
may not be financially in his or her favor.
Ms. Griffin: Other discussion?
Ms. Schneider: Is that in our kuleana?
Ms. Griffin: No. We are here for historic preservation, not cost, but it's always important.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 24
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I think you have to consider that.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Other discussion? Hearing none.
Mr. Hull: If I could clarify for Commissioner Chaffin, too. Ultimately what goes on with review
at the Historic Preservation Conunission is the KHPRC serves in an advisory capacity, and would
serve in an advisory capacity to either the Planning Director if we're reviewing a Class I or over -
the- counter permit, or to the Planning Commission if we're reviewing a Use Permit or Class IV
Zoning Permit. That analysis does get taken into place particularly with some reviews at the
Planning Commission level where they do take into discretion, as long as it's not a variance that
you're talking about, but as far as exactions or requirements made upon applicants and the potential
over - exacting, if you will, on a particular application. So that type of review is done, but I'll also
defer to what Chair Griffin pointed out is that the purview of this Commission is really to look at
the historic qualities and the historical resources and whether or not things like preservation or
adaptation can be utilized. So I wouldn't worry too much about the financial side of it being that
there will be another review of it, be it at the Planning Commission level or be it at the Planning
Director's level, that you don't necessary have to worry about at this point. Just to, somewhat,
unlay that concern.
Ms. Griffin* Thank you for that explanation. Is there other discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) The motion carries 6 :0. Thank you, and we'll
look forward to your report next month.
Re: Letter (8/25/15) from J. Michael Will, P.E., Program Engineering Manager, US
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration requesting to be placed on
the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission agenda to discuss and review the
Wainiha Bridges No. 1, 2,3; Bridge 7 E; Kapa`a Stream Bridge; and Hanapepe River Bridge.
Ms. Griffin: Okay. Item D.3., New Business, letter from Michael Will, P.E., Program Engineering
Manager, US Department of Transportation, to discuss and review Wainiha Bridges No. 1, 2, and
3; Bridge 7 E; Kapa`a Stream Bridge; and Hanapepe River Bridge.
Staff, is there any...?
Mr. Hull: We don't have a report on these particular ones. I think they are not actually coming
for any zoning permits. This is disclosure before you for their 6E Review Process,
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Applicants?
Nicole Winterton: Hi. I'm Nicole Winterton. I'm the Environmental Manager from Federal
Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands. We planned to come before you last month, so
we have had some updated project planning, so we did update some presentations for you. We
figured you would appreciate the latest and greatest information, so we'll pass that out.
Ms. Griffin: Terrific.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 25
Ms. Winterton: I'll just go ahead and get started, if that's okay, while he's handing that out.
Ms. Griffin: Please.
Ms. Winterton: Like I said, I'm with the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands.
We are a division of Federal Highways that does planning, environmental compliance, design,
engineering, and construction management oversight of transportation projects. We typically work
in the Federal lands, within or access to Federal lands, such as National Parks and National Fish
and Wildlife Service Refuges. We've developed a partnership with the Hawaii Department of
Transportation. Over several years, we've partnered up on some infrastructure jobs here in
Hawaii, and have worked closely and developed a good relationship with HDOT; I'll abbreviate.
We've developed into a five -year Memorandum of Agreement to deliver a program of projects
with HDOT to help them deliver some critical infrastructure jobs, and also enter in a Peer -to -Peer
Partnership with both agencies learning from one another the delivery, programming of jobs, and
construction management of jobs. We have several projects on several different islands, but what
we are here to talk about are the projects that we have here on this island.
So the project that I thought that I'd start with, if it's okay with you all, is the Wainiha Bridges
Project. As part of this partnership, we have four (4) projects on this island. We've also partnered
with an A &E, Architectural and Engineering firm, to support us on delivery on a lot of the projects.
The Wainiha Bridges Project is a little bit unique, so I'll primarily talk about that project. CH2M
Hill is helping support the engineering and compliance for the other bridges on the island, so I'll
hand it over to Kathleen Chu, with CH2M Hill, after we talk about the Wainiha Bridges. We also
have representatives from Mason Architects and Cultural Surveys Hawaii, who are providing
support from the historic architecture side of things and the archaeological side of things, so if
questions come up, they are here to help (inaudible) their purview.
Ms. Griffin: Before you start, just so I'll know whether we can go through or not, is there anybody
that's in the public that's going to want to testify on any of these bridges?
Okay, then we'll just go through one to the other. Thank you.
Ms. Winterton: Okay, great. So I think going through the Wainiha Bridges Project, if you want
to just kind of run through the slides with me, I think I pretty much covered the role of FHWA in
this project. I really wanted to talk about that because I think you probably seen or heard from
projects that are federally funded and worked with the division where in those roles, traditionally,
HDOT is more the delivery agent for that project and FHWA acts as a Federal agency for the 106.
In this project, we are doing the actual design engineering, so we are the lead agency for Federal.
These are federally funded jobs, so they are subject to Federal compliance, so Section 106. They
are also State projects on the State route, so they're also, you know, with compliance for the State
laws as well.
A little bit of project background for the Wainiha Bridges. They have a pretty long background;
these are the bridges. We've actually been on this part of the island talking about it here tonight,
so Wainiha Bridges 1, 2, and 3, which are the last one -lane bridges on your way to Ha`ena on
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 26
Kuhi6 Highway, the north shore section. The original Bridges 1 and 3 were constructed in 1904.
The stream channel kind of carved a new path, and in 1931 we had a new bridge added. Tidal
storms damaged the bridges in '46 and '47, so then we had a new period of significance with new
bridges added in this timeframe between the 50's. Bridges 1 and 2 were replaced, and then we
had. ..oh, I'm sorry, we had all of the bridges replaced, and then in '66 we had the east span of
Bridge 3 replaced. So just a little bit of background. We have, kind of, two (2) periods of
significance with these bridges that were in this location. In 2004, the Bridge 2 ... so they go in
order, Bridge 1 is the eastern most bridge, and then 2 and 3 are two (2) bridges that operate
essentially as one (1) single -lane bridge, so just a little bit of background on that. These bridges
suffered damage from storms in 2004, and Bridge 2 was replaced. Under inspection in 2007, they
were in a pretty bad state of disrepair, so there was an emergency proclamation for the Governor
to replace the bridges. HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey) /HAER (Historic American
Engineering Record) was done at that time, and new prefabricated modular steel structures that we
refer to as Acrow bridges are in there now. That was placed as a temporary measure to secure
funding for the permanent replacement, and also to get through the compliance and engineering of
that.
If we go to the next slide, just a little bit of reference, this is Bridge 3. In the lower right -hand
corner, that's the existing bridge that's there now; that's the Acrow Bridge that we refer to. In the
upper left -hand corner, that's the 1950's structure, the historic bridge that was present before that
removal in the 2000's.
Central Federal Lands came into this project and there was a lot of background on it. What we
really tried to do is seek to understand. There's very strong interest in this project. We have a
significant road; the north shore section of Kuhi6 Highway is listed on the National Register, and
also on the State Register. Also, we knew coming into this that it was important to come up with
a context sensitive design, so Central Federal Lands really spent time meeting with the community
on the north shore, as well as the Hanalei Roads Committee to really understand what was
important, as far as the aesthetic, the natural, the cultural features, so that we could try and develop
the goals for the project. Through that process, and I think in the old presentation from last month,
I really kind of went through the issues that we've heard from the public. If you're interested, I'd
be happy to expand. But we heard a lot of different feedback on how the bridges are operating,
and developed a purpose and need -for the project. The primary purpose is essentially to provide
permanent replacement bridges for the temporary Acrow bridges that are out there. We also
identified opportunities to improve operations, manage the maintenance requirements, and also to
balance project improvements with the character of the historic roadway corridor. There are issues
with sight distance and visibility crossing the bridges. We heard that the rail spacing of the steel
bridges is difficult, and I've experienced it, too. It's difficult to see through and across. There are
maintenance concerns with vegetation overgrowth affecting site distance. When they had to put
those temporary bridges in, they also had to raise the grade of the road a little bit. So all different
factors that we identified. We identified a lot of opportunities. One (1) other important thing that
we also identified was the significance of the roadway, so it became a balancing act of evaluating
what our project transportation goals were, with also the context of the roadway, but also just the
aesthetic and natural values that are really important to the community. In kind of reviewing the
historic significance and some of those project goals and improvements, we really tried to step
October 105 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 27
forward a process, and this is where we really would like the Commission's feedback, and this is
what we presented. We had our most recent public meeting on September 151h. We've stepped
through an alternative evaluation process, and we're preparing an environmental assessment for
the project, and identified alternatives based on what we heard. We don't think that we are going
to carry forward for analysis and we'd like the Commission's feedback on that. And also on the
flip side, alternatives that we'd like to really move forward with analysis, so preliminary design
feedback as we move forward with that process.
Moving forward, we identified a lot of opportunities for developing of the alternatives based really
on the feedback that we heard and some of the engineering evaluation, which was the sight
distance, traffic calming considerations. We heard interest in narrow bridges to help slow the
traffic, accommodation of vehicle loads and navigation of emergency vehicles across and between
the bridges; we heard feedback on that. Maintenance requirements, the aesthetics compared to
historic roadway, historic alignment of the roadway, and then other design criteria and guidelines.
Whenever we build new infrastructure or work on infrastructure, we have to document anything
that we're doing that deviates from standards and guidelines.
Some of the opportunities, and this is through p
involved with the Hanalei Roads Committee, was
of the roadway and bridge profiles to improve the
like it was before, incorporating bridge rails that
temporary Acrow bridges to address some of that
alignment improvement between Bridges 2 and 3.
ast coordination with HDOT before we were
replacement of those Acrow bridges, lowering
sight distance to get it back to a little bit more
are shorter and more open than those on the
sight distance problem, and then a very minor
On the flip side, moving forward to the next slide, we did hear feedback on the challenges crossing
those one -lane bridges, so there were recommendations on replacing the Acrow bridges with two -
lane bridges so that you don't have that stop controlled traffic situation. We also looked at this
because this is the standard design recommendation that if you were coming at a project today
somewhere else in the world, this would be the recommended alternative for the type of roadway
we have and the traffic number. However, considering the historic context and the current roadway
operating and safety conditions, we're able to apply design exception to eliminate having to create
two -lane bridges. Currently, that's being evaluated as an alternative to dismiss from further
analysis, so we would certainly like feedback on that.
Ms. Schneider left the meeting at 4:37 p.m.
Ms. Winterton: Another option considered, which is always a consideration on a bridge project
because you're crossing a stream is to replace the bridges with one -lane bridges on a new
alignment. So that allows you the opportunity to build your new bridge, maintain traffic on your
existing bridge, and then switch the traffic and take out the bridge. Basically, it shortens your
construction period. We looked at that and it might provide some cost savings and time savings,
but it didn't really outweigh some of the other disadvantages from the alignment change, and it
didn't really offer design advantages. It's not like it was the ultimate improvement to make
everyone see across and between the bridges. At this point, we anticipate dismissing that
alternative from further evaluation.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 28
So really where we're left is replacing the Acrow bridges with new one -lane bridges on a similar
alignment, so that's closely matching the historic alignment with just a slight minor improvement
on the tweak and curve between Bridges 2 and 3. As I mentioned before, we will have to have a
design exception because typically one -lane bridges are usually only considered on very low -
volume roads, but based on the conditions, the engineering team felt that could be justified. And
as I mentioned before, lowering the profile of the road and the bridges to get it back more to the
historic conditions. Then, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, we do need
to carry forward the no action and no build alternative.
A lot of the feedback from the community was interest in width and design considerations, so we
looked at a lot of different factors, such as the Design Controlling Criteria; what recommendations
are for lane width, shoulder width. We considered functionality; how vehicles can get across the
bridges and between the bridges. Potential maintenance considerations for whichever bridges are
out there. Pedestrian and bicycle safety; we heard was important. Driver perception and
expectation; how they are able to operate on the roadway. And also the historic alignment
considerations. They were all kind of factors, and advantages and disadvantages of different
varying widths.
Ms. Schneider returned to the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
Ms. Winterton: What you see before you, and what I provided ahead of time with some of the
layouts provided for each of the three (3) bridges is, where our team is looking at, as far as
reviewing of DOT and Federal standards, what some of the conditions are out there, and that is
essentially a 14 -foot clear width. It's a precast concrete girder bridge. On the slide, I have some
of the lengths. So essentially you have, similar to the historic conditions, a single -span bridge for
Bridge 1, approximately 50 feet, single -span for Bridge 2, and then three -span approximately 178
feet for Bridge 3. There are the historic piers in the water, but they are not actually functioning
right now. The Acrow Bridge actually spans them, so for pennanent replacement bridges, we
would need piers to support that length of bridge.
Ms. Griffin: So you'd leave the old pier, but construct new ones? Is that what you're...?
Ms. Winterton: Actually, the recommendation is to ... because what we need to do is match the
hydraulics and the hydraulic opening with lowering the bridge, so the recommendation is to have
a three -span structure with two (2) piers in the water similar to how the historic bridges were, but
to put the new piers in and to remove the historic piers. So where exactly they would line up is
still being evaluated because obviously they can't put it right where the old ones are.
Ms. Schneider: What is the timeline for this? When would you be doing this?
Ms. Winterton: We aim to get through the environmental compliance process winter /early spring,
and then move towards completion of the design and securing the permits. It depends a lot on
funding priorities with the State, but we find that as soon as we get everything done and ready to
go, the money tends to appear.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 29
Ms. Schneider: What's the duration for doing this?
Ms. Winterton: Okay, so I include that a little bit later, but I should add that ... and I didn't
include...our memorandum agreement with all of these projects with HDOT is essentially to do
the full delivery and construction, and turn the facility back over to HDOT by 2018. So our goal
is to get all of the projects that we are working with completed in 2018. The construction approach
is a challenge on these projects, and I'll talk a little bit about that later, but the anticipated
timeframe, to be conservative, was two (2) years.
Ms. Schneider: And you're going to improve the sight lines for entry and exit of the bridge?
Because that's really the problem now.
Ms. Winterton: Yes. So that's the goal, to improve that, but I clarified to the extent possible
because there are constraints in this location, and that goes to that balancing act of improvements
while maintaining consistency with historic. Are there any questions on that?
On the following two (2) slides, I have a photo of the existing Bridges 2 and 3, and a rendering of
what we were thinking about for Bridges 2 and 3. Some of the feedback that we've heard, and I
would love the Commission's feedback as well, you know, is really the community has grown to
appreciate those 1950's bridges. From an engineering perspective, when you look at the type of
the rail spacing and some of the challenges with the sight distance, it actually does provide
opportunities for improvements with that type of rail design. With consideration of the design
standards, we always like to have crash - tested rail when we do improvements. So we have
identified a crash - tested rail that sort of plays off a little bit of the historic rail. It's a structural
steel tube rail, and this rail here it's called the Wisconsin Type. We went back and forth on vehicle
rail only versus vehicle combo rail, and landed on a vehicle rail, which is a little bit lower and part
of that is opportunities for that improvement to the sight distance. It's top - mounted, and max post
spacing is 6' -6 ", which is that max amount that you would want to put it towards to still meet the
crash -test standards. We'd probably seek to get close to that again because that visibility through
the bridge is problematic.
Construction strategies. As I mentioned, the anticipated duration of construction is two (2) years,
and it's depending on funding. Because these are bridges crossing the streams, it is a little bit hard,
so we are talking about evaluating site conditions and how we can maintain traffic, and it's shifting
the existing Acrow bridges, using them for construction, and shifting them makai to build the new
bridges on alignment, and accommodating emergency access through construction. But there
would have to be delays and very short-term closures for different milestones, such as moving the
bridges. Another challenge for construction is leading up to these bridges, the three (3) original
historic bridges crossing different streams, these are the Waioli, Waikoko, and Waipa Bridges,
these are load restricted, and construction vehicles and equipment tend to be heavy. So we have
evaluated this as a construction challenge, and the current recommendation is...because we do not
want to affect the historic integrity of those original bridges, is to provide temporary bridges
adjacent to or over so as to not touch the original bridges.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 30
I have here, the second to last slide here, Waioli ... the approach is evaluating the site conditions,
utilities, right -of -way, and opportunities of where these bridges could be placed under temporary
conditions would be...Waioli, mauka of the existing; Waipa, makai of the existing; and Waikoko
is a very short structure right on the coastline, and there we have an opportunity to actually go up
and over the existing bridge, so building behind on each side and going up and over because we
really don't want to negatively impact any historic structures.
The next steps are.. we really want to get feedback, continue the design process, and refine
engineering through different coordination with you all, the public, we're getting feedback from
the public, SHPD, and other interested parties, and prepare the analyses and the reports, and
prepare an Environmental Assessment.
Any questions? Comments?
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Yes. I would appreciate getting this package in advance. You reviewing it in
front of us is difficult for me.
Ms. Winterton: Okay. I apologize for that. I did provide a presentation in advance for the last
meeting; a lot of the information is similar. And we provided the drawings for each of the bridges.
So we actually ... in preparation for the public meeting, really took an extra step. We've done a lot
of coordination with HDOT to get to a comfort level. There is a pretty big deviation from what is
typically the recommended design approach, and so we were seeking to get feedback from the
public as well, and I just wanted to give the latest and greatest information. Feel free to absorb
this information. We'll take comments through the process, really.
Ms. Schneider: I appreciate that you've taken into consideration what those bridges looked like
originally.
Ms. Griffin: Other comments? Thank you. In a general way, it's for those of us who have dealt
with roads and bridges for twenty (20) years or more. Having context sensitive solutions roll right
off your tongue, you know, is music. To be talking about protecting the historic bridges, rather
than all of the reasons why it's too expensive, it can't be done, the people are going to fall through,
you know, height limitations, materials, but hearing the "can do" aspects is really a pleasure. I
must say that with the Hanalei Roads Committee that they are consulting and in agreement is a
really important component to this historical review. They know about the roads up there, and
bridges. Thank you.
So moving along to Hanapepe.
Kathleen Chu: Hello. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm Kathleen Chu with
CH2M Hill, and if you can switch to your next presentation packet. I'm going to talk about three
(3) bridges this evening; the Hanapepe River Bridge, the Kapa`a Stream Bridge, and Bridge No.
7E. I'll stop between each one so you guys can provide your comments on it.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 31
Ms. Chu: Again, thank you for allowing us to share this information with you and getting your
feedback. Moving on to Slide 2, the Hanapepe River Bridge is located on Kaumuali`i Highway.
It's State Route 50 at Mile Post 16.5 in Hanapepe. This bridge crosses Hanapepe River and it's
located between Hanapepe Road to the east and Puolo Road to the west.
On Slide 3, this is a map showing the areas of potential effect for this project. I believe you
received this in advance as well.
Again, just to share with you some of the project background on Slide 4, the existing bridge was
built in 1938, and it's a three -span reinforced concrete bridge. It measures 275 feet from the
backface -to- backface of the abutments, and has an out -to -out bridge width of 38 feet. Right now
it doesn't meet current roadway or bridge design standards. It does not meet any live load or
seismic requirements as well. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. In addition to the substandard load carrying criteria, it also has been
identified as scour critical. Recently, and I guess in the past, too, there's been inspection of the
existing timber piles. I'll go into more on the timber piles on Slide 5.
There's been inspection. The DOT does inspection on the bridges every two (2) years. In 2007
and 2008, the existing pier and abutment foundations were... inspection was performed by
Nagamine Okawa Engineers. In this inspection, this is where they first, I believe, noticed the
undermining at both of the pier foundations and one (1) of the abutment foundations. Just in those
two (2) years in 2009, they really noticed that some of the scour at these foundations has increased.
Also, one (1) of the remaining unseen timber piles, ..there's been a lot of rot or marine infestation.
They are not sure of the exact cause, but the timber piles, their load carrying capacity has
diminished greatly. More recently, the DOT asked KAI Hawaii structural engineers to go out
there after a heavy storm in 2012. They noticed that one (1) of the timber piles has completely
been disconnected with the concrete cap, and another one of the piles, 80% of its circumference
was gone. The timber piles that are below ground, the structure capacity of those cannot be
accessed because they are under water and in the ground. Right now, the DOT does monitor the
top of the pier elevations just to keep an eye on the bridge. Secondly, the bridge rail has
deteriorated and it does not meet current bridge standards. You can see from some of the pictures
that it is decaying. Okay?
So on Slide 6, I wanted to share with you some of the alternatives that are being considered; one
(1) is rehabilitation. As I mentioned earlier, the bridge is structurally deficient, and is scour critical,
and the timber piles are decaying, so it needs a new substructure. The bridge needs a new
foundation. There is no way we can maintain the existing foundation, so it does need a new
substructure. In regards to the superstructure of the bridge, it does need a new deck. The bridge
needs new bridge rails. It does need to be widened and it needs to be upgraded in regards to
seismic and load carrying capacity. So that's a pretty extensive rehabilitation. It's practically all
new bridge parts. The replacement is also one (1) of the options. And as Nicole mentioned, no
build is also a requirement, just through the NEPA process.
I'm going to expand a little bit more on the replacement option, which is on Page 7. This is the
alternative that the project team is leaning towards, just based on the information I shared with you
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 32
on the rehab option. One (1) of the goals is to design with as little change as possible. With the
bridge structure, we are looking at two (2) different types of, kind of, aesthetic alternatives. The
new substructure would be drilled shafts. It would have new pier foundations. It would be 308
feet long and 52 feet wide, so the 52 feet width allows for two (2) 12 -foot lanes, two (2) 8 -foot
shoulders, and the two (2) 5 -foot sidewalks. We would match the existing alignment and the
profile as much as possible. We are not planning any vertical changes. We are going to continue
to meet the 35 mile per hour posted speed limit, and there is no change in the 100 -year storm event,
so hydraulically it's still good. Right now there is an existing 12 -inch waterline, a 12 -inch sewer
line, and existing electrical and telecommunication lines on the bridge. Those would be
maintained as well. The construction strategy for the new bridge would be to place a temporary
bridge on the mauka side. The temporary bridge would be 28 feet wide to maintain two -way
traffic. We do know this is a very important route and it's important to maintain the two -way
traffic.
The next few slides show you just some visualizations and some pictures. The first on Slide 8,
this is a picture of the existing bridge. Then on Slide 9, this alternative shows a bridge that most
closely resembles the existing bridge. It has an arch fascia that resembles the arch on the bridge
now. Then Slide 10 shows the more traditional bridge structure that's also being considered, and
this is a straight girder. Okay.
We did have a public meeting on September 17'h. About thirty -five (35) members from the public
attended. The questions that they asked were primarily ensuring that the temporary bridge could
maintain access for their loads because there is a lot of concern with access to the landfill, and also
access to the Pacific Missile Range. They were in favor of a new structure that would address any
load carrying concerns as well.
In regards to the bridge rails and the end post, on Slide 11, on the west side of the bridge it appears
that the bridge end post has been rehabilitated in the past. The ends were altered by the installation
of a flushed concrete barrier which transitions into your traditional metal guardrails. On the east
side, one (1) of the end posts has also been rehabilitated, but on the south east end, the end post on
the makai side, the existing post there has been maintained; existing radius cavetto molding is still
there.
Slide 13 shows a rendering of our proposed bridge rail. Again, we had to look for a bridge rail
that would meet Federal Highways and the DOT crash -test standards, so this one here is a Texas
Balustrade. It would be 42 inches high to meet bridge rail standard height for bicyclists. It is the
same bridge rail that's out there on the Llhu`e Mill Bridge. This rendering here just shows you
how the end post transitions would look as well.
I'm here to answer any questions or get any of your feedback.
Ms. Griffin: Commissioners, questions?
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: On the alternate drawings you have, are there any estimated costs?
October 10, 2015 K14PRC Meeting Minutes
Page 33
Ms. Chu: Well the arch fascia is more expensive. I don't know the exact cost. There is another
handout, an 11 by 17, which shows you the Alternative 1 and the Alternative 2. Also, another 8
�/z by 11, which shows how the fascia would be put in place.
Ms. Griffin: Other questions? I have one (1) question. What is the current width of the bridge
did you say?
Ms. Chu: The current width is 38 feet, so I believe its two (2) 11 -foot lanes and the 5 -foot
sidewalks, that's existing.
Ms. Griffin: I know in Kaua`i's Land Transportation Plan there was a view to eventually expand
Kaumuali`i Highway all the way out. I'm wondering if this 52 feet wide ... tell me what the 16 feet
of shoulders is for, and additional 10 feet of sidewalks.
Ms. Chu: Well the 5 -foot sidewalk ... there's an existing 5 -foot sidewalk on both sides of the bridge
today, so we're putting back the existing sidewalk. The shoulder, it is primarily a safety. It's for
if vehicles get stuck, for vehicles to pull over. There is no intention with this project for this to
become an expansion of the two (2) lanes. I don't think the extension of a four -lane highway
extended that far west.
Ms. Griffin: Yet. (Laughter in background)
Ms. Chu: At least in the 20 -year long range plan. (Laughter in background)
Ms. Griffin: Okay. Also, on the railings, the existing bridge has a very interesting ... I don't
remember seeing another with this profile on Kauai; it's very 30's, deco -ish. It was not possible
to do anything similar to this that would still meet Federal Highway standards?
Ms. Chu: You know, we did work closely with Federal Highways to find a bridge railing that had
gone through crash testing that would most closely resemble the existing bridge rail. The Texas
Balustrade was the closest that we could find with an opening. I know the opening is not quite the
same.
Ms. Griffin: Yes. It's an arched opening rather than this.. .
Ms. Chu: Right, it's kind of a cross, yes. If we were to develop a new, ..this project would not be
able to develop a new bridge standard and have it go through all of the crash testing that's
necessary. So the Texas Balustrade is the one that most closely resembles this.
Ms. Griffin: Other questions?
Mr. Long: Well I have a comment about that response. On a number of our bridge projects, we've
been working with DOT. Is it Mike?
Ms. Griffin: Most likely it's Donald Smith.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 34
Mr. Long: Yes. So we've asked them to replicate various bridge railings, and they've been able
to do that. It appears to me that we have one (1) existing bridge railing and you went through some
books to try to get as close as possible because you wanted to find something that has already been
crash - tested; yet, wouldn't it be possible to take a look at the design so that we could get something
that replicated the existing?
Ms. Chu: I believe the bridge rails that the DOT have installed in place have been crash - tested; I
mean, that would be a requirement. They would not be able to install a bridge rail that had not
been, .well definitely none with Federal funding. It probably is one that they were able to find
that is extremely similar to the existing rail.
Mr. Long: But not ... sort of similar, but not really like it.
Ms. Chu: Right, I understand.
Mr. Long: So I would like to ask that DOT come back to us with a design of a railing that's
identical to the existing; a replication of the historical railing within the certain guidelines, which
we have been able to do in the past, rather than look in a book for a railing that has been crash -
tested that sort of looks like it.
Deputy County Attorney Higuchi- Sayema: I think these folks are here kind of to. ..through the
process under the Federal laws, under requirements, reviewing cultural and historic resources. I
would suggest that you folks make your comments, and then I'm not sure if...requiring the
return ... I'm not sure how that's going to affect your folks' processes or ... I mean, if that could be
accommodated.
Ms. Chu: Our primary goal tonight is to receive consultation and receive feedback. Some of the
next steps are...we are in the midst of doing our environmental documents. There is a goal to have
the environmental documents completed by the end of the year. There has been some preliminary
engineering that's been advanced; primarily just to determine what any impacts would be. We
hope to have a draft EA out by the end, but we are also consulting with SHPD, so I think the
process is going to...
Ms. Winterton: Yes. I mean, I can't speak to what it takes to create a totally new rail. I could
bring this, this is great input, and bring it back to our structural engineers to go and revisit, but I
know they went through a pretty robust exercise to evaluate crash- tested available rails. It is a
unique rail, and that's why it's hard to land on that close exact match. We can, again, revisit that,
and I don't know if it's an opportunity to create a brand new rail though because of the robust
process to get crash testing. With the infrastructure that we're providing and the speeds, I mean,
that's the goal to have something that meets the standards. So I think the exercise was pretty
robust, but we could definitely take that input, take it back, evaluate, and look at that. It sounds to
me like the feedback that I'm hearing is that aesthetics related to the existing rail is extremely
important to the Commission.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 35
Mr. Long: As I'look at it, you're designing a whole bridge, and we're just talking about the railing;
I mean, you have to design everything about that bridge. So to design a railing that passes crash -
test ought to be part of your exercise in as the way I look at it.
Ms. Nicole: Yes. I mean, I think that it's more complicated than that to go through, ..1 mean, they
go through years and years and years of crash testing through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. So I think there are certain parameters that they can, maybe, tweak when it still
meets the standards like I was talking about Wainiha and the spacing and stuff like that, so we
could take that feedback and provide it to the structural engineers and see what's possible.
Mr. Long: Yes. I mean, on a design level, art deco is rectilinear and this railing has an arch in it,
so you're actually taking away part of the cross section of the railing by introducing an arch. So
maybe there are certain parameters of railing and steel and volume that your designers could take
a look at?
Ms. Nicole: Okay, yes. That's good feedback.
Ms. Griffin: Other comments?
Okay, moving right along.
Ms. Chu: Okay. So the Kapa`a Stream Bridge on Slide 14. This one is located at Mile Post 9.8
on Kuhi6 Highway, State Route 56. It's on the east side of Kauai. This project also includes
improvements at Kuhi6 Highway and Mailihuna Road intersection, which is located
approximately 550 feet south of the bridge.
The next slide, Slide 15, shows the area of potential effect for this project.
On Slide 16, some of the project background. Kuhib Highway is a two -lane undivided highway
with existing lane widths of 12 feet and shoulders on either side of the bridge range between 4 to
8 feet. There is an existing deficient two -span bridge that was built in 1953. It's also classified as
being functionally obsolete. This one also has substandard load carrying capacity, and it doesn't
meet current seismic requirements. This bridge has also been identified as scour critical. On this
bridge, the condition and the capacity of the existing timber piles is unknown because it's
completely underground. This existing bridge is approximately 150 feet long and it is 38.5 feet
from out -to -out. Again, it doesn't meet the current width requirements, and the bridge railings and
approaches don't meet current crash test requirements. And the Kuhi6 Highway and Mailihuna
Road intersection is a three - legged stop control on Mailihuna Road. There is also this private
driveway that accesses it to the northwest. Just a little bit more about the intersection, which is
probably less of a focus for this Commission, but it does experience a lot of delay, and pedestrians
currently are not accommodated. In the past, there has been seven (7) accidents within the project
limits; none of theirs were fatal, but six (6) of them occurred directly from the people trying to
make the left turn movement from Mailihuna Road onto Kuhib Highway.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 36
So for the bridge, on Slide 17, the three (3) primary alternatives that are being considered are the
rehabilitation, the replacement, and the no build. Again, the existing deficient two -span bridge
was built in 1953 starting with the substructure. The current condition and capacity of the timber
piles that support the abutments and the center pier are unknown, so right now we just don't know
what the adequacy of the existing foundation is. To rehab it, we would have to do a pretty extensive
retrofit to the existing foundation to make this a viable option. For the superstructure, to
rehabilitate the existing bridge, we would need to widen it, we would need to take down the bridge
rails, and this would, again, be an extensive process to strengthen the girders and make it meet
seismic requirements, as well as the load carrying requirements. Again, we discuss the no build
option as it being a requirement, and then there's the replacement of the existing bridge.
Also on this bridge, with initial consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division, we had
met with Architectural Historian Jessica Puff and she recommended that no survey work was
needed for Kapa`a Stream Bridge. The bridge is not eligible for listing on the National or the
Hawaii Registers of Historic Places, but the final determination will be made by Federal
Highways,
On Slide 18, we share with you what is being proposed. Again, the replacement is where the
project team is heading. The new bridge structure would be a single -span concrete bridge, so we
would remove the need of a center pier, and this would help hydraulically with flow conditions in
the future. The new bridge would be 190 feet long with a deck width of 42.5 feet. This
bridge ... we're not putting back the sidewalk, we're putting back two (2) 12 -foot lanes and two (2)
8 -foot shoulders, so the bridge would be widened a total of 4 feet; that's 2 feet on each side.
Basically, the bridge railing would be 2 feet, 8 inches high. It would have a 10 -inch high metal
railing for bike safety, so that would bring it to a total of 42 inches. This also most closely
resembles the existing bridge rail. Again, the utilities would be maintained on the existing bridge.
In order to construct it, we would place a temporary bridge on the makai side, so this would be
between the existing bridge and the shared use path bridge.
Slide 19 is kind of the visual simulations of "Before" and "After" of what the bridge would look
like. We did have a public meeting on this bridge on September 18`1'. As you can imagine, most
of the focus was really on the intersection. We didn't have too many comments on the bridge.
Again, I'll just quickly go through the intersection. In relation to the intersection, on Slide 20, it
is to improve the traffic operations by trying to help reduce delays and improve pedestrian safety
at this intersection. For Mailihuna Road, the traffic does back up so it does have a level of service
of F.
Alternative 1 is a roundabout alternative, which would be a single -lane roundabout with a truck
apron. It would have splinter islands and marked sidewalks on each approach. The single -lane
would be 18 feet wide with an inscribed circle diameter of 130 feet. This roundabout would
alleviate congestion and reduce delay on Mailihuna Road, and it would also provide a yield control
on all legs. It does have a much larger footprint than the existing intersection, so this alternative
would require a lot more grading. It would require more retaining walls, and there would be more
encroachment in the undeveloped coastal area.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 37
The next alternative, on Slide 22, is your more traditional intersection with full traffic and
pedestrian signals, and crosswalks. This alternative would provide a new northbound left -turn
lane on Kuhio Highway for those going onto Mailihuna Road, and a southbound right -turn lane as
well. The northbound left -turn lane would provide' 180 feet of storage, and then the southbound
right -turn lane would provide 150 feet. So this alternative would include, again, the signal of the
marked crosswalks and lighting to improve conditions for your non - motorized modes.
That's it for Kapa`a Stream Bridge, and the Kuhio Highway and Mailihuna Road intersection. Do
you guys have any comments? Questions?
None? Okay,
Mr, Long: I have a comment.
Ms. Chu: Oh, okay.
Mr. Long: Where the new proposed railing for Hanapepe is similar to the existing, this one has
no resemblance to the existing at all, in my opinion; it's like nobody even tried. The existing is
somewhat art deco with bi- partake rectangular columns and a different rhythm in the railing, so I
don't see any similarity between "Before" and "After ", at all. It doesn't look like it was picked
out of a book; it looks like it was just poured concrete, the new railing. So it wasn't like somebody
said "oh gee, let's pick a railing that's similar to the existing ", they just designed a straight pour.
Ms. Chu: Okay.
Mr. Long: So it's the same comment.
Ms. Winterton: Okay. I think that's good feedback, and I can take it back, again, to our structural
engineers. I don't know if ... I think with this bridge it didn't have as much ... not to say that we
moved more towards that with Hanapepe-, but Hanapepe was a more historically significant
structure, and I think that effort was very robust whereas I think the aesthetics were integrated into
this, so I can bring that feedback back, but I don't think resembling or matching was identified as
a goal, so if that's feedback that you think should be considered.
Mr. Long: I'd like to identify it as a goal.
Ms. Winterton: Okay,
Ms. Schneider: Keeping the same rhythm as the old bridge.
Mr. Long: Yes.
Ms. Schneider: As opposed to this very even spacing that you have on the new bridge.
Mr. Long: I mean, you have historical architects in your group, yes?
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 38
Ms. Wintertbn: Yes,
Mr. Long, could you have that architect talk to that engineer? (Laughter in background)
Because this is clearly designed by that engineer.
Ms. Winterton: Yes, I mean, well we have Barbara here who can speak, so really we have the
meeting and the minds that come together.
Mr. Long: Are you the architect or the engineer?
Ms. Winterton: So I mean, I think it's that balance of when we have that historically significant
structure, there's the balance of striving to maintain or play off of the aesthetics, but we are not
trying to recreate history. I don't know if that was the primary goal on this job. I think it's more
of a sensitivity towards the community, and the appreciation for the structure that they are seeing.
Mr. Long: Well, the structure that you see when you drive across the bridge is the railing.
Ms. Winterton: Okay.
Mr. Long: That's all you see. You don't see the girders, you don't see the...
Ms. Winterton: We didn't get a whole lot of feedback on the rail itself, except for the visibility
out while you're driving.
Ms. Chu: Right, was to keep the bridge rail ... to not make the bridge rail too high as to maintain
some of the visual plains; the makai / mauka.
Mr. Long: Yes, I understand that. I would say that it's an architecturally significant feature on
this bridge. When was this built?
Ms. Winterton: Preliminary coordination is that it is built in 1952 or '53; Barbara could chime in.
Mr. Long: Okay, so it was built in the 50's.
Ms. Winterton: It's not viewed as eligible for the State, nor the National Register.
Mr. Long: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about it being architecturally and aesthetically
significant.
Barbara Shideler: If you believe it's architecturally...
Ms. Griffin: Can you identify yourself?
Ms. Shideler: Barbara Shideler with Mason Architects. It may very well be architecturally
significant to the community. In defense of the engineers and CFL, when we consulted with State
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 39
Historic Preservation Division, they said that they did not believe it was historically significant,
and in fact, it was removed from our scope of work. It's a common bridge type. It was identified
as not of historic consideration. I mean, that's why we've come to the local community, to consult
with you and get another voice on that. We hear that and it's something to take into consideration
as we go forward.
Mr. Long: Thank you.
Ms. Winterton: We can have the meeting of minds reassessed, and connect on the architecture
and the safety.
Mr. Long: Yes, because SHPD has their standards, and historically significant is different than
aesthetically significant. So I'm interested in the aesthetically significant aspect. Thank you.
Ms. Winterton: Okay, that's good feedback. Thank you.
Ms. Chu: Any other comments on the Kapa`a Stream Bridge?
Mr. Long left the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
Ms. Chu: So the last one is Bridge No. 7E. It's located on Kaumuali`i Highway on Route 50.
This one is near Mile Post 7. The route is classified as Rural Minor Arterial, and it's the primary
route from Lihu` e to the Koloa District. This bridge is just west of Maluhia Road.
Slide 24 shows, again, the area of potential effect for this project.
On Slide 25, just some of the project background. The purpose of this project is to improve Bridge
7E to maintain Kaumuali`i Highway's crossing of an unnamed stream and to, again, continue to
provide a safe and functional component of the regional transportation system. The existing bridge
was built in 1933 and again, the structure doesn't meet current live load, seismic, roadway widths,
railings, or other requirements. This bridge is a reinforced concrete box that has two (2) culvert
cells with wing wall abutments, and again, is structurally deficient. The bridge is 22 feet long and
the width is 32 feet wide. Through this bridge, the existing highway is 10 feet. There are two (2)
lanes that are 10 feet with 2 -foot shoulders on each side, and the posted speed limit is 50 miles per
hour.
Again, the project team looked at the rehabilitation, the replacement, and the no build alternatives.
Right now, the top slab of the box culvert does not meet the current live load requirements. The
bridge has also been paved over in the past. This would need to be strengthened, so if they
strengthen the top slab, they need to increase the slab thickness and they would have to put in
increasing reinforcement on the sides of the box, which may also affect the hydraulic capacity of
the box and overstress the existing piles. So again, rehabilitation can be very complex, and again,
the capacity of the existing piles is unknown as well. The project team moved forward into looking
at the replacement option, and then there is the no build option that also needs to be considered.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 40
Mr. Long returned to the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
On Slide 27, the proposed bridge is 24 feet long. We are looking at a single -cell box culvert, so
it'll be just a one (1) box culvert cell, versus two (2) cells. This will improve the hydraulic capacity.
It will be 44 feet wide, so this would allow for your two (2) 12 -foot lanes and 8 -foot shoulders,
and room for the bridge rails as well. We will put in crash - tested bridge rails. The intent is to
match the existing profile and alignment of the roadway, so there will be no changes vertically or
horizontally. We'll maintain the existing electrical and telecommunication lines.
The next slide shows you the "Before" and "After" of what it would look like. Right now, most
people don't realize they are going over a bridge. There is just guardrail and the bridge has been
paved over. So in the future, you will see your standard concrete barrier.
Any comments?
Ms. Griffin: Comments? I noticed on all of these the area of potential effect includes under the
bridges and some land. I know we have archaeology represented here, and none of that has been
discussed, but I'm wondering if there are areas in any of these bridges that we've discussed,
cultural archaeological sites that would have any kind of adverse effect.
Gerald Ida: Gerald Ida, Cultural Surveys Hawai i. Just speaking generally, no, there's nothing
really. At this point, we've done work on each of these bridges and we have submitted reports to
SHPD, but they haven't been totally reviewed yet; they are still in draft form. We have had a
meeting with SHPD to discuss the findings. We have done subsurface testing, as well as surface
surveys of the surrounding areas of the bridges. It's been my experience when you do things like
these bridges, because I've done a lot of bridges including Wailua, a lot of these places are pretty
messed up where there is an existing bridge. I would have not expected to find anything and
indeed we found very little. What cultural material, historical, and pre - contact artifacts we found
are not associated with any kind of intact cultural layer or historical layer; they are just messed up.
There are some artifactual material in there, but nothing you can really do any kind of analysis on.
Ms. Wichman: So mostly backfill? Is what it looks like?
Mr. Ida: Yes, because they messed the place up big time once they put in the abutments.
Ms. Griffin: So for the purpose of this Commission, we don't need to be concerned about that
aspect of the projects as they've been described.
Mr. Ida: Like I said, the ball is in SHPD's court right now. I can see where they might require us
to do potentially maybe just a little bit more subsurface work, but ... and there are some actual sites
in these areas, but they are really kind of marginal stuff like historic culverts and stuff like that.
Ms. Griffin: Culverts may become a big discussion at some point in the not too distant future.
Mr. Ida: I know. Hopefully I will be retired by then. (Laughter in background)
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 41
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Other questions of Gerald? I appreciate that. Thank you.
Other general questions for Kathleen or Nicole? No. We casually gave you comments as we went
along, so if there are no other questions, then may I have a motion to receive this information and
documentation as we have it?
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we receive this documentation as presented.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Second.
Ms. Griffin: Second, thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we receive the documentation
on the bridges. Discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? None. The motion
carries 6 :0. Thank you all very much for waiting so long, for being together with the presentation.
Ms. Winterton: Thank you.
Ms. Chu: Thank you. Thank you for your time.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Ms.
Griffin:
We skipped a couple of pieces, and they are
short.
The first is the Announcements
and
General
Business Matters. There is an announcement
about
the SHA Conference.
Victoria, do you want to tell us about...?
Ms. Wichman: I do. I'm one (1) of the co- Chairs for the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology
Annual Conference that's coming up October 91h, 10th, and I1th. We have invited the Planning
Department to come free of charge, so everybody here is invited. Mr. Furfaro, you are more than
welcome to come, please. Friday evening, starting at 5 o'clock, 5:00 until 8:00, we'll have the
Kauai Museum for the first hour; we'll have it all to ourselves. We are having a stewardship
award, Naki`ikeaho Stewardship Award, which will be presented to Hui Makaainana o Makana
out in Hd'ena. Our keynote speaker will be Mayor Carvalho, and he'll be speaking on his
preservation efforts on this island, which I thought that was very appropriate.
Ms. Griffin: So we need to listen to that.
Ms. Wichman: Please come. It's open to the public here at the Kauai Museum next Friday night
actually, and then on Saturday and Sunday at the Wailua...at Smith's Family Tropical Paradise
Luau Grounds, we'll be having our conference; it starts at 8 o'clock in the morning. We have
many papers. I know Saturday is kind of a bad time for Kauai because it's the same day as the
Queen Emmalani up in Kokee, but we do have a lot of interesting papers going on, on that day.
We also have conference papers going on, on Sunday, the l l th, and I tried to put most of our Kauai
papers on that morning, so the Kauai people that might've went up to the Queen Emmalani would
have an opportunity to hear papers from Kauai. As I mentioned, it's free for the County to come;
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 42
anybody in the County is welcome to come as our complimentary guest. We anticipate about a
hundred (100) archaeologists showing up for this. Very interesting papers; there are several papers
on Nu`alolo Kai. There are papers on Kauai Nui Kuapapa, which is the ahupua`a and moku
signage project here on the island; interesting papers. I could send to Shan our schedule -at -a-
glance. Mary Jane Naone and I are the organizers. We are still in the process of doing the last
minute T's and I's on our program, so that won't be ready until the conference, but I do have the
schedule -at -a- glance which we can pass around or email.
Ms. Griffin: It's online, isn't it?
Ms. Wichman: It is online. Our site is hawaiianarchaeology.org.
Ms. Griffin: Did everybody get this 2015 conference...? So at the bottom of it it shows the
hawaiianarchaeology.org.
Ms. Wichman: Yes, it should have the website on there. So that should have all of the updated
schedules as well. Food is included, so it's all good. There's a luau on Saturday night. You are
all welcome to come to that as well.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Wichman, just for clarification, do say KHPRC members that want to
attend, do they just show up and they'll be comped? . Or should they contact...?
Ms. Wichman: It would be nice if people would let me know, if they would RSVP because I need
a headcount for the food. So it's always good for me to know, and then I can have name tags that
show who your affiliation is as well. It's a really good opportunity for networking with
archaeologists. These are archaeologists that are from across the State of Hawaii, plus from New
Zealand, California, Ohio, New York, and Alaska, several different states as well. We also have
a workshop on Sunday afternoon on microfossils. It's kind of interesting. We have a professor
from New Zealand who's coming up to give a paper, and since he came we thought we'd ask him
to do one on microfossils and phytoliths, which has to do with plants, so it should be quite
interesting.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you so much. And thanks to you and our SHPD archaeologist, Mary Jane
Naone, they have really, from what I understand, have put this thing together and it should be a
really fine conference that all of us should be able to take advantage of. Thank you.
Ms. Wichman: We're looking forward to it. Thank you. And specifically, I'd really like to invite
you to the Mayor's keynote address on Friday night, and to honor Hui Maka`ainana o Makana. I
think they are very worthy of honoring at this time. The Mayor is such a dynamic speaker that I
think ... he's so enthusiastic about his preservation efforts that I'm looking forward to hearing him.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you.
Ms. Wichman: Thank you.
October 10, 2615 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Pagc 43
Ms. Griffin: Any other announcements and general business matters?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued)
Re: Report from investigative committee members (Permitted Interaction Group) to
discuss and explore strategies on informing the public and land owners on the State and
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Process and Incentives for placing historic
structures on to the National and State Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Griffin: Going on to C.Z., the report from the PIG to discuss and explore strategies on
informing the public. There is a printed report here at this point. One (1) of the two (2) possibilities
that was on the report that we made last month was the possibility of putting the Shell Station on
the National Register, so I just wanted to mention that.
There was also, and we read in the minutes, I think that we had been suggesting our little mini
education for this or next month, and that's why I was a little short, Larry, when you talked about
cost because one (1) of the opportunities we have ... there are tax incentives. Buildings built before
1936 that are on the National Register can get a 20% tax credit on rehabilitation. There are things
like that that if we know about, we will be able to discuss with applicants, people who come before
us, and to be able to get the information out. I'm hoping that, Mr. Hull, if you can arrange perhaps
if Ian Jung will come back and educate us on his time. Or we have some other expert who could
give us that training next month; I think would be beneficial for us all.
Was there anything else from our PIG that...?
Re: Report from investigative committee (Permitted Interaction Group) to discuss and
explore creating a Smart Phone Application to identify and highlight Historic properties on
Kauai.
Ms. Griffin: Then on C.3., report from the Permitted Interaction Group to discuss the Smart Phone
App.
Ms. Wichman: Nothing has been done, so I'd like to defer that. Kuulei and I have not gotten
together. We were supposed to be talking with the Kauai Nui Kuapapa, and that hasn't happened
as well.
Ms. Griffin: Okay, great.
Ms. Wichman: So defer it, please.
Ms. Griffin: If we can just continue that on the agenda for next month.
Re: Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government.
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 44
Ms. Griffin: And then the status of the Certified Local Government, CA. I guess the most
important question is, when are the applications due for the next round of Certified Local
Government funds?
Mr. Hull: It usually happens, I believe, in March. We'll double -check on that.
Ms. Griffin: So perhaps if you can have in your tickler file to put in maybe our December or
January agenda to start discussing possible projects. Inventory always comes up, but we do have
the possibility of National Register nominations that our PIG has discussed.
Mr. Hull: And on that topic, to use that as an agenda item to segue into the fact that concerning
the current inventory that we have or don't have, it's ultimately, and I think the Commission, you
are going to have to start wrestling with whether or not they want to do this, but ultimately there
are issues that both the Department and SHPD have with the inventory that was produced, and
perhaps that needs to be, essentially, pared down. Essentially what it looks like could be a
possibility for you guys to put on the back burner and start thinking about is that, to utilize this
body, essentially, to go through the list and establish an acceptable inventory, essentially. There
is a fair amount of work associated with that, and meetings could be a bit longer, but the inventory
list is one (1) of the most critical resources for this body and for the County, in terms of
preservation and that is probably the only avenue because it lends itself to public discourse and
transparency that would be acceptable, really.
Ms. Griffin: That's great. I think that if we can establish another PIG so that three (3) or four (4)
of us can do it, and then we can bring it back to the Commission and get it more efficient. So if
you will remind us or have it as an agenda item next month.
Anything else on the CLG? In that case, our next meeting will be next month, November 5t1i, and
hope to see you ... yes?
Mr. Long: I have a question and a thought.
Ms. Griffin: Yes.
Mr. Long: We came up with these four (4) neighborhoods to do a historic survey of We came
up with four (4) because that seemed like a reasonable amount of work for them, but we don't
know if Pakala will be included in that group because it's privately owned. My guess is that we
likely will not receive permission from the owner to do that survey there. In my discussions with
some of the Planning Staff, there was a concern that we didn't have enough neighborhoods on this
list. So my consideration is, do we want to put Hanapepe and Waimea, which were the other two
(2) communities that we discussed that we were going to be doing as a tier 2, phase 2, next year.
Do we want to put those on this list so that we don't end up with less work than we possibly could
have?
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. And that was in my anxiousness to get everybody out of here, I didn't
give enough attention to that part of the CLG. It was my understanding that Staff was going to
October 10, 2015 KHPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 45
compile the list of the several different areas that we discussed. Did that happen? Or did it just
go down to...?
Mr. Hull: As I understand, it just went to the four (4), but I have to double -check with Myles on
that.
Ms. Griffin: Okay.
Mr. Hull: But we should make a note to bring that back at the next KHPRC meeting.
Ms. Griffin: Okay. Yes, Myles did send a message saying that they are going to start doing their
field surveys in October and November, but we don't really know... And they will have students
as interns doing the inventorying and so forth, and the field surveys, and that they will let the
Planning Department know when they have a real schedule for here.
Mr. Long: In my conversation with Myles, he said that they are going to be relying on in -house
Staff, students, and volunteers to do this survey work. I'm a member of the public; I would like
to volunteer to be part of that team in that process.
Ms. Griffin: They specifically said that members of KHPRC are welcome to participate.
Mr. Hull: Okay. We'll have to look at that. I think having you as a volunteer would be wonderful,
but then we'd also have to look at your ability to actually vote on that item though. Inadvertently
you push yourself out of the decision - making process. because you may have to recuse yourself,
but Jodi can look into that.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Anything else on that agenda item?
SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (11/5/2015)
Ms. Griffin: Okay. Then the next meeting is set for November 5ffi, first Thursday. Is there a
motion to adjourn?
Ms. Schneider: I make a motion.
Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Second.
Ms. Griffin: Thank you. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Thank you. Thank you all for
taking the time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
October 10, 201$ K-HPRC Meeting Minutes
Page 46
Respectfully Submitted,
Darcie Agaran
Commission Support Clerk
Date: 01411