Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_0727_KHPRC_Minutes_ApprovedKAUA'I COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) was held on July 27, 2017 in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Victoria Wichman; Vice -Chair Deatri Nakea; Althea Arinaga; Larry Chaffin Jr.; James Guerber; and Anne Schneider. The following Commissioners were absent: Gerald Ida (excused); Stephen Long (excused) The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Myles Hironaka; Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull, Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney — Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa; Boards and Commissions Office Staff — Administrator Paula Morikami, Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Good afternoon Chair, members of the Commission. First order of the agenda is roll call. Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: Present. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chaffin. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Griffin, excuse me ... old list. Commissioner Long is excused. Commissioner Nakea. Ms. Nakea: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Schneider. Ms. Schneider: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ida is also excused. Commissioner Guerber. Mr. Guerber: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Wichman. Chair Wichman: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum Madame Chair. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the agenda. Chair Wichman: Everybody has had a chance to look at the agenda? Can I get a movement [sic]? Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we approve the agenda. Ms. Nakea.: Second. Chair Wichman: Any discussion? (None) Deatri or Anne? Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) The agenda is approved. Motion carried 6:0. APPROVAL OF THE NNE 22, 2017 MINUTES Mr. Hull: Next on the agenda is approval of the June 22, 2017 KHPRC minutes. Mr. Guerber: I move that we approve. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion to second. Chair Wichman: We have a motion and second. Commissioner Guerber and Commissioner Schneider made the second. Any discussion? (None) Time for a vote so all those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) So moved, thank you. Motion carried 6:0. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: This agenda item is for those members of the public that would like to testify on any of the agenda items if you so desire at this time. The Chair does allow for testimony to occur at the specific agenda item as well. If there is any members of the public that would like to testify in the beginning, now is the time to do so. Seeing none. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 29 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Mr. Hull: The Department has none at this time. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter (6/26/17) from Molly Ka`imi Summers, Hawaiian Studies, Kauai Community College requesting a letter support in support of the Pila Kikuchi Center, a center in which Pila's significant papers, documents, archaeological findings, and research materials will be housed and cared for, and made available as a resource for students, faculty, scholars, and community members. Mr. Hull: Second is the communications. If the Commission wants, the Department can read the letter for the record. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Is there a cost associated with it that would reflect on us? Mr. Hull: The request is strictly for a letter of support. They are doing fund raising efforts, but the request for this body is for a letter of support. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we send a letter of support for this application. Ms. Nakea.: I second. Mr. Hull: On that note, the Department would open it up to see if there is any individual Commission member that would like to take on the responsibility of drafting that. The only reason I'm offering that is because I know some of you may be familiar with Pila (Kikuchi), he was a former KHPRC member. The Department can also draft that as well and provide it for you at the next meeting. I just wanted to open it up in case anybody in particular wanted to spearhead those efforts. Chair Wichman: Any volunteers? Ms. Schneider: I'll volunteer if you really need someone. I remember Pila. Mr. Hull: No, it was only if you really wanted to, but the Department would have no problem doing it on our own as well. Chair Wichman: Is there someone from the audience that wanted to speak on this? Okay, thank you. So we've had a motion to accept the support for the letter for Pila Kikuchi for the new center, the Pila Kikuchi Center. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) So move. Motion carried 6:0. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 29 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government (CLG). Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is the discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. The Department is trans ... well, as can be seen there is no individual from State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) here today and it has been previously stated the Department doesn't anticipate any further attendance in the near future just given the lack of resources that department has. At the last meeting the Commission did take action to send a letter to SHPD to officially request their presence to discuss the CLG program in the future, and so we will be transmitting that letter shortly. On a side note, for the Certified Local Government program itself, I can state that last year the KHPRC did take action to apply for CLG funds for the nomination of the historic Hanapepe Bridge to the State and National Regis....excuse me, just the State Register. The Department was awarded that CLG grant about 3-months ago, so we've gone through the process of doing the paperwork and the final stages of procurement to award that contract. Given the CLG's strict timeline the project has to be complete by September 30th. We anticipate hopefully securing the contract within the next few weeks so that the contract will have about a month to get the paperwork together and then submit it to the State Historic Preservation Review Commission. It's something this Commission has eagerly watched and members of the public from Hanapepe have been very proud to be a part of. We can say that it's almost at the finish line, but not quite there yet and this is an update. Lastly an announcement. The Department has been discussing with the body for a couple years now the desire to have an on staff person for you, to provide further guidance above and beyond me and Myles (Hironaka) fumbling. We did go out, as many of you are aware, for a position specifically for a preservation planner and ultimately did not receive any qualified applicants after being out on publication for approximately a year. Subsequent to that we have hired another individual within the Department's Long Range Division and that individual is also going to be part-time staffing this Commission. He will be your resource for guidance into the applications as they come before you. In the other commissions of the Planning Department services you have the Open Space Commission and the Planning Commission. Each of those commissions have a dedicated staff to them. You have been the last Commission that the Department serves that does not have a dedicated staff, but now we've got one. Our intent is, essentially if you look at your agenda item today, the way it's been operating since its inception was there's an agenda item, you have the proposal from the applicant before you, and discussion happens. Essentially with this body and quite frankly we rely on sometimes State Historic Preservation Division staff or expertise of Commissioners themselves to guide the discussion. Now that we have a dedicated staff member, we intend to have a report generated from the Department on each one of these applications that will do a historic preservation analysis. It will essentially help you. The Department does acknowledge that we are kind of untethered out here, we sometimes go into deep space 9. Essentially the way Planning Commission has a staff report for every single project that comes before it, you now and not necessarily the next meeting, we're working with this individual to get the program together for your reports. In the next few meetings we do anticipate all the agenda items having a staff report, with ultimately recommendations to you. You will have the final say in the action this body takes, but the staff reports will work as a measure to guide the discussions and keep in line with historic preservation. Without further ado, I just want to introduce you to Alex Wong, who is sitting with July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 29 Marie Williams. Alex if you want to come up. Alex is our newest member within the Long Range Division. He's been with the department for about a year working within our Special Management Area program. He has since transferred over to the Long Range Division for which part of his duties and responsibilities will be servicing this Commission. Alex, I don't know if you have a few words. Planning Department Alex Wong: Aloha mai kakou. My name is Alex Wong. As Ka`aina said I did start out in regulatory. My main responsibilities included going over permit applications that were in SMA (Special Management Area) and coastal areas. I think having that background was a good primer to coming to this current job doing historic in addition to long range planning. If you'd like I could give a little bit of information about my academic background. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Briefly. Mr. Wong: I was a double major at UC (University of California) Berkeley and graduated in 2010. One degree was in political economics, same as Deputy Director, and my second degree was in anthropology with a focus on bioarcheology. I must admit I'm not well versed in historical architecture, but if it comes to bones and human remains especially in the forensic context that's where my specialty is. However, I'm also currently working on a master's degree in GIS Geographic Information Systems and my first foray into that field was through archaeology. I worked as an archaeological technician for the forest service in eastern Nevada in a little town called Ely. That was my first introduction to National Register standards and requirements. I do have introductory level experience in terms of dealing with things that can be nominated for the National Register through that job. Chair Wichman: Thank you. Sounds like you have a lot more experience than you're admitting. Mr. Wong: Are there any other questions I can answer about myself. Chair Wichman: Any questions? (None) Welcome onboard, we're happy to have you. Mr. Wong: I'll try and work on a template with Ka`aina and Myles so that we can get a system going for how we go about the recommendations. Chair Wichman: That would be very useful for our Commission. I appreciate that, thank you. Mr. Wong: Aloha. Mr. Hull: The last issue on the Certified Local Government. At the last meeting there were a couple documents that were requested, two meetings before. One of them was the Historic Preservation Review Commission roster with specific and areas of expertise each individual sits or capacity sits in, so you have that before you today. The other information that was requested, I'll circulate this a little bit later on the agenda, was a list of training and seminars. We will circulate that during the PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) educational committee section. The last one requested was a book for preservation that each Commissioner could work specifically off of. The Department is still trying to essentially create that book and we haven't come across July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 29 one book that just is the bible so to speak that everyone can refer to. There are an array of different things, when it comes to the fact that you have not just the Kauai County Code that formulates this body and gives you design review standards, but you also have HRS 6E which has their components as the National Preservation Act and the Secretary of Interior Standards. Within that you have all these different design criteria's for roofs, for windows, for an array of different things. When you have your orientation there's a large binder we give you that has multiple resources in it and the Department understands and is sympathetic to the fact that it's a lot of information and we're trying to see if we can synthesis it down to something a little more simplistic that is a little more accessible, readily accessible. We won't have it at the next meeting but we do anticipate myself, Alex and hopefully working a little bit more with SHPD on getting some type of package together for you that is easier and readily accessible. That's where that stands and that would be all for the discussion of CLG. Chair Wichman: Thank you Ka'aina. NEW BUSINESS 1. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Kuhi6 Highway Resurfacing, Kapuna Road to Wailapa Road Hanalei District, Island of Kauai, Ahupuaa of Waiakalua, Pila`a and Waipake, Project No. 56C-02-15M Tax Map Keys: (4)5-1-002, 004, 005, and 006 Chair Wichman: Do we have someone from the public to present? Mr. Hull: My apologies, the note that was just given to me was that Larry Dill from DOT (Department of Transportation) is running a bit late. If we could perhaps.... Chair Wichman: Is he still here? Unidentified Speaker: He went to the car, he'll be right in. Mr. Hull: I guess we could table this. Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa: Just move it to the end of the agenda or directly after Kapaia Bridge. Technically we need a motion and a second. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I'll make that motion. Chair Wichman: There's a motion to move I.1. to the end of New Business. Ms. Arinaga: I'll second. Chair Wichman: Second by Commissioner Arinaga. Any discussion? (None) He's here right now and we haven't voted on this. There's a motion on the floor. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 29 Mr. Hull: Withdraw the motion. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I'll withdraw that motion. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Withdraw the second. Ms. Arinaga: I'll withdraw the second. Chair Wichman: Ms. Arinaga withdrew her second. Welcome Mr. Dill. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, good to be here. Mr. Hull: So Larry, since you walked in the door the agenda item, the bulk of DOT discussion, is going to focus on the Kapaia Bridge replacement. But you also have a request for input from KHPRC concerning the Section 106 consultation for the Pila`a and Waipake Road resurfacing project. Department of Transportation Larry Dill: Correct. I didn't prepare to speak myself to speak on these projects and saw them on the agenda as I was getting ready for the other. I can describe to you, this project is one of our very standard resurfacing projects. We go in, mill out the top inch and a half of the existing asphalt and we replace it. All the work happens within the right-of- way. We'll go in and mill out the top surface of the asphalt; we put it back with a new asphalt course on top of that; replace the pavement markings; put in rumble strips; and clean the drains and replace signs that need to be replaced. This is a pretty standard run of the mill project for us. Everything happens within the existing right-of-way, within the area that has already been disturbed. We come to solicit your input for these projects as part of our process. Ms. Schneider: It needs to be done, I just drove over there. Mr. Dill: It needs to be done, I agree. Chair Wichman: And there will be no widening of the road, it's just completely the exact same track, right? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Wichman: Did you have a presentation for this? Mr. Dill: Not for this one. That was my presentation. Chair Wichman: Oh, okay. Mr. Hull: For the Commission's own edification DOT is required to come before you on the (Section) 106 process because the project has federal funds attached to it. Essentially what they're doing is resurfacing the existing roadway, not expanding beyond it. In their consultation research work process they have not found any historic or archaeological sites within the existing July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 29 paved area. The question that remains before you as Commissioners, are you aware of any archaeological or historical sites that since their previous work in this road area have been found? The Department is not aware of any but it's part of the consultation process. Ms. Schneider: It's just within the Waipake subdivision, there was, but they're not going outside of the road. Mr. Guerber: So let me move that we approve this. Chair Wichman: Commissioner Guerber has moved that we receive. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: It was approved but it could just be a receiving unless you have any comments or anything else to contribute to the project. Mr. Guerber: Receive or approve, I'll move that we do one of those. Ms. Schneider: I'll second. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: So maybe just clarify.... Mr. Guerber: Receive. Chair Wichman: We have a receive from Commissioner Guerber and a second from Commissioner Schneider. Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) So moved. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Dill: Thank you. I would point out that our last paragraph says that we would appreciate a written response. If you can get us one for our file that would be terrific to close the loop on this. Thank you. 2. Kuhio Highway, Replacement of Hanama`ulu (Kapaia) Stream Bridge Federal -Aid Project No. BR-056-1(48) Continuation of the consultation process pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (2006). Mr. Hull: The applicant is again Larry Dill and I believe they have a presentation. Mr. Dill: Yes I do. Good afternoon Commissioners, again thank you for your time. My name again is Larry Dill, for the record I'm the District Engineer of the Kauai District State Highways of the Hawaii Department of Transportation. Also with me today are consultants from Cultural Surveys Hawaii and Wilson Okamoto (Corporation). If there's any technical questions that I need their assistance they're here and available to answer any questions you may have. We were here before you in 2015. 1 think at the time our project was at a very early stage and we were basically introducing you to the project. We're back here now with the request of the July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 29 Commission as part of the (Section) 106 process to give you an update and tell you about where we are with the project. Mr. Dill presented a power point presentation to the Commission. In a nutshell the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the existing Kapaia Bridge in Kapaia, in Hanama`ulu. The bridge is located on Kuhi6 Highway in the Kapaia, Hanama`ulu area. According to the Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory & Evaluation, which was completed in November 2013, the bridge is eligible but not listed on the National or Hawaii Register's. The bridge does perform an important transportation link to and from the greater Lihu`e region carrying approximately 17,000 vehicles per day. Here's our location map to show you where that bridge is down in the valley. It expands Kapaia Stream down there under Kuhi6 Highway as the highway curves and you can see the curve in the highway. A little background. We did have a community meeting back in July of 2015 to review and discuss some design alternatives and made an initial presentation to this body at its August 6, 2015 meeting. As I mentioned we probably gave some general information. You may recall a fellow with a strong Kentucky accent, Mr. John Smith. He gave the presentation and he is now employed out of our Hawaii district office on the Big Island, still serving the DOT but over there at the other end of the island chain. At that time my understanding is the Commission requested the DOT return at a future date as more information on the project becomes available and here we are today. Also there was some early consultation done for the draft EA (Environmental Assessment) and that was done in late 2016. The draft EA was prepared following a public review and comment period at a second community meeting held in February, earlier this year. We published the final Environmental Assessment in April 23, 2017 incorporating all the comments that we received from the (inaudible) the draft Environmental Assessment. The Section 106 process is referred to earlier as relating to the National Historic Preservation Act is still in progress and for that reason we are today here seeking input from the KHPRC regarding the bridge project based on the updated information we have to present to you today. The existing bridge that's out there, the Kapaia Bridge is a three -span concrete bridge constructed in 1933. The bridge is approximately 30 feet wide and it's about 157 feet long as the alignment curves over the Hanamd'ulu River and it's also referred to as Kapaia Stream. I'm not sure actually what the correct terminology is. As you're driving towards Hanama`ulu, Kuhi6 Highway rises approximately 30 feet from the Maalo Road intersection to the Kapaia Road intersection as you cross the bridge. The existing bridge has two 11 foot lanes and there are narrow shoulders of about 2-1/2 feet on each side of the 11 foot lanes currently. Again, the existing bridge has parapet walls that are curved as they follow the alignment and they're paneled with a sloped cap. The concrete piers that support the bridge, they are also paneled and you're probably aware that there's a county water main attached to the makai side of the bridge and a county sewer main attached to the mauka side of the bridge. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I have a question on those two lines. Are they clearly marked so that someone doesn't get confused between the sewer and the water? July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 29 Mr. Dill: To the layman I don't believe they are. But the folks who own and maintain those, the County Waste Water Division of Public Works and the County Water Department are very familiar with those and they won't have a problem identifying which is which. To a layman, I don't think a layman would know the difference. I don't really see that as an issue. When you get to the pictures and you're probably aware these things are hanging on the side of the bridge, so they're elevated up in the air. The ordinary person would have no reason to ever go near or try to do any work on those things. It's only going to be what I refer to as the experts that are going to be going near those and they know. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: They know, hopefully. Mr. Dill: The interior spans are supported by pier walls on spread footings and I have some pictures and I'll show you what that is all about. The abutments are supported on concrete piles. So this is a typical section of the existing bridge configuration. Again there are two 11 foot lanes and about a 2-1/2 foot shoulder and another 1-1/2 on each side which allows for those parapet walls. You can see the highway is super elevated through this stretch, which means instead of our typical crown cross section the whole thing is tilted to one side because of the curve that I referred to early to help accommodate the traffic going through that section of the highway. It shows on either side the 2 foot diameter existing water main on the right, 2 foot diameter existing sanitary sewer on the left side. This is actually a portion of the old bridge plans, so I can point out some of the things I was talking about. Here are the piers 1 and 2, and here's sort of an elevation view of the two piers. This is the paneling I was talking about in each of those piers and these are each sitting on what we refer to as a spread footing. Just kind of sits on the ground and spreads out the load underneath, compacted soil underneath. The bridge is also supported on either end by abutments, there's one here and one here and again, in perspective view, here's an abutment and here's an abutment. They are supported on these which are called piles that get driven down into the ground. There's seven at either end. There's abutments on piles at either end and a pier sitting on a spread footing, two of them within the bridge. So that's the existing Kapaia Bridge and this picture showing the same thing. You can see the existing piers with the panels. You can also see in here running along the side, the existing, and I can't remember if that's the water or the sewer main, but this is the makai side of the bridge. This is from different views showing the same side of the bridge and then showing the utility line, water or sewer main, running along the side. You see a little bit of the piers right here. You can make out on this side the paneling that exist on the existing parapet wall on that side, matched on the other side. Another view of the bridge. This shows you how narrow the shoulders are here, 2-1/2 feet and I'll get into this little more later but not many provisions here for safe accommodations for bicycles or pedestrians. Purpose and need for the project. Whenever we identify a project and its going to be federally funded we want to start by identifying what is the purpose and need for this project. For Kapaia Bridge there are structural concerns and the bridge is functionally obsolete. Elaborating a little bit on that, based on bridge inspections because we're required to inspect our bridges at a minimum bi-annually, every 2-years, based on those inspections there's concerns about the integrity of the structure. The bridge is showing signs of age and deterioration that comes in the form of cracks on the bridge and of spalling, which is portions of the concrete coming loose and falling away and it can often expose the rebar underneath. The rebar becomes exposed and it July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 29 begins to corrode and deteriorate and loses its strength. The bridge is showing signs of those things. According to the National Bridge Inspection Standards they rate the bridge a 4 on a scale of 0 to 9, 9 being excellent and 0 being failed and beyond corrective action. Four is considered poor condition, it shows advance section loss. That's the loss of the concrete deterioration and scour, that's down and around in the stream area around the bottom of the piers. Also areas of extensive honeycombing which is what happens to concrete as it deteriorates, and numerous locations with exposed reinforcement, that's the rebar, the steel inside that comes exposed and becomes subject to corrosion from the environment. The bridge was originally designed for two 15 ton trucks, as opposed to our current criteria. The state legal load for bridges is 44 tons, so you can see it's quite a bit of difference between the design then and today. It was designed for less than what it's considered to be the current state legal load for highways. It's also considered functionally obsolete in that it lacks adequate shoulders and/or any accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. I mentioned that this particular location is included in the statewide bicycle and pedestrian masterplans for inclusion of facilities to accommodate pedestrian to walk along Kuhio Highway. Right now there's no safe accommodation in this area. The existing approach guardrail ends do not meet currently accepted traffic safety standards and our plan is to update those to meet the current criteria. So in a nutshell we plan to upgrade the structural integrity of the bridge and address the geometric deficiencies and design the bridge to meet the current truck loading codes. Cultural resources. We of course did during an investigation with regards to cultural resources. Our Archaeological Inventory Survey revealed 11 cultural resources in the area. They are historic and indeterminate in age, most likely associated with sugar plantation and plantation camps and all of those sights have been researched and documented in the Archaeological Inventory Survey. Project alternatives. Of course we always look at the no -action alternative as one of our required to look at. In this situation of course doing nothing doesn't meet purpose and need, so it didn't take us very long to discard that alternative. We also have to look at the alignment of the bridge. The alignments we looked at were three, the existing alignment versus the mauka alignment and also a makai alignment, so look at three of those. Regarding the bridge span, you remember that the existing bridge is a three -span bridge, it's got two piers so basically it exists with three -spans. We looked at practical and today's day and age and single -span bridge, a two -span bridge, and the scope of the project. We looked at what we could do to widen and rehabilitate the existing bridge versus a total replacement of the existing bridge. So getting into those particulars a little further regarding alignment. About the alignment, if you're familiar with the area there are significant hillsides on the mauka side. A mauka alignment would have required some significant excavation of those existing hillsides and would have had the most environmental and cost impacts. A makai alignment, down the valley there's a home not too far from that existing bridge and so obviously we would have to move that residence in order to make the makai alignment work. We had a significant conflict there with an existing structure that was somebody's home. Looking at the existing alignment because it's along the existing alignment, that would minimize environmental impacts and impacts to existing structures. It would minimize cost for us and also provides the smoothest alignment for best drivability because moving it mauka or makai it would have introduced sharper curves and kinks in the road that drivers would have had to negotiate. Keeping it along the current alignment provided the best July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page I I of 29 solution from a drivability standpoint. Regarding the spans, use of the single -span bridge versus a two -span bridge provides improved hydraulic efficiency and minimizes environmental impacts in the streambed. What that means is they can see this shows a proposal for a single -span bridge all the way from one existing abutment to the next existing abutment. Right now we have two piers in the stream, somewhat like that. A single -span would generally be more or less centrally located than that. That would mean that pier would be in the middle of the stream and that means it would have an impact on the capacity of that stream to carry, say flood waters and increase flood waters, compared to a no -span of course which gives you the most free flow available of waters, so the best hydraulic efficiency. Also environmental impacts in the streambeds because you don't have to go down there and build a new pier so it minimizes the amount of construction that we have to do down in the stream bed. The scope of the bridge. We did look at what it would take to address this bridge by widening the existing bridge and strengthening the existing bridge, rehabilitating it. To restore the structural integrity of the bridge and bring it up to current standards we would have had to add additional girders which would not match the existing T-beams. Those T-beams are part of that historic character of the bridge, but it wouldn't have been possible to match those because of the way those girders are designed. They would have been different and you'll see in a future slide here what those girders are looking like in our proposal, they wouldn't have matched. If we widen that deck, remember part of the problem with this bridge, it is functionally obsolete and it doesn't provide any accommodations for bicycles or pedestrians. To widen that existing deck would mean we would have to remove almost the entire existing deck. Because of the age related deterioration it would have to be replaced anyway because of the condition that it is in. Because the bridge is proposed to be widened, the existing capped concrete parapet would need to be replaced to meet current crash tested requirements. That entire parapet wall would have to be replaced anyway because it doesn't meet our current requirements. Those railings must be crash tested and meet national standards for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Finally, since the bridge is already 84 years old it would be reasonable to expect no more than 50 years, and I would think if that, of usable life in the bridge if we took this approach. You'd have a lot of old parts of the bridge mixing with new parts, very difficult to get a rehabilitated bridge like this to match the proposed life for an entirely brand new bridge. The estimated cost would be comparable to the cost of replacement structure in the end as well. Based on the analysis of all those alternatives our frugal alternative is a single -span replacement bridge along the existing alignment, that's our preferred alternative. For this project now a new right-of-way would not be required for the bridge because it's along the existing alignment, but in order to construct it we would need to construct a mauka by-pass bridge which would require about 12,000 square feet of temporary right-of-way during construction and I'll get into that a little more later. A single -span bridge would likely require a temporary intermediate pier during construction in proximity to the river so we would have a temporary intermediate pier that goes on to support the construction sequencing. Hydraulic efficiency would be improved by removal of the two existing large pier walls that exist there today. Replacement railings will be reconstructed with the historical theme so it will match the existing railings, but would meet the current crash testing standards. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 29 Here's a typical section showing the proposal. The lanes existing are 11 feet. We are showing ... this is right out of our draft EA, it shows an 11 or 12 foot lane for the proposal and we would likely go with an 11 foot lane. On each side we got a 5 or 6 foot bike lane and a 5 or 6 foot sidewalk. I imagine what we would end up with is an 11 foot lane with a 5 foot bike lane and 5 foot sidewalk and probably another 18 inches or so on either side. So the dimensions I gave you, if you take the minimum dimensions, it would be at 42 feet wide plus 3, so a 45 foot wide bridge as compared to the existing bridge, if you recall, is a 30 foot bridge, out to out. So it would be 15 feet wider or 7-1/2 feet wider on either side of the existing bridge. I mentioned the mauka bypass, or mauka detour, or actually the mauka diversion bridge because it's going to divert traffic during construction. We're proposing to put it on the mauka side because the existing house is right about here and we don't want to impact that residence. This diversion would involve tight S curve roadways. Remember I did talk about the mauka alternative as one of the permanent options we looked at. In order to build this for a permanent bridge those S curves would be much larger radius curves and a lot more construction. Since this is temporary we're going to have tighter curves, we're going to slow down traffic during construction but it's not something we want to do on a long term basis. Long term we want to keep the traffic moving through here. If we were to do a mauka permanent bridge it would be a much larger radius on these curves here, and these curves here, which would push this bridge out a lot more along something like this to make it work which is why that option for a permanent alternative was discarded. As you know, the mauka area consists of steep slopes and heavy vegetation and to help minimize cost a longer two -span bridge with an intermediate pier is planned. Maintaining this alignment keeps a significant distance away as much as possible from existing residences. In summary, Kapaia Bridge provides an important transportation link to and from the greater Lihu`e region considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The existing bridge is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete as alternative transportation modes like walking and cycling are not addressed. A single -span replacement bridge along the existing alignment is the preferred alternative with a temporary mauka diversion bridge during construction. That ends our formal presentation and I'll be happy to take any question. Ms. Schneider: Larry, in the single -span bridge is the deck going to be deeper than it would have been with the two piers? Mr. Dill: You mean thicker? Ms. Schneider: Yes Mr. Dill: I believe that's a yes. You know the answer to that question Milton? I believe that because you have to beef up the span. I imagine it would be a thicker deck with bigger girders. Ms. Schneider: And you're going to remove the (inaudible). Mr. Dill: Correct. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 29 Ms. Schneider: And it's a problem with doing that, in terms of it's in the river? Mr. Dill: Well it will just be one of the construction challenges they'll have to face in doing the bridge, but that's all been addressed in the proposal we're doing. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I have a question. Is there any signage proposed at the start of this situation indicating that there could be problems or are people just going to barge into it. Mr. Dill: You mean during construction? Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Prior to construction and during construction. Mr. Dill: Yes, absolutely. In fact you notice our bridge project we have going on just west of the tree tunnel, if you noticed bridge 70, there was signage. I am more than happy to hear if you have any concerns about the adequacy or not of the signage that was provided, but everything there posted so traffic is going to dissipate this bridge project. So we'll do the same thing. Chair Wichman: Any other questions? I have a question about the temporary bridge. I am sure that Cultural Surveys has done a survey of this area and so there's no impacts, archaeological or historical? Mr. Dill: They're here, so they can answer that. But they did do an Archaeological Inventory Survey, identified 11 sites and documented all those 11 sites. Chair Wichman: None of those would be impacted? Mr. Dill: They will be impacted by the project. Chair Wichman: They will be impacted. Mr. Dill: Yes, yes. If you'd like to hear more I can ask Cultural Surveys to come up. Ms. Arinanga: I'd like to add on. If it will be impacted then what happens? You said it will be impacted. Mr. Dill: Yes. Ms. Arinanga: So what are the plans? Mr. Dill: In a situation like this, the plan is to document. Documenting those sites is the mitigation. Chair Wichman: Documenting and recovery, right? So it's just whatever's there you're just... Mr. Dill: I don't believe there's any plan for recovery right now. But can I ask Cultural Surveys.... July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 29 Cultural Surveys Hawaii Project Manager, William Folk: Hello, my name is Bill Folk, I work with Cultural Surveys Hawaii. The archaeological sites in this portion of the valley are all to the best of our knowledge related to plantation agriculture. They're small rock terraces, couple of rocks high, maybe 6, 8 or 10 feet long helping to hold up the side of an embankment where road might be and some ditch features that moved the water for the old sugar plantation water control processes. We've documented them by mapping them, photographing them, and describing them in our inventory survey report. We don't have any further recommendations of documentation for them. We don't recommend any further work for the archaeological site and those would need to be destroyed for the construction of the bridge. We don't see that as an issue however SHPD, to the best of our knowledge, has not been consulted, has not approved the inventory survey report. I'm not sure, I believe HDOT submitted it to them but I don't have documentation right now to provide, to say they've accepted the report and agree with that recommendation. But our recommendation for the archaeological sites or historic properties is no further work. Mr. Dill: I believe we submitted it to them in December of last year. Yes, December of last year, so we haven't gotten a response from them. Unidentified speaker: (inaudible) Chair Wichman: Right, we understand that challenge. Mr. Folk: In that case we would be waiting for them to provide review comments on the report and that typically may change the status of one of the historical properties. In the manner that they might say we want you to record this, or save it, and then it would just have to become part of the engineering design to avoid those things. We believe that's unlikely for these particular types of historic properties that are in the gulch within the project area. They may ask for monitoring, so that gives some of these historic properties going to be impacted, like dug through or dug up, we would then have an opportunity to do additional below surface work on these properties by documenting it in cross sections and perhaps taking some kinds of soil deposits or whatever might be available for dating. At present there's no indication that there's anything there other than plantation era water control features that are fragmented and obviously not in use anymore. That's the status of the Archeological Inventory Survey. Mr. Guerber: In the plantation era what was there? Was there a camp there? Were people living there or was it just water diversion and retaining walls? Mr. Folk: There's no records that we have found of any kind of a camp. Hanamd'ulu was the camp but it was not in the gulch. It's where Hanama`ulu is today. The water control is basically ditches, culverts for their roads where they crossed Kapaia Stream to get from one field to another, and possibly moving some water from reservoirs upstream up into the fields. But again they are very fragmented and so tracing them outside of the project area is not useful, although if we needed to we could possibly retrieve some of the sugar company's older maps. To date we haven't been real successful with that, although we have tried. It's mostly water control for the fields and water diversion or culverts under their roads for the operation of the sugar plantation. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 29 Chair Wichman: Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: Do you have any photographs to share of these sites? Mr. Folk: We do. Would you like me to pass this around? Ms. Arinaga: That would be great. Mr. Folk: May I do that? Chair Wichman: Mr. Folk, I also have a question, you said you did a surface survey and photos, basically it's all surface work that you've done, right? Mr. Folk: Well we did some individual subsurface testing as well but mostly with shovels and in the vicinity of some of the sights too, those that we might have had questions about. We do have some excavation for testing and it shows just the standard more the basic sea horizon soils there, mostly -they're reddish brown clay loams. Nothing, no buried A horizons or cultural materials other than the actual rock type structures themselves, which are as I said typically like a bullwork, or buttressing, or embankment. You build a couple of stones high to keep the dirt level behind it so you can park your truck or your car over there that type of structure. Chair Wichman: Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Arinaga: One more question. I know the town of Hanama`ulu has been very, they've been working on preserving their historical area. Were there any opportunities for the residents to provide input of these sights? Mr. Folk: Well, on those sights specifically there was. We had a (Section) 106 meeting a few months ago, maybe a little longer than that in the community center in Hanamd'ulu. Mr. Dill: At King Kaumuali`i School. Ms. Arinaga: Was there any interest in preserving anything? Mr. Folk: Not really, very little. Most of the interest was on whether or not they were going to block the bridge to build a new one and the sewer pipe issues, that kind of thing. Ms. Arinaga: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Chair, the Department has a couple of questions. Chair Wichman: Yes. Mr. Hull: Larry, the SHPD comments didn't come in for the 11 cultural resources in potential impact but do you have SHPD on replacement of the bridge at all? July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 29 Mr. Dill: I don't think we received SHPD on anything. Mr. Hull: Okay. Then the proposal right now..... Mr. Dill: I don't want to throw SHPD under the bus, they lost their Kauai person... Mr. Hull: We understand the proposal right now is a replacement bridge that is a significant departure from the original design. In particular among other things it's going to the single -span as opposed to the double -span and the primary purpose is to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Dill: And to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the stream. If there's a big flood, remember the flood that we had ... when was that? A few years ago? There was a lot of water that came down, it brought a lot of debris. A lot of the debris hung up under the bridge and so the more clear we keep that bridge the safer it is basically. Mr. Hull: The, maybe you did it but I missed it, the railing or lattice work, is it going to be similar in nature too? Mr. Dill: There's no lattice work. There are those parapet walls that are paneled and they will be paneled in a similar manner and it will have the same sort of cap on top. Mr. Hull: The last question I have is, what 343 document do you do? Is it an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) or EA? Mr. Dill: EA. Mr. Hull: Okay so the question I have, I don't know if you can answer right now is, if this is under (HRS) 6E historic structure, being that it's over 80, over 50 years old and also eligible for the National Registry, how did you conclude to a finding of no significant impact when you're removing a historic structure? Mr. Dill: I am going to defer to Milton, if you can speak for that question. Unidentified Speaker: As far as... Chair Wichman: Excuse me, please state your name for the record. Wilson Okamoto Corporation Milton Arakawa: My name is Milton Arakawa. I'm with Wilson Okamoto Corporation and we were the firm that did the Environmental Assessment for the state. As far as any kind of contact with SHPD it's not like nothing has occurred. As you know when you do any kind of project we still have to get approval from SHPD on the area of potential affect. So the project information was circulated to them and they're aware of the project. They gave us approval to do that for the area of potential affect and on that basis we went out and solicited comments from the community. We had two Section 106 meetings with the community and submitted the Archaeological Inventory Survey to SHPD back in December and we haven't July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 29 received a final concurrence from SHPD at this point. Up to this point we have not received any other comments from SHPD to the contrary. Mr. Hull: Thanks. Chair Wichman: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Hull: To that point Commissioner, if you want to wait for SHPD's input I think it's your prerogative. As Mr. Dill pointed out, as we've become well aware they've lost not only Mary Jane but Anna as well, their resources are severely lacking. Whether or not we will get something back from them, it will remain to be seen. Mr. Dill: I understand and appreciate it would be better if we had comments from SHPD at this point. From our perspective we want to move forward with our project, so I'd appreciate anything you can do for us. Chair Wichman: I understand they only have, they have limited time, then you can bypass that. Mr. Dill: And we're well beyond that limited time. Chair Wichman: Right, exactly. Mr. Dill: We haven't always pulled the trigger on that limited time. We try to work with them. Chair Wichman: Absolutely. Mr. Dill: Understanding the situation. Chair Wichman: We understand the situation with SHPD, but for this Commission... Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Perhaps we can get the point of a motion and then we can have discussion. Chair Wichman: Okay. Commissioners, any other... Mr. Dill: Can we add a little more to that discussion? Chair Wichman: Yes, please. Mr. Folk: I just wanted to try to give a little more clarity to SHPD's rules and regulations. They are working diligently to get their backlog up and they do have new personnel working. That may be something that could come fairly quickly. It's a fairly typical review of an inventory survey and their comments would probably at the most be additional work during the construction of the bridge, such as archaeological monitoring and that sort of support. In terms of your question about its eligibility, pretty much any historic property today in the regulations through the federal and through (HRS) 6E in the state, if it's a historic property and it's July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 29 identified, its eligibility to the State or National Register is basically covers all historic properties. Once it's found in the field and it's identified as a historic property, being something that's older than 50 years old, in this case archaeology, then a significance is assigned to it. The significance is related to the A, B, C, D that you see in the state and federal regulations. This is trying to identify what kind of significance does it has. In this case the significance is that we're assigning to these and we anticipate that SHPD will agree with is that it's of the lowest category, which means it's important in the sense that it provides information to elements of our history or being our community over the many years. That automatically makes it eligible to be nominated. Once you get beyond the significance than you have to determine its eligibility. If it's eligible than we have things like the bridge itself that the architectural branch of the State Historic Preservation Division and the Federal Highways and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation in the federal level that's more appropriate type of historic property to be actually nominated, to be reviewed for eligibility. Whereas a few stones from a plantation ditch or culvert under an old plantation road, the likelihood of that actually ever being assigned an eligibility level that would make it an appropriate thing to nominate to the National or State Registers are extremely low. Ms. Schneider: Our one concern is with the bridge. Mr. Hull: Yes, I think those comments are well taken. Commissioner Schneider's point, the concern with the eligibility wasn't with the 11 cultural sights, it was more specifically with the fact that the bridge is eligible and how essentially did the DOT come to the FONSI finding of no significant impact on a historic structure that is going to be demolished. Of course SHPD says indeed photo documentation is a mitigated measure enough to constitute no significance. It was just a question to snake sure all basis were covered. Mr. Dill: If I can add on to that too... Mr. Folk: Good, because now you've stepped beyond my qualifications. Ms. Schneider: We would all be more comfortable if we had some comments from SHPD. Mr. Folk: Yes, they should be the architectural (inaudible). Chair Wichman: Thank you Mr. Folk. Mr. Dill: As I mentioned in one of the slides....from slide number 2, "According to Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation (November 2013), is Eligible, but not listed on the National or Hawai 'i Registers", so that's a huge page out of a document that's pertinent to the Kapaia Bridge because it's a statewide inventory. This bridge eligibility status is eligible but they are different, it's not just a yes or no on the eligibility status. A highest rating is a high preservation value bridge which is identified as having unique or exemplary characteristics of a bridge side that exhibits high end degrees of historic integrity. A bridge like that would probably not end up in a FONSI, it almost definitely wouldn't be there because its eligible and it sort of meets the minimum criteria for consideration to be nominated. That's significantly different from a bridge of high preservation value that's been identified as high preservation value. This July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 29 bridge, and they've defined eligible in this document as not unique or the best example of the type, but may become a rare example of a bridge type in the future and or reflects the characteristics of its bridge type. I don't know if that helped to explain but it's not considered a high preservation value bridge which would likely not result in a FONSI determination in an Environmental Assessment. Does that help? Mr. Hull: Yes, it does to the point, even eligibility aside, even (HRS) 6E with the nonresidential over 50 years old. You still have the historical classification and I think the concern being if SHPD weighed in during the 343 process and you got at least some guidance that indeed ... do you do documentation? Yes, so the documentation, if the guidance is the documentation, is a mitigating measure, that negates significant impact to historic structure then I think we could rest easy. But I think there's a little leeriness as far as is this body supposed to sign off of it as well without that official guidance of SHPD. Mr. Dill: Yes understood. Hawaii Department of Transportation Fred Reyes: Fred Reyes, I work with Larry Dill here at HDOT Kauai. I think the minimum we would do would be HAER (Historical American Engineering Record) documentation. I think pretty much certain we would do that. I do have an inventory form from our State Historic Bridge Inventory if you're interested for this particular bridge. I'll pass this on. Mr. Dill: We will be doing an HAER report for this bridge, it will be documented. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I would just like to double my concern. On one side of the bridge is a pipe that has water, on the other side is a pipe that has sewer. I am just concerned that someone doesn't get them confused. Are there some designations on one or both on what they contain? Mr. Dill: They're not labeled. Mr. Rees: I believe they're both (inaudible). That would be up to the County if they wanted to label. Mr. Dill: Right. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Well that's a major concern in my mind. Mr. Dill: Okay. Ms. Hisuchi- Sayegusa: Just to remind us all. We're all, we're advising or helping, assisting the state in fulfilling its historic preservation duties and so if there's concern on aesthetic, designs or architecture than I would say that sort of within the realm on this body. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: I'm concerned what is in that, in those two pipes... Mr. Guerber: Or them getting crossed. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 29 Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Yes, or someone.... Mr. Guerber: I don't think that's our purview. That's kind of a utility question. When you're saying, when they're rebuilding the road that they don't get the pipes crossed. Mr. Chaffin Jr.: No, someone doesn't by accident get the sewer line hooked up to the water line the possibility of that, and maybe it's not our purview. Chair Wichman: No, it's not really. What we're looking at is the historical aspects of this bridge and it says it is designated as a criteria C and there is some concern about the uniqueness of this bridge. Mr. Dill did mention that in the future it might be more important as well because there are not that many bridges built this way. This is going to be a complete demolition, right? So no more. Mr. Guerber: Larry, how rare is the architecture of this bridge? Mr. Dill: Well there are other examples of this type of bridge, how many I don't know. Do you have any ideas on the numbers? Mr. Hull: I am going to ask this for recordation purposes if you can come to the microphone. Mr. Arakawa: Milton Arakawa. As far as the Kapaia Bridge, Larry mentioned it was part of the Historic Bridge Inventory Study which was done. These are all the historic bridges statewide. Kapaia Bridge is fairly common for the type of bridge that was built in the 1930's. It's concrete T-beam type of bridge. It's not a unique case where it's like one of a kind type of construction. Chair Wichman: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Schneider: Do we have time to wait for the state to give us their recommendation or do we need to act now? Mr. Hull: It's at your discretion. I think you can ask the applicant what their timelines are. Ms. Schneider: Would we be holding you up terribly if we wait for the (inaudible). Mr. Dill: Yes. We are getting into a time crunch with our funding, I believe by October, I think its October. This is a federally funded project. We have to finish the right-of-way work that's only a couple of months and this is one of the factors we need to get done. I should have mentioned earlier this will be recorded in the HAER report, so it will be well documented before this bridge is taken down. I can't speak for SHPD, but I am pretty sure if this bridge was a concern for SHPD in what we're doing they would have responded by now. That's speculation on my part. Chair Wichman: Yes and is this bridge a safety hazard as it is? July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 29 Mr. Dill: I won't say it's a safety hazard. I will say it's a concern because of the conditions I noted structurally. Also with the original design, the original design was not built or designed for the loads we have on our highways today. Obviously we don't want to wait for the bridge to fall down before it becomes a safety hazard, but it's a concern for us. Chair Wichman: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Guerber: So our job is to think about archaeology and architecture. Chair Wichman: Yes. Mr. Guerber: We need to judge on those two criteria and I think we've seen that there's no archaeological, that we can tell, there's no archaeological evidence that there's anything to preserve here. You might discover something in your excavation, I am sure you'll stop it and do something about that. The other one is the architecture part. I think we needed to concentrate on that and make a decision today whether it's really architecturally worthy of preservation. I think we should let them go ahead with the project. Mr. Hull: Just for discussion purposes, the Commission has been getting used to when applications come before you. You are an advisory body either to the Planning Department or to the Planning Commission in their actions. The Department has made the moves and adjustments as why we have such rigorous parliamentary procedures today is because we have begun mandating your recommendations as a condition of approval on zoning permits at the Planning Department level and recommending it to the Planning Commission level. That's where your comments generally stand and I have to say for this particular application you don't have that same leverage with the Planning Department because they're, not because of DOT but because they're in a roadway that doesn't have zoning. There is no zoning permit for this application so we don't have the proverbial stick over Larry on this one. If Larry was coming in to do something on a structure like say he was moving DOT operations into the Kauai Museum, indeed we would have a zoning permit, and he wanted to make alterations. The zoning permit, he would have to adhere to on the standards. Under this particular proposal before you wherever you go, I just want to lay out there the Department can't mandate anything on this particular proposal and your comments in this situation will be advisory to Larry and his staff. Ms. Schneider: Who can we request (inaudible)? Mr. Dill: Certainly. Chair Wichman: Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: I have a question. If you don't hear from SHPD do you just continue and move on? Mr. Dill: Ultimately, yes. Chair Wichman: Yes, that is part of the rules. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 29 Mr. Dill: Actually we should have already (inaudidble). Ms. Nakea: So I've gone back and forth in my thinking during the course of this presentation and discussion and one of the comments you said you think that if they had, SHPD, had real reservations you would have heard by now? You did say that, right? Mr. Dill: I believe that. Ms. Nakea: I'll go with you on that, right, right. Also that the bridge is not very unique and then there's the part about if we restore it, the prediction is that it's going to be good for 50 years and will cost as much as building a whole new bridge. I'm now leaning towards we should just go with the go ahead. I just wanted to explain my thinking. Is now a good time to do that? Mr. Hull: Yes, if you are looking to making a motion, being two Commissioners have already voiced desire to move ahead with it. The Department would recommend any motion for approval also be contingent upon meeting any additional standards and if SHPD provides additional requirements that they meet those requirements as well. Ms. Arinaga: One last question. How long will the project take? Mr. Arakawa: Construction time roughly 12-18 months. Chair Wichman: Any other questions? Did you have something to say? Mr. Reyes: Fred Reyes, DOT Highway. To complete the Section 106 process Federal Highways Administration would issue a determination letter, I believe to SHPD, correct me if you will. SHPD has a time window to provide their comments or challenges. Mr. Dill: So there are regulatory requirements for SHPD's response time. You get to the end of that since it's a federally funded job. Federal Highways (Administration) will actually make a determination to move forward without SHPD's recommendations or comments. So we would request and they would contact SHPD and we would have to go through the process to move that forward. We've done that in the past, where we've come close to deadlines we need to meet or we start losing funding. Federal Highways and SHPD understands that too. Chair Wichman: Any other questions? Mr. Guerber: I move we approve this project. Ms. Arinaga: I second. Chair Wichman: We have an approval and a second. Any more discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Thank you Mr. Dill. Thank you Mr. Folk, Mr. Reyes. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 29 3. Appointment of investigative committee members (Permitted Interaction Group) to Interact with the DOT on behalf of the KHPRC as a party to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Hanapepe Bridge Replacement Project, Project No. HI STP SR50(1), Waimea District, Kauai Island, Koloa Ahupuaa, TMK: [4] 1-9-007: 001 Hanapepe Canal, [4] 1-9-007:013, [4] 1-9-007:034, [4] 1-9-007 Kaumuali`i Highway Right -of -Way, [41 1-9-010:015, [4] 1-9-010:014, [4] 1-9-010:046, [4] 1-9-010:050, [4] 1-9-010 Kaumuali`i Highway Right-of-way. Mr. Hull: This agenda item was before you in November and DOT came to you not only with the proposal which the Commission seemed fairly receptive towards but also a Memorandum of Agreement to enter into, or to have this body enter into as a party in the proceedings as they move forward. You voted back in November to go through a Permitted Interaction Group or to form a Permitted Interaction Group to be a party to the proceedings. This has been placed on the agenda for you to appoint the members. We will take nominations of no more than four individuals to that PIG. Ms. Schneider: I nominate Victoria Wichman. Chair Wichman: I have a question first. This PIG or Permitted Interaction Group, is this for the interpretive of this bridge or is this for the whole process or both? Mr. Dill: I apologize, I didn't really come prepared to address this particular agenda item. However, if it's the Memorandum of Agreement for the Hanapepe Bridge replacement project then this would be as a, not a signatory occurring party to the MOA (Memorandum of Agreement), is that correct? This MOA is a Memorandum Agreement which is between Federal Highways Administration, Highway Transportation and SHPD. I assume you're being invited, and I apologize if I don't have my terminologies correct here, not as a main signatory but as a consulting party. Do you know Jodi? Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Yes, I think it was a..... Mr. Hull: Yes it was a signatory, Larry. Mr. Dill: You're signing as a concurring party, but not as one of the main members of the MOA. It would be basically what those agreements established. I guess I would term it as mitigation measures due to the impacts of the project to the existing bridge. They would be seeking your input and recommendations on what the proposals were by the DOT as they pursue this project. Chair Wichman: Right, but I also understand they were going to put up like a kiosk or some sort of interpretive for this bridge because of the historical nature of that area. Mr. Dill: I believe that's part of the proposal, that's correct, yes. And this would be your opportunity to discuss that and make sure that gets documented and inserted into the MOA. Mr. Hull: As the designs come out if this PIG is formed than it would participate in the design review process as it moves forward. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 29 Chair Wichman: Any questions Commissioners? Ms. Schneider: (inaudible) Chair Wichman: Commissioner Long, Stephen Long. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Just a reminder it's two or more but less than a quorum. Quorum here is four I believe. Mr. Hull: Five. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Five? Five. So up to four members. Chair Wichman: Do we take nominations for this, or do people volunteer? Mr. Hull: The Commissioners need to be nominated. I think Commissioners can also indicate they want and are willing to volunteer. Chair Wichman: If somebody's not here, I mean it's infamous for people who don't attend they get nominated. Commissioner Long was very, very interested in this bridge, but would he want to be on a committee for this? I don't want to have him nominated if he's not here to agree to it. So what would you all like to do? Mr. Guerber: I would think I should nominate him, if he wishes to accept it.... Chair Wichman: Withdraw. Are there any other nominations? Ms. Nakea: I don't feel like I have enough expertise in that area. Mr. Hull: So just for the record we have a nomination for Commissioner Long and Chair Wichman. Chair Wichman: And we should have at least four? Mr. Hull: No more than four. Chair Wichman: The part about the interpretive part would have to be decided right now? Mr. Hull: The only thing going on right now is the nominations of the Commissioners to the PIG. Once that PIG is formed Myles has already been in contact with them, and I think they are ready to submit paperwork and designs to the PIG. Mr. Dill: For what it's worth, I would encourage you if you have any interest to participate because Steve obviously is an architect and has expertise in that area, but it doesn't require that. What this is, is mitigation for the benefit of the public to appreciate the historic nature of the bridge that was there. Anybody that's a member of the public can have input to that. Your job, July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 29 I'm not the guy to be telling you this stuff. Your job would be to see that something appropriate is done to memorialize the Hanapepe Bridge. Could be interesting, who knows, might be free food. Chair Wichman: There's a lot of good history there. So we have two nominations, Stephen Long. Mr. Guerber: I nominate Deatri (Nakea). Chair Wichman: We have three nominations now, Commissioner Long, Commissioner Nakea, and myself Chair Wichman. Do we motion that? Mr. Hull: I need a motion to close the nominations. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we close the nominations. Mr. Guerber: I second that. Chair Wichman: Okay. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: The motion was technically to close the nomination, now you have gone through this process before. Now you would need a motion to approve the nominations. The motion's just to close it. I turn to Jodi as our parliamentarian process. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: It's to form the scope and context of who's going to serve in the Permitted Interaction Group. The motion would be just to memorialize the members and the scope of the PIG. Chair Wichman: Do we have a motion? Mr. Guerber: Yes. Whatever yes. Ms. Arinaga: I move that we accept the nominees to the PIG. Chair Wichman: Commissioner Arinaga just motioned to accept the nominees. Do we have a second? Ms. Nakea: I second. Chair Wichman: Commissioner Nakea seconded. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. We have a Permitted Interaction Group. Mr. Dill: Can I ask, what prompted this to be on the agenda at this time? July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 29 Mr. Hull: Well they came back in November and made that offer to this body to be part of the proceedings. It wasn't agenda'd until recently, we got some documentation from I believe Central Federal Lands requesting the input of the PIG. We realized we didn't form the PIG. Mr. Dill: Okay just wondering because this project is moving along. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE 1. List of upcoming educational opportunities for historic preservation training. Mr. Hull: This is another request from a previous meeting that a list be provided of possible training programs. The first one I'd like to bring your attention to is the green flyer, which is a Historic Kauai Foundation training that's coming up on August 2nd. They are really wonderful, it's coming shortly. It is an all -day session if you can attend it. It is free. If you can attend it's as good a training as you'll find here in Hawaii. I have the majority of the Planning Department staff attending it as well. You log online and sign up with your various information. So you have that and that's very shortly on the horizon. The other list that you have is a list generated by the National Preservation Institute and it has an array of different trainings on the mainland starting in September and going all the way through to June of 2018. Many of these training are absolutely wonderful and thorough and well prepared. The only time we've sent commissioners on training is through the CLG grant program. Currently with the manner in which SHPD is lacking in resources, I would not anticipate us wining an award for one of these training programs. If you so desire we can submit that application. I can tell you the grant we were just awarded for the nomination of the Hanapepe Bridge, they had it for a year and a half almost and we just got the award recently. Myles's hair got a few shades grayer just to figure out how quickly to spend $2,000.00 dollars because the fact it was just two thousand dollars but the process is so truncated and then the timelines so tight it's hard to get the applications through. We barely made it in the slimmest margin for the nomination of Hanapepe Bridge grant application. If you want to attempt to apply for something I welcome any input and desires to try and go and we can draft those applications but it looks fairly limited as far as our opportunities of actually winning a grant in the next year or two from the CLG program. Ms. Schneider: I would encourage everybody to go to Historic Kauai (foundation training). Mr. Hull: Yes. Chair Wichman: Yes, absolutely they do great workshops here. Mr. Hull: So those are the list of the trainings. If you have any interest you can log onto both websites. The National Preservation Institute, you can actually click on these links if you go to the website and they give a much more thorough description of each of those training sessions. Chair Wichman: Thank you Ka'aina. Ms. Nakea: Thank you for compiling the list. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 29 KAUA'I HISTORICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE 1. Update on the Permitted Interaction Group (PIG) for updating the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory. Mr. Hull: I believe Stephen went on the last one by himself. The Department just requests a deferral on this agenda item until Stephen's here. Chair Wichman: Do we need a motion for that? Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we defer this until Stephen is here. Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Wichman: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (August 24, 2017) Mr. Hull: The next agenda is scheduled for August 24, 2017. Just as a heads up, both myself and the Director will be out of country during this meeting so I won't be here to clerk for you. Marie Williams, who is the Long Range Division Chief will be here to clerk you through that meeting. It's looking relatively light. I can say one thing of interest that is coming up on the agenda where, I not sure if you noticed, in your packet by the Kapaia Bridge application was the few pages for the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. That was a clerical error on my part and I apologize for that. You'll be getting that application at the August 24th meeting, but there was some confusion with which Kapaia, so they both ended up in your packet, I apologize for that. You will be receiving that for reviewing that in the August 24th meeting. Mr. Guerber: Who's doing that bridge? Mr. Hull: Ron Agor is the representative and with that we have no further agenda items. ADJOURNMENT Chair Wichman: Motion to adjourn? Mr. Chaffin Jr.: Second. Ms. Arinaga: Motion to adjourn. Ms. Higuchi- Saye sa: Sorry to clarify, who had the motion? July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 29 Chair Wichman: Commissioner Arinaga and the second was from Commissioner Chaffin. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Thank you. Motion carried 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, A 2�� Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk ( X ) Approved as circulated. 9/28/17 ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. July 27, 2017 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 29