Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary152018KHPRCAgendaPacketreducedMEETING OF THE KAUA'I COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 3:00 p.m. (or soon thereafter) Lihu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building MEETING ROOM #2A/2B V FM 4444 Rice Street, Lthu'e, Kauai f AGENDA 18 FFG -7 P 3 ;51 A. CALL TO ORDER T H EG I` ',' C L R K B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA D. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 18, 2018 MINUTES E. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT - Individuals may orally testify on items on this agenda during the Public Comment Period. Please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting or notify Commission Staff at the meeting site. Testimony shall also be accepted when the agenda item is taken up by the Commission. However if at1 individual has already testified during this period, additional testimony at the agenda item testimony may be allowed at the discretion of the Chair. Testifiers shall limit their testimony to three (3) minutes, but may be extended longer at the discretion of the Chair. Written testimony is also accepted. An original and twelve (12) copies of written testimony can be hand delivered to the Planning Department or submitted to Commission Staff at the meeting site. F. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS G. COMMUNICATIONS H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Review for Historic Importance of a 1.39 acre parcel located in `Aliomanu, `Aliomanu Ahupua`a, Koolau Moku, further identified as Tax Map Key (TMK) (4)4-9-004:013, Owner; Aliomanu Beach Living Trust. a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. 2. Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. f February 15, 2018 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Agenda Page 2 I. NEW BUSINESS 1. Lzhu`e Post Office TMK: 3-6-5:10, Lihu`e, Kauai Proposed Sale & Relocation of Services a. Letter (1/18/18) from Daniel B. Delahaye, USPS Federal Preservation Officer Request for Section 106 Consultation, 2. Appointment of investigative committee members (Permitted Interaction Group) to discuss, explore, and survey other parts of Island of Kauai to update the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory. Once formed and the task completed, the investigative committee will present its findings to the Commission in a duly noticed meeting for decision -making. J. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE K. KAUAI HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE L. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE M. HANAPEPE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE N, SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS O. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Commission may go into an executive session on an agenda item for one of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-5(a) Hawaii Revised Statutes ("H.R.S."), without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not anticipated in advance. HRS Section 92-7(a). The executive session may only be held, however, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present, which must also be the majority of the members to which the board is entitled. HRS Section 92-4. The reason for holding the executive session shall be publicly announced. Note: Special accommodations and sign language interpreters are available upon request five (5) days prior to the meeting date, to the County Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, Lihue, Hawaii 96766. Telephone: 241-4050. 1JR�?A!FT�Tjo�BrJAy 1r!l�ove[�I COUNTY OF KAUA'I KAUA'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) was held on January 18, 2018, in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair James Guerber; Vice -Chair Anne Schneider; Althea Arinaga (arrived 3:12 p.m.); Lawrence Chaffin Jr. (arrived 3:18 p.m.); Gerald Ida; Stephen Long; and Deatri Nakea. The following Commissioner was absent: Victoria Wichman (excused) The following staff members were present: Planning Department: Myles Hironaka; Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull; Shanlee Jimenez; Alex Wong; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa (left 4:39 p.m.); Boards and Commissions Office Staff: Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Prior to the meeting being called to order, Administrative Assistant to the County Clerk Eddie Topenio administered the Oath of Office to reappointed member Gerald Ida, 1 st term ending 12/31/20. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Good afternoon Madam Chair. The first agenda item is the roll call. Commissioner Arinaga has called in to state she would be late, so next on the agenda is Commissioner Chaffin. Absent. Commissioner Guerber. Mr. Guerber: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ida. Mr. Ida: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Long. Mr. Lonfz: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Nakea. Chair Pro Tem Nakea: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Schneider. Ms. Schneider: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Wichman has called in to notify us of her absence. You have a quorum Madame Chair. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is the selection of chairperson and vice chairperson. The Commission will need a nomination for the chairperson. Chair Pro Tem Nakea: Yes. Mr. Lonz: Yes Chairman, I'd like to nominate Jim Guerber, Commissioner Guerber as Chairman of the KHPRC Commission. Ms. Schneider: I second the motion. Deputy County Attorney Jodi Hi ucg hi-Sayegusa: At this point it's just nominations and then we can go forth with voting for each nominated person. Chair Pro Tem Nakea: Are there any other nominations? Mr. Hull: So Jodi, you... Ms. Higuchi-Sa egusa I guess we need a motion and a second to close nominations and then... Mr. Long: I move that we close nominations and take a vote. Ms. Schneider: I second. Chair Pro Tem Nakea: All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. And I know Jodi's going to get really parliamentarian on us by saying that now we have to do a motion for the election of Commissioner Guerber to the chairmanship position. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we elect Jim to the chairman position. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 28 Mr. Long: Second. Chair Pro Tem Nakea: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. The next item of business would be the nomination of a vice chairperson. Ms. Higuchi-Saye .usa: At this point the new Chair can take the chairman seat. Chair Guerber: So the next thing is? Mr. Hull: The next item of business would be the nomination of a vice chairperson. Mr. Long: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Schneider. Mr. Ida: I'll second. Chair Guerber: Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, shall we vote? All in favor? Mr. Hull: A motion to close the nominations. Ms. Higuchi-Saye usa: We actually have a motion and a second on Schneider but ... what is proper now is we have to close the nomination period and then... Chair Guerber: So I have to ask for a vote to close the nominations? Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� Yes, a motion and a second. Chair Guerber: I need a motion and a second to close the nominations. Ms. Nakea: I move that we close the nominations. Mr. Ida: Second. Chair Guerber: Any discussion on this? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: And there's the parliamentarian part now, so... Chair Guerber: Now do we actually have an election? Ms. Higuchi-Sam sa: A vote on the nomination of Commissioner Schneider. Mr. Hull: So a motion... January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 28 Chair Guerber: Motion to elect Anne Schneider. Mr. Ida: So moved. Chair Guerber: And a second? Ms. Nakea: I second. Chair Guerber: Any discussion? None, all in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: The motion passes. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the agenda. The Department will request, given the communication concerning Lihu`e Post Office, that the agenda be amended to have the... excuse me, to have Unfinished Business I.2., discussion on Section 106 presentation, be placed after the Announcements portion on the agenda and we stand by that recommended amendment. Chair Guerber: So could I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we approve the agenda as amended. Chair Guerber: And a second? Ms. Nakea: I second the motion. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2017 MINUTES Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the November 16, 2017 minutes. Chair Guerber: Like a motion? Ms. Nakea: I motion that we approve the minutes. Chair Guerber: And a second? Ms. Schneider: I make a second. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 28 Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: This next agenda item is agenda item F., Hearings and Public Comment. For those that are in the audience, this time is afforded for members of the public to come and testify on any agenda item; however, it is a standard practice of the Chair to allow testimony during the particular agenda item if you want to wait for that as well. If you are the representative for the applicant that's agendized you'd wait for that time as well. But if there's any agenda item that members of the public want to testify, it would be done so now. Seeing none. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government (CLG). a. Section 106 Presentation Mr. Hull: The next agenda item now is the discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government Section 106 presentation. I put together this brief slide show/power point and I am not sure ... Jodi do you have one... concerning the Section 106 process. So if you give me a few minutes of your time, I kind of want to go over (this) with you. Some of you are fairly familiar with it, some of you not so much and there was discussion at the last meeting to have somewhat of a cursory review of the Section 106 process. You folks get several applications a year from various Federal agencies, primarily the Department of Transportation, but some other Federal agencies as well come to you to consult via the Section 106 process. This is just somewhat of a cursory overview of it. The Section 106 process is actually a codified process within the National Historic Preservation Act. We've gone through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its many, many facets through the daily workings of this body, but ultimately the NHPA was adopted to instill the Federal Government to be both a leader and a partner in the preservation efforts throughout the country, and on its lands or through its actions. The NHPA established everything from the State Historic Preservation programs to the Certified Local Government program, as well as the National Standards for Preservation. But just for the purpose of this presentation it also establishes Section 106, and if you turn to the third slide, this is the entire Section 106 verbatim; it's literally two sentences. It states, and I will read it out loud, "The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, " and here is the catch, " shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property. " The second sentence is, "The head of the Federal agency shall afford the council a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to the undertaking." And the council refers to the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation in Washington, D.C. But for your purposes, you're concerned primarily with that January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 28 final statement that states; "[T]he Federal agency shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property. " Section 106 in a nutshell just requires all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. There's a Section 106 4-step process to go through that assessment of whether or not they are going to affect a historic property. The first step of the 4-step process is the initiation of the process, which is to propose an undertaking; say the widening of a two—lane highway to a four —lane highway. This is an undertaking, right, proposed by a Federal agency or proposed, say, the State proposes it but they are going to use Federal funds. It's the — whenever a Federal agency is proposing to do something, or Federal funds are going to be used, that 106 immediately gets routed to the picture. After the Federal agency initiates the process it has to identify whether or not there are historic properties present, and whether or not those historic properties are going to be affected. After that identification the Federal agency has to assess the adverse effects, if there are any, and if there are adverse effects, the fourth step to the process is to resolve those adverse effects. In order to identify, assess, and resolve, the Federal agency goes through a consultation process which is where you folks get folded in. For the State of Hawaii the consulting parties will be the State Historic Preservation Office, any native Hawaiian groups that are associated with the area that the project is in, the Certified Local Government which is exactly where this body comes into the role of consultation, as well as the general public. Where in the 4-step process consultation occurs sometimes varies on agencies. The best standard practice is that the consultation with the consulting parties should occur right when they are identifying the historic properties. Just to reach out to the State Historic Preservation Office, to reach out to the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission and the other organizations to determine whether or not there are historic structures or resources in, around, or at the area that the project is proposed. If there is one identified, then consulting with those parties on whether or not the proposed undertaking will have an adverse effect on the historic site. And if it is— the consultation process determined that there is an adverse effect — that the Federal agency consults with these parties on a manner in which the adverse effect can be mitigated. Now of course if, during the consultation process, the Federal agency and the consulting parties say no, there is no historic property there, then the Federal agency proceeds forward. If they say there is a historic property in the vicinity, but through the consultation process the parties that be have determined there would be no adverse effect on those historic properties, then the Federal agency again could move forward. It's when you get into the adverse effect that, through consultation, the Federal agency can come to certain, in some cases, memorandums of agreement, or easements, or some type of mitigation factor that will mitigate that adverse effect. Having said that, I will state that throughout the entire process it is consultation and the Federal agency has to enter into that consultation in good faith, with every attempt to consult and mete out the adverse effects and to look at potential alternatives. At the end of the day though it is a consultation process for which at any case in that consultation process, even at the end if you find yourself down that road of adverse — there is a historic property and there is an adverse effect — after consulting in good faith, that Federal agency can by law proceed with the undertaking. So the 106 process — to go back — is just to take into account whether or not there is a historic property, and whether or not there would be an effect on it. But they have to enter into that consultation in good faith with the various consulting parties. That's why you folks will see the Department of Transportation often here, is because the expenditure of Federal monies, they're required to consult with you. Many have actually come back to you folks several times. They have entered into memorandum of January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 28 agreements with you and that is in a good faith effort to ensure that no historic — or that they're meeting the Section 106 process, I should say. That's kind of it in a nutshell. There are entire classes dedicated to this that could be weeks long. Sorry, I could only give you 10-15 minutes. In fact the Advisory Council Historic Preservation will be on Oahu in June or July to give a 2- day course on the Section 106 process. So if we have resources available we will try and send some of the Commissioners to that training. But until then I am kind of it. So do you have any questions about Section 106? Chair Guerber: The designation of historic properties, not that it's on the register or anything it's just that we decided (it's) historic or it's over fifty years old? Mr. Hull: That's a great question. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, a historic property is anything that is on the register or anything that is eligible to be on the register. But that's for the National Historic Preservation Act site as well as the Section 106 process, that's the threshold of historic. Now states and subsequently the municipalities, CLG's, are afforded the opportunity to narrow that definition, and we live in a state that went a bit further than the National Historic Preservation Act's definition of historic with HRS 6E that designates any non- residential structure over 50 years old as historic. But I don't mean to confuse and blur the two lines because there will be some things this body will review that you can use a much more narrow definition of what's historic under State law, as well as under Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code. But under the Section 106 process the threshold goes back to the national side of, it's either on the register or it is eligible to be on the register. Make sense? Chair Guerber: Yes. Mr. Hull: Okay. The Department would ask just for a motion to receive that presentation. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we receive the information. Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter (December 27, 2016) to Ann Sarver, Facilities Environmental Specialist regarding Lihu`e Post Office Closure and Sale. Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is communication's letter to Ann Sarver, Facilities Environmental Specialist regarding Lihu`e Post Office closure and sale. This is why I asked that the Section 106 presentation be brought before this agenda item. Many of you are acutely aware of the trials and tribulations occurring with the closure of the Lihu`e Post Office by the United States Postal Service. The Department was made aware of the potential closure about a year ago. And to give some background on it the Department, as well as the Mayor's Office, entered into January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 28 discussions with the Unites States Postal Office concerning the closure of that site and it was presented at that time that the closure of the Post Office was a local need because the resources there could not meet the demand. They had a parking issue is what they were really getting at. We were very explicit with them to ask is this a financial reason, or is this a reason being made from the National Headquarters. They were very clear with us, no, this is a local decision and it wasn't just the local ... the Postmaster was there to convey that it was somebody from... Ms. Arinaga: People? Mr. Hull: What is that? Ms. Arinaga: Was it the public that had an outcry for the need to... Mr. Hull: They were saying that some of their customers were complaining about traffic and the lack of parking. Somebody came down from (Washington) D.C., from USPS, to say this is a local need you guys and we need to close it. Having had that discussion and seeing that was the main issue, the Department actually worked with the Mayor's Office and Public Works to potentially secure parking within the County facilities for their customers and staff, as well as we presented the proposed TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) improvements on Lihu`e Town Core and Rice Street which would add additional parking stalls to that area for which it looked like we were able meet it. But shortly after we gave that presentation the local Postmaster informed us that she was restricted or prohibited from having any further discussions with the County of Kauai. A month or two after that we got another letter from USPS National Headquarters stating that they are closing the Lihu`e Post Office, and indeed, it is because of financial reasons and decisions being made as part of the national program. So they came back to have the discussion with the public. There were certain concerns about that closure related to economic development and the revitalization attempts going on in the area. I won't get into it too much because it doesn't have too much to do with historic preservation. When we had those meetings with them we did inform them that they had not participated in the Section 106 process. They are a Federal agency and the program that I just described to you folks in the previous presentation, they had not participated in that requirement. They had not consulted with either the County of Kauai Planning Department or the Kauai Historical Preservation Review Commission concerning potential affects to the historical structure, because that structure is on both the National and State Register and they acknowledged that. Subsequent to that, and this is where we're getting into the letter now, on November 29th the Mayor received a letter from Tom Samra, who is one of the Vice Presidents under the USPS for operations, informing the County they had made a final decision to close the Lihu`e Post Office— much to our shock because they had not gone to the Section 106 process. The very next day, December 1 st, the United States Post Office posted on the Lihu`e Postal bulletin board a notice to the public stating, we hereby opening the 30-day comment period for the Section 106 process. This runs counter to the requirements of Section 106 which say you don't take any final action or make a final decision on an undertaking until you've completed your Section 106 consultation. We had never been consulted. The letter you folks have as your first agenda item is the letter that I wrote on behalf of the County of Kauai to Ms. Sarver who was the person who posted the letter at the L-ihu`e bulletin board. Our January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 28 statements were three primary objections; the first objection — that they had initiated the 106 process to include the public and as a posting at the Lihu`e Post Office. They had just included the public but they didn't provide any of the documentation that they referenced stating that they made a finding of no adverse effect. They didn't go through any Section 106 consultation to get to the identification of the historical site, or as to whether or not there would be an adverse effect on the historic site. But our first objection was plain and simple; you're inviting the public to the 106 process without providing them with any of the documentation that they had done. Our second objection was that the section 106 process had never been initiated with either the Planning Department or the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission both, two separate agencies, within the Certified Local Government, or two separate bodies within the Certified Local Government. Ms. Sarver had included myself on an email several months ago that she sent to the State Historic Preservation Office identifying our Department as a consulting agency and for us to provide comments. But two minutes after she sent me that email she sent an email to the Department retracting that email. So we kept on as business as usual — like that was not their consultation process. So we objected to not being included and this body not being included as well on the consultation. And then third and finally, the letter objects to the USPS — like I alluded to in the beginning of the conversation — initiating the 106 process with the public after it had already made the final decision to proceed with the closure and relocation of the postal services. So we sent the letter physically, but we also emailed it to Ms. Sarver. Immediately after receiving that email, Ms. Sarver did email the County of Kauai explaining that she did anticipate having to redo the process but she would be in touch in the future. I can say that last week Tuesday I received a call from Daniel Delahaye, who is the National Historic Preservation Officer for the United States Postal Service, for which he did admit they had erred in the process of not consulting either this body or the Planning Department, and they have erred in their process in the posting over at the L-ihu`e Post Office. I just received an email from him about two hours ago stating that they have just initiated the official consultation with KHPRC and the Planning Department by sending the physical letter of a determination of no adverse effect, as well as the documentation that brought them to that analysis and evaluation. We anticipate getting that letter in the next week or so and then it will be officially transmitted to you folks on your agenda. The Planning Department will draft a letter on our part doing an evaluation of their findings and you folks will have it on your next agenda to review and comment. I did inform Mr. Delahaye that is standard operating procedure for an applicant in the 106 process to appear before this body and engage the discussion with this body. I would characterize his response as more than likely you will not be getting a representative before this body. That is essentially where the Lihu`e Post Office situation is. We're finally, after a lot of pushing and shoving, were able to get to the table with them to participate in the consultation of 106 with them and we're going to enter in good faith. I can say we hope so does USPS as well. And that's where that lays. Ms. Schneider: Have they listed it for sale? Mr. Hull: They have not to my knowledge, no. Mr. Ida: Does the County have a position on the Post Office? January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 28 Mr. Hull: I'll say from ... we have gone on official record to state that we object to the moving of the Post Office, but not for historic preservation reasons. We haven't entered that analysis, quite frankly Commissioner. The reason we did object is because of the improvements that are being made to the town core with the $13 million dollar grant that the Department of Transportation awarded us. The specific purpose of that was for traffic improvements that incentivize or help revitalize town core areas. So removing a central service from the town core that we're going through revitalization efforts, the County does object to that and we made our position known. I think to that affect the USPS has acknowledged that concern and objection and said that's not enough for them to stay around, essentially. We understand that they have issues in D.C. that require the closure of certain sites but from the perspective that it would make it much more — it makes it not only removing a core draw to an economic area that we are trying to revitalize but just overall provisions of services to the community. We've been seeing the United States Post Office — they closed the Hanama`ulu site, they ultimately closed the Puhi site and people have been coming here, and now they're closing the Lihu`e site as well. They are going to relocate the facilities out to their airport area which is still in Lihu`e but... Ms. Schneider: It takes it out of the pedestrian core. Mr. Hull: Correct. There's a lot of people that access that site without having to say, drive, that make it much more accessible. As far as the historic preservation side of it, the County has not gone on the record yet because we haven't engaged in the 106 and so as far as that's concerned, we will be going ... and we'll present to you folks the letter that we draft up for your consideration as well. Chair Guerber: That process hasn't begun yet, really. It's beginning now. Mr. Hull: I'll say that the National Historic Preservation Office for USPS has admitted that the 106 process erred in consulting with this body and the Planning Department. There were other consulting parties that were identified, the Lihu`e Business Association being one, State Historic Preservation Office being another, as well as — there's one other organization that I am forgetting... that were included on that cc email that did respond. They responded with an array of different concerns —Historic Hawaii Foundation. Historic Hawaii Foundation had a 30-40 page letter of objection and concern which laid out an array of issues that the closure would adversely affect the historic resource. And so I believe that the USPS's interpretation of that is that the consulting parties had their 30-day counter period; that they just messed up with you folks and us and so they are only opening it back up for just us two. And I can say in response to the Lihu`e Business Association as well Historic Hawaii Foundation, which I wasn't aware was possible, but the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in D.C. gets involved in a handful of these cases where Federal agencies err in the 106 process, or that the Advisory Council has concerns about their undertaking and not entering into the 106 process appropriately. I was under the impression that the Advisory Council and Historic Preservation would only intervene if the respective State Historic Preservation Office raises an objection — that was my understanding. But just based off of Historic Hawaii Foundations objections and Lihu`e Business Associations objections, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation in D.C. actually got involved already. So based on those letters they already contacted the USPS to state January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 28 that there are some issues concerning the relocation and the need to further go under Section 106 proceedings for not just the closure and sale of, but also for the relocation of the services. So I know that they have also been drawn into this discussion now. Chair Guerber: Is there some action we should be doing right now with this? Should we be receiving it? Mr. Hull: Ultimately it's just for your receipt. You will be getting their letter shortly here, and it's with their letter we'd be looking at you folks, I'll be honest, for some thorough discussion at the next KHPRC meeting because they have a very narrow window, they gave us 30 days, so if we get the letter in the next day or two, you're meeting essentially is where you're going to have to take action on it. Because if it goes above and beyond, whether or not they decide to engage beyond the 30 days, I am not sure. But to be safe it should be done on the same day. Mr. Delahaye is a very genuine individual and he is at the head of historic preservation for the Post Office. He did participate in the Berkley Post Office closure, if any of you folks are familiar with that case, it kind of garnered national headlines for several years. Mr. Chaffin: Rather than just receiving it should we take a stand at this point? Mr. Hull: Commissioner, I don't know if there's much stand ... I mean if you guys want to take a stand, but all you folks have right now is my letter. Nothing has been communicated or transmitted to you folks from USPS but like I said, Mr. Delahaye has put the envelope in the mail, it is on its way to you folks, and it will be on next month's agenda. Mr. Long: Can't this Commission have access to the comments by other parties? Mr. Hull: Definitely, we can provide that in the packet as well. It'll be a thick packet, but we can provide it. Chair Guerber: So I guess I'm looking for a motion to receive and that's as good as we can do. Mr. Hull: At this point yes. It's going to bring this Commission and this County... hopefully we won't end up in the Berkley situation, hopefully we all go to the table and enter into consultation in good faith. But just for your own — for those who might not be aware of the Berkley case — back in 2015 or 2014 the Post Office in Berkley was to be closed down and sold off in the market; the exact same situation happening in L-1hu`e. And exactly the same as the L-1hu`e Post Office is on the National Register, the Berkley Post Office is on the National Register. They entered into consultation actually with the City of Berkley and at some point — as well as the National Historic ... who is the other second party? There was a second party in there. They entered into consultation with the City of Berkley and at some point just closed the consultation proceedings and Berkley didn't hear from them again for a few months. They found out through the grapevine that it was being listed and had actually been sold. Immediately the City of Berkley sued the USPS for failing to meet its duties under Section 106. It went to court and the argument for the USPS attorneys was that the USPS is separate and apart of the U.S. government, other agencies, and therefore Section 106 is not applicable to them. It garnered a lot of attention nationally because many post offices are historic resource and so preservationist January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 28 across the country were watching this case very closely to see what the judge would rule. Ultimately, given all the controversy surrounding it, the buyer decided he did not want to proceed with the purchase and it fell out of escrow. With that, it was actually Mr. Delahaye, Daniel Delahaye, who informed the judge that they were taking it off the market and would not be selling it anymore. And with that the judge dismissed the case and a lot of preservationist was just wanting an answer to say wait, is 106 applicable or not? So there's no case law for this, it's kind of new territory. And so that was (inaudible) from the historic preservation side. The epilogue to it though is that, not trusting the LISPS, the City of Berkley rezoned the Post Office for a civic space that cannot have any residential or commercial uses, meaning they basically took it off the market through their zoning powers and the USPS just turned around and sued the City of Berkley; and now they're in court. It's an interesting case and I honestly hope that we're not going to get into a litigative action. I honestly hope that Mr. Delahaye and USPS enter into these consultations in good faith and that we mete out all the concerns but it's walking in the shadow of the Berkley case, I will say. Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� City of Berkley and National Trust Register. Mr. Hull: Yes, the National Trust Register. That's right. Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� Sued LISPS. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we receive this information. Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 7:0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Review for Historic Importance of a 1.39 acre parcel located in `Aliomanu, `Aliomanu Ahupua`a, Koolau Moku, further identified as Tax May Key (TMK) (4)4-9-004:013, Owner: `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust. a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull: Being that this is the New Year, we kind of briefed you guys that Alex Wong is a dedicated staff member for the Historic Preservation Review Commission. All of the projects coming before you folks will be — an analysis will be done by our Department, an evaluation, and ultimately a recommendation. So this is going to be the first review, evaluation, recommendation you have from us. Having said that, I want to be clear, when Alex is done if you have any questions, concerns, criticism of our evaluation that is entirely within your prerogative to do. And in fact at the end of the day, the action is yours. Our evaluation and recommendation is just that; it's a recommendation. You folks are free to acknowledge it, adopt it, or amend it, or totally go in a different direction. Ms. Schneider: Did we see this before? January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 28 Mr. Hull: Yes. Just a history on this, the Open Space Commission referred this over to you folks. This is a bit different than your standard application where the land owner is coming before you folks because they want to make some type of changes to the structure or the site and the site is historical; and therefore they're looking for your input and the Department or the Planning Commission is looking for recommended conditions of approval. This is a bit different because the Open Space Commission referred it to you folks because they had gotten it from a member of the public to use their funds. The Open Space Commission has a fund to acquire sites for reasons like conservation, for access, for conservation, preservation, and so there was nothing on the site that indicated that it was ... well it's very close to a place that has access to the beach so it didn't really fit on the Open Space Commission's evaluation form as far as access purposes. The only one it potentially might have met is if it's historical, and for preservation purposes. So they referred this over to you folks to review, to determine in your assessment whether or not this, the structure on the site, is of historical significance and worth preserving. You guys aren't even going to — you're not going to even look at potential changes to the structure. All you're looking at is, is this a historically significant site or a historically significant structure, period. Ms. Schneider: But didn't we see this before? Chair Guerber: Two months ago or something like that. Three months ago? Ms. Schneider: Yes, it was on... Mr. Hull: Yes, so it came to your folks and you folks referred it back to the Planning Department for us to do an evaluation analysis. So go ahead Alex. Mr. Wong: Aloha mai kakou. For the record I am Alex Wong. I am the Historic Planner for the Planning Department. My Director's Report is in your packet, it follows the report provided by Nani Sadora, who is the Open Space Planner. Mr. Wong read the Director's Report dated January 18, 2018, for the record. (Document on file) Chair Guerber: Discussion? Ms. Schneider: Should we make a motion to accept this report? Chair Guerber: I think that's good. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that... Mr. Long: I have a question. Alex, in criteria C you make a recommendation based off of photographic evidence of the exterior of the existing structures. I don't see any photographs for our review. Mr. Wong: They weren't submitted with the report? January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 28 Mr. Long: I am looking at the packet. Mr. Wong: Were they accepted when Open Space referred this over to KHPRC? Ms. Schneider: We saw pictures... Mr. Hull: My apologies Commissioner. I think you're right Commissioner Long. When we first submitted to you folks it did have photographs in it and this second submittal we forgot to attach those photographs. I apologize. If you would like to — I think it's a perfectly valid concern to take action without having access to the photographic material —just based on that alone, the Department would have no problems having this deferred until we can resubmit the report with the photographs. Mr. Wong: Myles (Hironaka) are you signaling that there are photographs in here? Mr. Long: I don't see... Mr. Hull: I will just ask that, to maintain parliamentary order just for the discussion as well as for the minute purposes if... Ms. Schneider: There is one photo... Mr. Hull: Excuse me. For parliamentary purposes and this is because your action will be held as conditions of approval, and also just for Sandra's (Muragin) mental state of having to transcribe the minutes, if we can still stick to requesting to speak and the Chair can recognize the Commissioner at that time. Thank you. Ms. Arinaga: I just have a comment. Thank you for your information. In your report you stated `Aliomanu is in the Anahola Ahupuaa. So Anahola and `Aliomanu are two separate Ahupuaa's, so just clarification for the records. Mr. Hull: Thank you Commissioner. Mr. Long: I have a clarification question. Were photographs of the structure included in this latest package? Mr. Hull: There's a single photograph with the real estate listing, which I would say I don't think you can come to an assessment based off of that photograph, and I apologize. Like I said, this is the first report you folks are getting; we're still weeding out the kinks. But definitely attachments of photographic evidence should be provided in all of our reports, quite honestly. Mr. Long: I would move that we defer action on this application until next time that the applicant can provide photographs and hopefully, as we require with all applications, exterior elevations and floor plans. Ms. Schneider: I second the motion January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 28 Chair Guerber: Any discussion? Mr. Hull: To that, the Department has no problem with that. The case in this is it's unique in that in the sense that there is no applicant, right. Generally you'll have a landowner that's proposing changes to his or her structure, then provides those elevations and drawings and renderings to this body which indeed, we are of the mindset whenever you have an applicant, those are provided. In this situation the landowner is not really involved because all Open Space Commission is asking is ... the Open Space Commission is looking at acquiring the site; does KHPRC think it's historic. But to be clear Commissioner, we will provide the photographic evidence that we have. Beyond that, I would also say if you have any other discussions or concerns before deferring this item that you want to pose to the Department, please do so. Mr. Long: I would suggest that if we have time in our schedules that we stop by and take a look at the site and the structures physically so that we can make our best determination. I have a second question for Alex and that is, following Hurricane Iniki — you made reference to these structures being restored, or renovated, or rebuilt with an OEP permit. You're privy to that work, what was done after the hurricane? Mr. Wong: I can go back to the existing structures and permit history under the background information. For the detached carport and workshop, which is what it was called on the OEP permit in 1994 per the design plans submitted to OEP, the carport/storage should be no greater than 480 square feet and ... I guess in the future we could... Mr. Hull: If I could interject as well. We're getting into the issue without photographs, it's a bit nebulous. We can show you a permit and say there's a carport and I think your question Commissioner is, what does that look like, right? And so it's something without the photographs, it's hard to have this discussion. Mr. Woniz: Also the understanding too, I actually pulled these permits and looked at them. Often times in these cases the permit itself is very slim in details. And often times too, the plot plan or the plan provided is hand drawn. Often times it's going to be difficult to extract any further information from these OEP permits. Understandably too, given the situation of the time, a lot of these permits where given very quickly. Ms. Schneider: The OEP process was one page. Chair Guerber: Commissioner Nakea, you got something? Ms. Nakea: Yes. I am not sure whether or not it's pertinent to whatever decision we come to, but the desire to purchase, to acquire this land was brought to the Open Space Commission by the people of that community and it might have been in the last report, for what particular reason, conservation? Mr. Hull: Well, it was just brought to the Commission's attention to look at purchasing it. There was some discussion on the floor for access purposes and so when it goes to the Open Space Commission, it's just received as a possible recommendation and then our Open Space January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 28 Commission staff person does research on the site and the area and made the assessment that it could be used for recreational purposes. But whenever it's going to be used for recreational purposes within the County's domain we immediately we have to turn to the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department said we have no interest in utilizing this as a resource, or maintaining it as a resource, so that was removed. So essentially our recommendation to the Open Space Commission was it would have no value for recreational purpose, it would have no value for access because there's an access fairly close by in location to this area, and we recommended that the Commission no longer pursue it. The response to that from one of the Commissioners on the Open Space Commission was, but perhaps there maybe something of historical importance about the structure and therefore we should buy it for the structure, and they referred it over to you folks to make an analysis on your side. Do you find this structure historically significant? Our assessment from the Planning Department is no, it isn't, but at the end of the day they're requesting your input on it. Again, I apologize; you're not going to be able to make that assessment without the photographs. Ms. Nakea: There were photographs in the last one. Mr. Hull: In the original submittal there were but with the report, as you're getting it from us now — we're kind of ironing out the kinks how our reports work — we should have those photos attached. Ms. Arinaga: So in trying to get some sense of direction for where this location is, is it on the ocean side or mauka? So would it provide access to the beach, because I know there's no access for that area? Chair Guerber: It's a beach front property. Ms. Arinaga: Okay. Mr. Hull: It's a beach front property. Chair Guerber: I have a motion and a second to defer. Any more discussion? Mr. Ida: Did you say previously that all we're looking at is the structure? Mr. Hull: The referral was specifically for the structure; however, if there is a historical significance on the overall site, that review can be done by this body. When it was referred over to you folks they were asking specifically on the structure. So I think if, in the purview of this body, perhaps the structure is not historically significant but there are historical archaeological resources in the area or what have you that are of historical significance, and therefore the site is historically significant, I think that's definitely this Commission's prerogative. Mr. Ida: My concern is that ... I'm sure you've seen the actual site. You've seen the property? Mr. Wona: I've seen photos listed on ... the photos that I would submit — I will submit at the next meeting — they're from real estate websites. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 28 Mr. Ida: My concern is that the importance of this property, especially culturally and archaeologically, probably will never be known unless you stick a shovel in the ground. One of the red flags for me is that it's a land commission and it's right on the beach. Mr. Hull: If that is a concern, I think this body could turn around and state that while the KHPRC does not have the resources to determine whether or not the site has archaeological resources, it is the recommendation that the Open Space Commission further purse this to determine whether or not. The Planning Department and KHPRC don't have the funds and resources for that quite honestly to hire a firm to trench the area so to speak, but the Open Space Commission does have those resources available. They can use their funds to fund studies of that nature. Mr. Ida: How much money they get? Mr. Hull: It's at their discretion as well as the Department's discretion on whether or not to proceed. I'll be honest with you guys, some of this is, I believe, an exercise in futility because the reason that it came to you folks — I'm going to get Nani to make sure what I am saying is right — is that it was on the open market. It was on the open market and that's why the Open Space Commission was reviewing it. I believe since that time it has been purchased... no, it's still on the open market. Well than I guess we still have time. Ms. Nakea: So is time of the essence then? I mean... Mr. Hull: Time is of the essence on it. Mr. Chaffin: I am wondering if we're not making a mountain out of a molehill. We're not creating more discussion than is necessary. Chair Guerber: All we're looking for is a determination whether the structure is historical. There are other factors that would lead the Open Space Commission to not purchase, such as the purchase price versus the assessment price. There are several other reasons they wouldn't proceed, so yes, we may be doing that. Any further questions? Mr. Lona: I feel that discussion is really important to clarify our procedures, particularly when we're beginning a new process within the Commission. I absolutely am thrilled that Alex is on board with our Commission. I've spent some time in the car with him driving around neighborhoods with Myles and he's very good at this and he's enthusiastic and as a Commission, we thoroughly appreciate that effort on his behalf, and also the Department's behalf as we integrate that new procedure into our Commission meetings. I feel that it's important to do it correctly. I also would like to make a comment that when we do this we don't have a lot of applicants that come before our Commission on a monthly basis. Is it possible that if your staff is going to write a report for us, that they go out and physically look at the structure and the property and not just with photographs provided by a real estate agent. Mr. Hull: Definitely. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 28 Chair Guerber: Any more discussion? (Hearing none) Let's have a vote. All in favor of deferring? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 7:0. NEW BUSINESS 1. Bank of Hawaii TMK: 3-06-05:008 4455 Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai Roof demolition and replacement a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter b. Letter (November 30, 2017) from Alan Downer, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Division. Mr. Hull: Standard lately, if we are mimicking to a certain degree the Planning Commission's process, the staff report is read first on the agenda, and after the staff report is done the applicant is brought up to discuss with the Commission their application. It's really at the Chair's discretion or this body's discretion on how you want to proceed but that's the way the Planning Department would recommend. Chair Guerber: I think we should have the report from staff, Alex. Mr. Wong read the Director's Report dated January 18, 2018 for the record. (Document on file) Chair Guerber: Thanks. Do we discuss? Mr. Hull: If at any time there are any questions of the Planner or Department concerning the report, it would be appropriate to ask them now. If there are none you can bring the applicant up. Chair Guerber: Let's bring the applicant up. So our decision today would be to accept? Mr. Hull: Ultimately, if you're ready for action the ... you have the discussion with the applicant first, then we can... Mr. Palmer Hafdahl: Aloha Chair and Commissioners. I am Palmer Hafdahl, happy New Year. I am Palmer Hafdahl, Principal Architect of Palms Hawaii Architecture, and with me is Raisa Carlos; (she) just finished an internship with us. She is a graduate of U.H. (University of Hawaii) and returned home to work with us so we're happy to have Raisa with us. She's taken a keen interest in the history part things as well, and done a lot of the historic research on this property. I am here instead of — the applicant is Bank of Hawaii — I am their designated representative authorized to apply for this permit on their behalf. I am not in a position to make commitments for them one way or the other at the moment —just to present the information and take your comments. Thank you. I want to thank Alex for that report, it was so thorough and understanding and he brought up a lot of good points in the process. We're lucky to have a fortunate dedicated planner like that with us. The applicant as well, Bank of Hawaii, has been real understanding in this, they're a very willing participant in this. They could have just said go January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 28 reroof and be done with it but they recognize how important it is for the community and want to be a part of the process; hence their commitment to this and the work that we did. You'll see in your application we did submit to SHPD as required by the County and we were given a negative determination that yes, in keeping with all of the other data, it's not structurally qualified for registration with the State. However, it was brought up in a report that the roof itself is over 50 years old and so it may be the Commission's prerogative to take a look at that roof specifically and say that is a historic element that you wish to maintain a certain way. I have some items to include — the original structure was begun construction in 1912 and finished in about March of 1913. The structure at that time appeared to have what was a skylight on a flat roof, a minor skylight, and then by the mid `20's or so that skylight had been replaced as they occasionally leak. It appears to me that what happened is that leak was replaced by a clerestory, there was a little clerestory element as well. I suspect at that time it had a ventilation component as well. In 1938 Mr. Rothwell made that addition that added 20 foot by 60 foot to the back of the building and then closed also a portion of the front of the building, 16 by 24, so it made it somewhat bigger. At that time though, I should point out that the roof was actually a shingle roof, a wood shingle roof, and that wood shingle was maintained at least until the 1965 permit that we looked at that still showed it as wood shingle roofing. The question of maintaining the material type would be something I would take exception to, I would say there should be a little leeway in there because the Monier tile is not historic. I did a little research just wondering if I could look it up (inaudible) clay roofing tile had any chance of being historic and interestingly it's the tile that I used on the first house that I designed in 19... oh, I shouldn't say what date that was. And it was a new tile then and I was only 39 years old so I am only 39 years old now, I should say, so it couldn't possibly be historic. But my guess is that tile probably was applied in 1989 when they had an application in the Planning Department for zoning and some renovations. My guess is that tile itself is not that old, it survived the hurricane well according to Joe Francher who we've worked with, and hasn't been replaced since then so it needs replacing now. There's a leak in the roof. I am open to answer your questions but I'd like to address one other question that Alex brought up. It was of question of whether the dormer existed in '38 or not and I didn't get back to him yet but I'll leave these photographs for him. (Mr. Palmer passed out photographs for the Commissioners to review) I said that I would review our study. We walked through the roof and have done detailed structural studies of the roof and in that ... yes you can pass them out. I would just go one at a time. The first photograph shows a portion of the roofing with just a portion of the dormer in the area where there is a present leak in the roof, hence the effort to repair the roof. This one, the duct that drops between two of the rafters, the rafters that are indicated here are painted white for some reason. I can't determine why they are painted white but the rafters are framed through and the dormer sort of over framed on that. It sort of appears the dormer was there originally, it doesn't appear that the dormer was cut in. I told Alex that I would look and see if I could determine from the structure if the dormer was an addition or if it was there in the original Rothwell roof. These to me indicate that it was there in the original Rothwell roof. The air conditioning was apparently added later. The roofing itself is a braced frame roofing, it's not a truss so a structural engineer said he wouldn't be able to figure out how a truss like that would work, some items just have one nail through them, it's a bit of a (inaudible) work inside of there. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 28 The last photograph is vertical, it's number 8, the number should be in the upper right hand corner of your photograph, number 8 shows a part of the steel framing that was added in '65 so major steel beams run through the building to cover what was at one time, we think, an interior court. In my estimation it's probable that that dormer was an opening on the leeward side that allowed negative air pressure to pull ventilation through windows that existed in the building through the court and out. Which would work fine then but by the time '65, already ducted ventilation was applied and the advantage of that dormer was not continued. That's pretty much my report; you have the rest of the information in front of you. We were only asking for an opportunity to demo that dormer and the existing roofing, and replace the roofing with a form where the form of the roof is maintained — that is the split pitched roof consistent with Rothwell's style. The ventilation on each end is typical of the dickey type roof that would also be maintained, so we would demo the dormer and the existing roofing, but the roof shape would stay and new roofing would be applied. I think you have this document. Chair Guerber: But you think the dormer was part of the original construction? Mr. Hafdahl: I believe so, yes. And you can leave those photographs with Alex, thank you. Mr. Hull: Sorry, Palmer, the material that you're proposing to roof it with, what did you say you are planning on roofing it with? Mr. Hafdahl: We'd like a little leeway on that. One reason I mentioned it is braced frame roofing. In order to keep the same roofing, the roof structure, the structural engineer said he would like to maintain a roofing material that weighs no more than the original shake roofing. But the tile has lasted and so I am thinking we could replace it with tile but from a structural standpoint, to have him back me up, he's going well the original roof was designed for wood shake; that's a lesser weight. So what we're thinking is perhaps a lighter weight tile, a light weight concrete or a lightweight clay tile — but it may not be the same tile — the tile that is on there right now is not a particularly lightweight concrete tile. So that's why we'd like a little bit more leeway on the material. We certainly want something that is consistent with the town core color palate. As much as we would argue that sky blue and cloud gray is a natural color, the town core palate is more earth toned oriented. I think on there, it indicates a blue/bluish gray roof. We would certainly ask the Planning Department's approval of any roofing color that we selected, but just that item being replaced with the same material. Mr. Hull: To that note, ultimately the Department is recommending two conditions of approval be recommended by this body. One, that the applicant maintain the existing form and character of the Rothwell high double pitched hip roof which the applicant is saying they have no objection to. The second condition we're recommending is that the applicant should use concrete tile or material similar in appearance for the proposed roof replacement. I think the Department would be willing to amend that to "the applicant should use," did you say originally it was shingle? Unknown Speaker: Shake. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 28 Mr. Hull: The Department would be amendable to the applicant using shake or material similar in appearance for the proposed roof replacement. Ms. Schneider: Yes, because we recommended the shake roof for the other building that's just a few feet away. Mr. Long: I believe that, Palmer, you said that it was a cedar shingle roof which is quite different from a shake roof. Mr. Hafdahl: Yes, shingle. Mr. Long: Just to clarify with the Commission, shingles have a really light, delicate, thinner profile and shakes are just split chunks of cedar. There's a big difference between shake and shingle. Mr. Hafdahl: Thank you for that clarification. I may have misspoke because I cannot determine from the photos whether it was shake or shingle and so sometimes I go back and forth on that because the — and even the plans, I recall, they weren't concise on that and so, yes, there is a large difference in appearance and weight as well. But either of them are lighter weight than concrete tile. Mr. Long: My personal comment is that I would support the Department's expression of willingness to entertain a cedar wood roof as well because that has a historical precedence also. And particularly with the structure below, I know you want to be careful in your renovation in cost and we don't want to destroy a beautiful building by putting a too heavy of a roof. Mr. Hull: So Commissioner Long, would you be okay if we amended our conditions to state, "The applicant should use a cedar shingle or shake or material similar in appearance for the proposed roof replacement." Mr. Long: Exactly. Chair Guerber: Are you going to accept tile as well? Mr. Long: Yes. I would propose that we would accept three materials; cedar shingle, cedar shake, and a lightweight concrete tile if you feel it's appropriate. Mr. Hafdahl: Am I free to comment a little bit? I guess we would appreciate just a little bit more leeway on that because for fire purpose and stuff there may be advantage in finding material that maintains the same historic appearance but is not necessarily cedar. I'd like a little bit more leeway on that and maybe just a reference to something historically, and in keeping, with the history of the roof or something like that the Planning Department could say yay or nay on because frankly, we haven't selected our preference yet. We've run a few things by the owner and they've liked many of our suggestions, but before choosing one they wanted to see what requirements, if any, there were going to be. I think if we could allow something that is historically appropriate or something like that, or appropriate to the history of the roof, January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 28 something like that. That would leave us a little more leeway and maybe (the) Planning Department similarly. However you determine but I prefer not to have or be limited to wood shingle — if it's a shingle or shake look... Mr. Long: I understand and I would revise my comments to give you that additional leeway with a caveat that since you have not selected the specific roofing material that you come back before us with that specific material with those guidelines. And you've been before this Commission a lot and we understand that you're historically sensitive, you do an excellent job, we trust you to do that and we'd like to give you the leeway in order to present us your final choice. Mr. Hafdahl: Would that be true if it was the same clay tile and/or specifically, cedar shake? If we replaced it with the same tile that was there, the same concrete tile now, would you still want to come back and see that concise selection? Mr. Long: That would be fine but concrete tile comes in a lot of different colors. Mr. Hafdahl: And the present was not available, so you're... Mr. Long: You could modify... Mr. Hafdahl: Excuse me. I guess that's what I am trying to get to is — of course I think the owner would prefer not having the expense of going through this again if we don't have to. Mr. Hull: If I may, while this Commission has had a history of engaging in discussions with the applicant and leaving some clearance for them, as we've done in the past — in particular with the former Oki Diner if I can refer to it as — the Commission had specific conditions and the Department enforced those conditions. And in fact the proposal that came in the building permit, the Department did not find in keeping with the recommendation of this body and we denied their first building permit. And they came back with a second proposal and we said that is actually in keeping with what this body had recommended. That's why I am just trying to get, for clarity's sake, exactly what the condition would be. And if I may say, the Department would be willing to amend condition 2 to state, "Applicant should use cedar shingle or shake or material similar in appearance or material in keeping with the history of the roof for the proposed roof replacement." And the Department will work with Palmer to flush that out, essentially. I'll also say you have our commitment that we're not going to use that leeway to allow the applicant to put whatever roofing material as our case history presented and Oki Diner came in with something that looked nowhere near in similar shape to the former roofing material; we denied the application. Mr. Hafdahl: Thank you for clarifying that it wasn't us that came in and was denied. Chair Guerber: Discussion? (Hearing none) Do we have a motion? Mr. Hull: So on reports of this nature you can make a motion to approve as recommended by the Planning Department. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 28 Mr. Chaffin: Second. Mr. Hull: No I didn't make that motion. Mr. Hafdahl: Could we clarify whether the dormer is in or out now because you have both recommendations. Chair Guerber: I think it's out from what I could gather; that's the recommendation. Mr. Hafdahl: The recommendation had been changed to not include the dormer. Mr. Hull: The Department's recommendation is not inclusive of the dormer; however; if the body feels it wants to amend that condition it's... Mr. Hafdahl: Okay, I understand, thank you. Chair Guerber: That was the main decision, wasn't it, to let them remove the dormer or not. This motion says we'll let them remove the dormer. Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� I don't think we have a motion yet. Mr. Hull: We don't have a motion yet. Chair Guerber: I thought Larry made a motion. Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� He attempted to make a second so I would say for clarity's sake... Chair Guerber: We don't have a motion for your second yet. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we accept staff s recommendations in respect to the building materials and the roofing materials and the removal of the dormer. Ms. Arinaga: I second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? Any discussion? Mr. Long: Yes, I just want to make sure that the motion includes the comments we just added by Ka`aina. Mr. Hull: Yes, that would include my proposed amendments to the conditions. Chair Guerber: More discussion? Mr. Long: Second. Ms. Higuchi-Sa. e� Already seconded. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 28 Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 7:0. Mr. Hull: The motion passes. 2. Sueoka Market TMK: 2-8-08:35 5392 Koloa Road, Koloa, Kauai National Register of Historic Resources Nomination. c. Director's Report pertaining to this matter Mr. Hull: The Department actually doesn't have a report on this. The Department just stands by the nomination and recommends its approval. I believe we have the applicant's representative here. Chair Guerber: The applicant is looking for historic registry? Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Guerber: Correct? Mr. Hull: Correct. Natalie: Hi, I am Natalie. I work for Minatoishi Architects in Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Hull: Sorry, Natalie if you could state your full name for the record. Natalie Besl: Natalie Besl. My last name is weird it's B-E-S-L, just to clarify, in case. I am representing the owner of this building who would like to nominate this building for the National Register of Historic Places for the Hawaii State Register. I think everyone has a copy of the report. I did have a power point made up; however, I don't think my machine is compatible. I'll run through the printed version that I have and if you have any questions please let me know. I also have a copy of the nomination so I'll try to find the answer as soon as possible. Anyway, the name is listed as Sueoka Market on the application; it's located at 5392 Koloa Road in Koloa Town. We are nominating it under A for community development and C for architectural significance. The main core of this application is that it's been associated with the Sueoka family who has run the Sueoka Market since its founding in 1918. It started as a small general store within the Koloa Sugar Mill Japanese camp plantation, and then expanded when it moved to this current location in 1933. It has remained there until now, it's actually currently being run as Sueoka Market, and was purchased by SMK Properties in 2015. As part of the purchase they were granted 4-years to continue running the Sueoka Market so it could reach its 100 year mark and today Wendy and Rod, Rod Sueoka is the third generation from the founder Mankichi Sueoka who immigrated here in 1901. As for architectural significance, we designated it as a false front commercial style piece of architecture which is, I guess, runs in the town. The surrounding buildings are also built in this January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 28 style, or relatively in this style. Changes have been made to the property like you'll see in the nomination. One of the most obvious ones to the eye was made on the face in 1980 when they removed the palettes; however, those were not original to the building. The general face is still the same, the materials are still the same, and they repaired and replaced one of the windows in 2007 when a car actually ran into the front of the store. But it was replaced in -kind and is consistent with the building and how it looked. If any of the images are difficult to see in the nomination, I also brought some of the original prints with me in case anyone is interested in looking at those. We have not submitted this to the State Historic Preservation Division quite yet, we wanted to run it past the Kauai County first so we could go in with a recommendation, hopefully, from you to the State Historic Preservation Division. Chair Guerber: Any questions? So you're representing ABC stores? Ms. Besl: Yes, I am speaking on the owner's behalf, yes. Chair Guerber: And the way the store looks or is run today is going to change eminently this year? Ms. Besl: I can't speak on that front. All I am speaking on is the nomination of the historic property itself. I am not associated with ABC stores other than writing this nomination for them and submitting it to the State Department. Ms. Schneider: Do we need a motion to support the nomination? Mr. Hull: Ultimately a motion will be necessary. Ms. Schneider: I'd like to make a motion that we support the nomination. Ms. Nakea: I second it. Chair Guerber: Any discussion? Mr. Hull: I have one question for the applicant, Chair. Natalie, concerning the nomination, would you be able to go into some detail as far as — while the property has maintained its historical integrity — concerning the solar panels that are now on the roof and how that affects, or doesn't affect, the historical integrity of the site. Ms. Besl: The site itself, I guess the main character defining features that we are focusing on have to do with the parapet wall, the false facade, and the stone exterior on the front as well as some of the interior aspects such as the produce section, and the overall general feel. When we were writing this nomination we were considering what it falls under, A, B, C, or D. A was definitely our first choice and C, we backed it up with, which we do feel it is architecturally significant. The solar panels do have a slight affect if you're looking at it; however, from the street you can't see the solar panels. So from the exterior facade, from the character defining features, it doesn't detract from that significance. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 28 Mr. Hull: Thank you. Chair Guerber: Any more discussion? (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) The motion passes. Motion carried 7:0. Mr. Hull: Natalie, if you could keep in touch with the Planning Department as far when you anticipate submitting the nomination forms to SHPD because ultimately the letter will come from the Mayor's Office reflecting the position of this body. Ms. Besl: Yes, I think the submittal date is January 30th so it is a quick turnaround, so I'll stay in touch. Mr. Hull: We'll be touch from the Mayor's Office too. Ms. Besl: Thank you very much. Mr. Hull: The next agenda item you have is the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory Update Committee. I have to apologize, Commissioner Long had asked at the last meeting that we agendize it to have a discussion of opening up that permitted interactive group for surveying other parts of the island above and beyond what the inventory did. I apologize, we didn't get that on the agenda but we'll definitely have that on the February agenda for that discussion. I don't think the Department has any objections or concerns over that per say at the moment. It's just we forgot to put it on and I apologize for that. Mr. Long: I have a question even though it's not on the agenda. In the future, are volunteering members of the public allowed to participate in any way on a Commission PIG? We have this historic survey PIG and we only have two people that are interested in being on it from the Commission. What if somebody outside, a professional out in the community said I'd like to participate on that? What is the position? Mr. Hull: I don't believe, specifically, somebody from the public could be named to a permitted interaction group just because the permitted interaction group is specifically formed for Commissioners to interact outside of the officialdom of this meeting. But it's something I would have to ask Jodi to research. Mr. Long: There must be some way to integrate professionals from the public that would like to volunteer their time for this kind of survey. Mr. Hull: Yes, definitely. Chair Guerber: In their official capacity, but unofficially could accompany them when they're doing the survey. Mr. Hull: Yes, sorry Jodi had to go and pick up her daughter, but we can have the discussion with Jodi when she gets back. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 28 Mr. Long: We can think about it. Mr. Hull: Thanks. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE KAUA'I HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE a. Historic Inventory Update Recommendation by Permitted Interaction Group. Mr. Hull: With that Chair, that completes our agenda. Oh excuse me, sorry. We have the Historic Inventory Update Recommendation by the Permitted Interaction Group, the actual. Mr. Long: Thank you. I have our final report. A little background, Pursuant to CLG funding from the National Park Service, the County hired the firm of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. to update the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory. The consultant conducted reconnaissance level survey of the south shore and Lihu`e district, and created a data base comprising of approximately 1,600 buildings and structures that were listed as 50 years or older under the County real property tax records. Of this total the consultant identified approximately 595 of the buildings or structures as being evaluated as eligible. The Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission subsequently established a PIG to review the consultants inventory and return to the KHPRC with their recommendation. Beginning in February 2016, the Committee conducted 6 or 7 meetings to review the data base prepared by the consultant along with (inaudible). The committee also conducted 12 field trips of the project area, south shore and Lihu`e area, to review buildings and structures identified in the data base. The combined hours and efforts of the PIG resulted in approximately 360 hours of survey time. Based on the review and field trips conducted by the Committee, the Committee recommends that the original 595 structures identified by the consultant in the 50 years data base, of those 595, 414 of the structures should be kept on the list. We removed 151 of the buildings or structures and removed that from the inventory list. We also added 18 structures that had not been identified by the survey, and approximately 13 others that needed more research due to lack of access or existing photographs. Ms. Schneider: We want to thank Myles for all the help with this. Mr. Hull: I believe that a motion is needed to accept, or should I say approve the recommendations of the Permitted Interactive Group concerning the historic inventory. Mr. Chaffin: I make the motion that we accept it. Ms. Schneider: I second it. Chair Guerber: Discussion? (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 7:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 28 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE HANAPEPE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hull: And that does conclude the agenda for January. Chair Guerber adjourned the meeting at 4:51 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 28 Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. Mayor Wallace G. Rezentes, Jr. Managing Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT County of Kauai, State of Haivai`i 4444 Rice Street, Suite A 473, Lihu`e, Hawaii 96766 TEL (808) 241-4050 FAX (808) 241-6699 MEMORANDUM Date: June 14, 2017 Michael A. Dahilig Director of Planning Ka`aiiia S. Hull Deputy Director of Pl=irig To: Victoria Wichman, Chair, Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission Via: Kaaina.Hull, Deputy Director of Planriing Froin: Teddy Blake, Chair, Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund Commission Re: Review for Historic importame —Preliminary Report — Acquisition Recommendation — `Alioinanu Parcel -- Tax Map Key (TMK) (4) 4-9-004:013 Owner: `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust hi its meeting of June 8, 2017 the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund Commission received a Preliminary Report for an acquisition recominendation from the public. The Commission voted unanimously to refer the preliminary report to Kauai Historic Preservation Review Conu-mission for review and coirunents of historical importance. Attached is the complete Preliminary Report packet for your review more specifically to Preliminary Evaluation #11. 11. The acquisition of a property with existing structures could potentially be supported under the Cominission's criteria for acquisition should the structure (s) and site be of historic or cultural importance. The subject structures, however, are not recognized under Hawaii Revised Statutes 6E as "historic". The subject structures are neither identified on the State of Hawaii Registry nor are they identified on the National Historic Registry nor are they listed on the County of Kauai Historic Inventory list with the Kauai Historic Preservation Commission. The structures have also not been identified as culturally important. Given the inforination gathered from the real property assessment records, it is indicates year built 1924. The Opera Space commission therefore would like comments further from the Kauai 1- \T - . ":X' a An Equal Opportunity Employer , Historic Preservation Review Commission for historical importance before making a final decision for acquisition. Should you have any questions or concern, please contact Nani Sadora, Planner at (808) 241- 4448. Mich ael A. Dahilig Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA`I PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. PROJECT DATA Ka`aina S. Mull Deputy Director of Planning PROJECT INFORAIVITION Parcel Location: `Aliornanu Tax Map Key(s): (4) 4-9-004:013 Area: 1.393 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES Zoning: Open State Land Use District: Urban General Plan Designation: Residential Cornnunity Real Property Assessed Value: $1,234,200 Market Value: $2;999,995 Owner(s): `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust Owner Response: On the open inarket for sale Date Public Recommendation Received: March 9, 2017 Preliminaiy Report Date: May 9, 2017 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE The subject lot of record is approximately 1393 acres in size, and it is located in- `Aliomanu, `Aliomanu Ahupua`a, Koolau Mol u, Kauai Island, Hawaii. It is located within the County of Kaua`i's Open Zoning District, State Ladd Use Urban District and its General Plan Designation is Residential Conununity. The lot of record is bordered to the north by `Aliouianu Road at a dead end; it is bordered to the north and south by residential properties currently in residential use, and it is bordered to the east by the shoreluie. P1 R Ya' ii P_.li 0 f IB li �o- TMK: (4) 4-9-0104:013 March 9, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Nearly level, the lot of record is approximately ten (10) feet above ,sea level. The subject lot of record is the end lot with grasses covering most of its surface, and there are pine trees bordering the lot and shoreline, coconut trees throughout and along the eastern edge bordering `Aliorna- u stream. This is a dead end roadway that ends at `Aliomanu stream. The subject lot ends at `Aliornanu Road nearing `Alionlmau stream where there was once a bridge that connected to the other side of `Aliomanu neighborhood referenced as the old Belt Road Loop. The bridge was destroyed as a result of being washed out by a tsunaini in the nod 60's and was never rebuilt. The lot of record along with noitheastern boundary closest to the shoreline has a 1 bedroom 1 bath cottage with 646 square feet living area and is approximately 37 feet from the approximate shoreline. Fronting the cottage is another rectangular structure identified as a garage per information gathered fiom flee real property assessment records. The garage is approximately 137 feet fiom the vegetation of the shoreline. 111. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS N/A IV. AGENCY COMMENTS N/A V. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION hi reviewing the proposed project site for acquisition, the following should be considered: 1. Given the subject lot of records proximity to the shoreline, the acquisition of the property could fulfill the following Coinnrnission purpose: a. Provide public outdoor recreation and education, including access to the beaches and mountains; 2. The subject property is for sale on the open market; therefore, there is a vv-illirigness on part of the land owrner for acquisition. 3. Pursuant to Section 1-5-5 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the County of Kauai Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund Connnlission, there do not appear to be any prohibitive factors for acquisition of the subject property. 4. The subj ect property's abutting shoreline currently has an erosion rate of approximately 1.1 foot per year. TMK: (4) 4-9-0104.013 March 9, 2017 Page 3 of 5 5. The nearest beach access to the subject fronting beach is approximately 750 feet north on Kukuna Road A. 6. The current list price for the subject property is $2,999,995.00; however, the County of Kauai Real Property Assessment Division has assessed the property to have 'a current assessed value of $1,234,200.00. As such, the subject property does not have sale price that is commensurate to the subject property's assessed value. 7. There is concern over the fact that the subject lot of record has existing structures and does constitute vacant land. Given the presence of a dwelling, the subject property would qualify as improved real property. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 343, an Environmental Assessment is required for the use of County funds for the acquisition of unproved real property. 9. Air Enviromnental Assessment, including but not limited to an Envuomnental Impact Statement, can take up to two (2) to three (3) years to process and can cost upward of over $100,000.00. 10. Additionally, should acquisition occur, the maintenance of not only the site but the existing structures as well would constitute an additional cost liability to the County. 11. The acquisition of a property with existing structures could potentially be supported under the Conunission's criteria for acquisition should the structure(s) and site be of historic of cultural. importance. The subject structures, however, are not recognized under Hawaii Revised Statutes 6E as "historic". The,subject structures are neither identified on the State of Hawaii Historic Registry nor are they identified on the - National Historic Registry nor are they listed on the County of Kauai Historic Inventory list with the Kauai Historic Preservation Commission. The structures have also not been identified as culturally important. 12. White the existing structures are relatively small in nature, the Department does have further concerns over the precedence such an acquisition could set, hi the same mamler that the subject property is close to the shoreline and could provide access purposes, there are a multitude of properties with existing structures that are in close proximity to natural resource areas that are for sale on the open market. With the exception of historic structures, the Department has generally interpreted the "Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund" to be for vacant unimproved lots or tracts of land. 13. Expanding the interpretation of the "Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fuud" to include unproved and developed properties could potentially reduce the Fund balance in manner that could not sustain review of future projects. For the pur7)ose of the Fuid's preservation, the Department would not TMK: (4) 4-9-0104:013 March 9, 2017 Page 4of5 recomnnernd expanding the intenTretatiou of the Fund to include developed and improved properties unless the existing structures are of historic or cultural iinportance. Vz. PRELIM N.A.RY CONCLUSION Based on the infomation contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation, the Planning Department concludes the following: ® Acquisition of the subject property fulfills at least one of the Commission's purposes for public access, open space, and natural resources preservation. Given the proximity of an existing beach access to the subject beach and the subject property's listed sale price being significantly higher than the assessed value, the cost of acquisition would not be commensurate to the public interest it would serve. Given that the subject lot of record has been. previously developed and the structures have not been found to be of historic or cultural importance, the Department does not support acquisition of the subject property. VII. PRELIMINARY RECOTNMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recornmernded that the subject property be DENIED for acquisition. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Plamnurg Depart- ient's final recommendation in view of the forthconning public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision malting. The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a. Govcimnent agency connments; b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and c. The land owner's response to an inquiry for acquisition. BY NANI SADORA Plaimer. TMK: (4) 4-9-0104:013 March 9.2017 Page S of 5, Approved & Recommended to Commission: By KA`A1NA S. HULL Deputy Director of Planning Date: cy 2 1 3/2/209 r gpublic9.gpublIc.netlhl_kauai_display. php?county-hi kauai&KLy=49D04O130DOO Al -70 Recent Sales in Neighborhood pre sous parcel ' Recent Sales in Area - Next Parcel Return to Main Search Pane Kauai Home .:,--�T�.�.�.r.--�c,w,r•t�..-.a.._._�c._<�.�a.�_,.-,—.—�v--.—.—_-mom:--_—T.-..�-r.-r�.f owner and Parcel Information ...•. i:_._..r--c_ _ _ lOvvner Name/ Type DMANN 6fACH LIV TA / Fee Owner LKIDDFR,NA�NCYS / LesseeToday's bate March 2, Z017 w All Oners and Addresses C/O LEILANI KIDDER TRUSTEE Matting Address I 86 S MAIN ST SUNDElfPAND, MA 01375 Parcel Number i 4901)40130000 Location Address I 503Z C`ALTDIriANU RD Project Name Il ITax ClassificationEN7IRL RESID ��— Parcel Map=�.ho?N I' Parcel lulai7 �Neighbnrhnod Code 4904-1 Land Area (acres) I---- _ it Legal Information C AUJ 5024:11.393 AC OFS Land Area (approximate sg ft} 60,679 Assessment Informati m Show Historical Assessments Year Tax Tctat Market II� Total Asse essed Total Classification Value i — Valu- Total Exemption Net Taxable � Value l 2017 RESIDENTIAL i $ 1,234,200 $ 1,234,Z00 1,234,200 i _ _ Improvement information h Year B t f FfFective Year Built Living Area Bedrooms/Full Bath/Half Bath Sketch 1924 1949 I 646 D/1/0 SiCOtCh EUiidlng l_ __ Other Building and Yard Improvements [ Description Quantity YearBui[t Area WOOD DECK RAILING~ 1 1960 3g i perml11)"Ormatian � !v Date Permit Number Reason Perm itAmount i 07/20/2001 - j 941000093BR � � RENEW is snn �l Sales information Sale Date 'iPricejrnstrurraenc 'InstrumentType Instrument Description Date Recorded Document # 1E.—It# Boole/Page convey anceraxfDocumantTypa? 10/07/2001 t $ 0 I 01-1012CB LEASE 12/01/1999 $ 0 I 9900196160 FEE CONVEYANCE — i i I 12/13/1999 I �12/01/1999 $ 0 I 9900196159 rFEE CONVEYANCE I mm 12/13/1999 Current Tax Bill Information 2015 Tax Payments Show Historical Taxes l ~E W Original Taxes Tax Net i Tar, Period Description Penalty Interest i Other Amount �i Due Date Assessment I Credits Tax _� i Due No tax InfcrmatEon available on this parcel: h Recent Sates in Nelcihl previous Parcel Neyt Parcel Return to Main Search Pages Kauai Home Recent Sales in Area I ;The Kauai County Tax Assessors Dffice makes every alfort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are prcvtded for the data herein, its use or interpretation• Webslte Updated: March 7, 7017 ' 0 N10 by III Kauai CO U71 iy Tay; Assessor's Ol3ice i Nc6site design by no ublie. 11 A ��; ��: F rZj� E1- e h T V a` 0 J 0 4 6 •Yclera rc lF , � lw"f7:: ah P 4 Cs wog- ' ❑.7G.gy ZO �C�14 L � �� � E. �l a V F FU TE0 Mq 18a` 17 C, _ r3 "Aliomanu Rd — Kukuna Rd Intersettion ` r Shfr�r�hi t/rrfcn l Cf orates.). �+ e� MAP OF NEAREST BEACH ACCESS wOw REAL ESTATE MARKET LISTING 5032 Akrnanu Rd, Aflomanu Ahd�o'aag Ho 96703 Oceanfront property - Build your Dream Home situated on one of the most beautiful and safe ` p3-lvate coastal areas'of Kauai, but still withln 10 miniutes to the many stores and restaurants of ------ ---------------------------- m-- Old Kapaa Town. A rare and wondrous piece of land which has not been on the market for over Local Office: 35 years! Step back i n time and experience this 1.39 acre of unique, serene la... 5=42B0 KulTio laigliway SLEBtG s2®� Pvin.-eullle, HP f,5722 1.39 ac Land 1 611.6 sgft living Area I I R.R/ 1.00 9A I MLS# 235272 Offered for $2,999,995 FS VAWAH LWE I Ire@ha\nraiihfe.cam Main 6ffice: rom'57zD25 Kauai I Oahu Maui I Big Island aM A -,.; x d r Michael A. Dahilig Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA`I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ka`aina S. Hull Deputy Director of Planning SUPPLEMENT #1 TO PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT RE: `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust — Review of Historic Significance 5032 C `Aliomanu Road, Anahola, HI 96703 TMK (4) 4-9-004:013 APPLICANT: NIA DITIONAL FINDINGS Attached for the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission's reference are supplemental materials from the Planning Department regarding the subject property and existing structures on `Aliomanu Road. • Exhibit `A' —Real estate website's photographs of the subject property and existing buildings carport/storage space and single family residence. As of January 22, 2018 the property is still listed on the market and is being represented by Kauai Dreams Realty. https:l1'kzivaldreams.cornll auai-rea.l.-estatel2352=721 • Exhibit `B' —Planning Department's photographs taken during site visit conducted on January 22, 2018. • Exhibit `C' Copy of the official Director's Report submitted for the January 18, 2019 KHPRC meeting. By J/u- V 1%J Alex Wong Staff Planner By 9_�� KA`AINA S. HULL Deputy Director of Planning r Date: 7A ! I11312419 WEB 1 L�NO COTTAGE 4s' vvq y tiAMr fVX4, }�< � z yi 'en � '1 .—�➢1� � Peg v. • �� K AA BEACHHOUSE • o/ ..MEMO- y —1� 4 R'SEACO QT �[ .•r _ .` .�:� S C �- .�'Y" - L f PORCHVIEWOFBEACH I Ax I HousF,FRomBEACH f7, M71 'awl' 0 -LJB OdTiDo RBATHT 't lip 9mmmi lv!!!� do 4.1fl Z7, 45V AP - MI'vC IP bL, f4ow-, �Fl 4w EEXTERIOR `r v dam' GARAGESTUDI _.b 4 1� �I wr '� F:•''a t �1 4 � � l 5 � { .i� � t N• +9 ow rr P \� _ { j PR MIN w 11 I 1 � l i, ■■:■ all D3 ka Michael A. Dahilig Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ka`aina S. Mull Deputy Director of Planning DIRECTOR'S REPORT Kauai County Historic Preservation Review Commission L SUMMARY Action Rcquired by KHPRC: Consideration of the subject parcel and existing structures (Single Family Residence, detached carport/storage) for historical significance. II. PROJECT DATA PROJECT INFORAMTION. Parcel Location: `Aliomanu Tax Map Key(s): 1 (4) 4-9-004:013 Area: 11.393 acres LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES I Zoning: Open I State Land Use District: Urban General Plan Designation: I Residential Community j Owner(s): I `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE BACKGROUND Tax Map Key (4) 4-9-004:013 is located at 5032 C `Aliomanu Road in Anahola. The subject lot of record is approximately 1.393 acres in size, and it is located in `Aliomanu, `Aliomanu Ahupua`a, Koolau Moku, Kauai Island, Hawaii. It is located within the County of Kaua`i's Open Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District, and its General Plan Designation is Residential Community. The lot of record is at the end of the northern portion of `Aliomanu Road, just south of the Kukuna Road intersection. It is bordered to the north and southwest by residential properties currently in "Commercialized Home Use" (TMK 4-9-004:014) and "Vacation Rental" (TMK 4-9-004:034), respectively, and is bordered to the east by the shoreline. cis 18 2018 TMK: (4) 4-9-004:013 January 19, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Nearly level, the lot of record is approximately ten (10) feet above sea level. The subject lot of record is the end lot with grasses covering most of its surface, and there are pine trees bordering the lot and shoreline, coconut trees throughout and along the eastern edge bordering `Aliomanu stream. The end of `Aliomanu Road nearing `Aliomanu stream once had a bridge and road right-of-way that connected to the other side of `Aliomanu neighborhood referenced as the old Belt Road Loop. The bridge was destroyed as a result of being washed out by a tsunami in the mid 60's and was never rebuilt. This lot of record has a one bedroom, one bathroom cottage with 646 square feet living area, and it is approximately 37 feet from the approximate shoreline. Fronting the cottage is another rectangular structure identified as a garage per information gathered from the Real Property Assessment records. The garage is approximately 137 feet from the vegetation of the shoreline. EXISTING STRUCTURES & PERMIT HISTORY Based on information gathered by the Planning Department, the subject property currently has two known structures. The first is a carport/storage space, referred to as a "DETACHED CARPORT AND WORKSHOP" in the Iniki Registration Form for the OEP (Office of Emergency Permitting) in 1994. Per the design plans submitted in the OEP permit application, the carport/storage should be no greater than 480 sq. ft. This structure was nearly demolished during Hurricane Iniki (1992) and was completely demolished and rebuilt with OED permit R106430 (Kidder) approved on April 7, 1994. Therefore, the effective age of this structure is near 24 years old. The second structure is a ranch -style Single Family Residence, 646 sq. ft., and built in 1924 according to Real Property records. This structure had significant roof damage as a result of Iniki and was approved for OED permit R102195 (Kidder) on 1/21/1993 to replace the roof over the deck of the dwelling. The original owner and original architect are currently unknown. According to Real Property Assessment, a wood deck railing was installed in 1960, and the Planning Department has no record of a zoning permit for this architectural addition. Since the original codification of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in 1972, this parcel has (unsuccessfully) attempted three times to change the County zoning of the parcel from Open to Residential. The zoning amendment application information is as follows: 1. ZA-1990-14 change from Open to R-2; DENIED by Planning Commission on May 14, 1990 (Kidder, Applicant). 2. ZA-1974-29 change from Open to R-4; DENIED by Planning Commission on April 10, 1974 (Shiraishi, Applicant). TMK: (4) 4-9-004:013 January 19, 2018 Page 3 of 6 3. ZA-1977-1 change from Open to R-4; APPROVED by Planning Commission on November 10, 1976 but DENIED by Council on February 16, 1977 (Shiraishi, Applicant). IV. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS The first recorded owner in Real Property Assessment records is William Moragne, and the earliest date the records can confirm is 1938. Moragne was the owner up until 1957, and assumedly responsible for the only recorded instance of major repairs and renovations to the dwelling (1 949)'outside of repairs made following Hurricane Iniki. Below is a list of the known land owners in chronological order: 1. William M. Moragne owner from c.1938 to 1957 (sold) o Kaua`i High grad o Plumeria enthusiast and expert amateur horticulturist — one of the first to hybridize plumeria. o engineer, and career Grove Farm employee (eventually Vice President and Manager 1953-1969) o Led the Grove Farm project to construct Ha`upu Range Tunnel, 2. Raymond F. Mant and Barbara Mant owners from 1957 to 1959 (sold) 3. Ernest Hara owner from 1959 to 1968 (sold) o Recognized as one of the first successful, local architects of Japanese descent and Asian ancestry. o Designed Robert Louis Stevenson School in 1950; Waikiki Grand Hotel in 1962; Queen Kapi`olani Hotel in 1968; Hilo Hawaiian Hotel in 1976; Waikiki Shopping Plaza in 1975; and the Central Pacific Bank building in 1991, o Founding member of Central Pacific Bank in 1950. o First Asian board member of Punahou School, 1969, 4. Nakashima/Shinsato Families owners from 1968 to March 10, 1969 (sold) 5. Clinton Shiraishi owner from 1969 to 1979 (sold) o Decorated WWII 442nd Regimental Combat Team veteran and liberator of the Dachau concentration camp. o Successful lawyer and judge on Kauai o Founder of Kauai Realty. 6. Lagareta owner from 1979 to 1980 (sold) 7. Kidder owner from 1980 to Present V. AGENCY COMMENTS TMK: (4) 4-9-004:013 January 18, 2018 Page 4 of 6 NIA VI. EVALUATION In reviewing the proposed project site for historical significance, the following should be considered: The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) should be considered when evaluating a property's potential for designation as "historically significant". The U.S. Department of the Interior's four National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria for evaluation should also be considered to insure that the County of Kauai remains consistent with national standards. Criteria A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Based on the information on record at Real Property Assessment and the Planning Department, neither the two existing structures, nor the property itself can be linked to any single event or historic trend that can be closely tied to the history of Kauai. Therefore this property does not meet National Register Criteria A. Criteria B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; ® Although this property' has been associated with some distinguished local residents who have contributed greatly to the history of Kauai, Hawaii, and the United - States, it is difficult to strongly connect this specific dwelling unit (and property for that matter) to a specific aspect of these individuals' lives that can be tied to the rise of their prominence. Without further information on the history of the property itself, the justification for meeting Criteria B is not adequate. Criteria C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Based on the photographic evidence of the exterior of the existing structures (dwelling unit and carport), the structures themselves do not warrant historic nomination for any County or State historic register. Unless there are significant interior architectural design qualities or defining characteristics in these structures, the buildings themselves would not qualify for National Register Criteria C. TMK: (4) 4-9-004:013 January 18, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Criteria D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, it is unlikely that this property will yield information important in history or prehistory. Additional Information: ® The carport/workshop on the subject parcel was technically demolished and reconstructed following Hurricane Iniki and therefore any historical aspects of the original structure have been compromised. Although the original 646 sq, ft. dwelling unit was originally built in 1924, the structure has been subject to significant repairs and renovations that have altered the integrity of the original style and architectural aesthetic of the dwelling. VII. CONCLUSION Based on the information contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation, the Planning Department concludes that the subject property and associated structures are NOT historically significant. VIII. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recommended that the KHPRC find the subject property and its associated structures NOT historically significant. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision malting. The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a. Government agency comments; b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and c. The land owner's response. TMK: (4) 4-9-004:013 January 18, 2018 Page 6 of 6 By ALEX O G Planner Approved & Recommended to Commission: r � By KA`A1NA S. HULL Deputy Director of Planning Date: '®S /',q Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. Mayor Waiiace G. Rezentes Jr. Managing Director December 27, 2017 CERTIFIED MAIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT County of Kauai, State of Hawaii`i 4444 Rice Street, Suite A-473, Uhu`e, Hawaii 96766 TEL (809) 241-4050 FAX (808) 241-6699 Ann Sarver Facilities Environmental Specialist 6013 Benjamin Road, Suite 205 Tampa, FL 33634 Re: Lihu`e Post Office Closure and Sale Dear Ms. Sarver, Michael fLa"OP1,17 Direetor of`" 1£a`aina S. Hull Deputy Director of Planning Thank you for your public notification posted at the Lihu`e Post Office dated December 1, 2017 initiating the Section 106 process pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.3 for the future sale of the above referenced property, which may result in in the transfer of the property out of federal ownership. The County of Kauai OBJECTS to the initiation of the Section 106 process to include the public without providing the public with the LISPS's documentation and analysis of no adverse effect to historic properties Your posted notification states, "We have enclosed for your review the necessary documentation and analysis under Section 800.11 to support USPS's finding of no adverse effect to historic properties". However, no documentation or analysis has been posted. Without any documentation or analysis posted for the public, the public cannot adequately participate in the initiated Section 106 process. The County of -Kauai OBJECTS to the initiation of Section 106review without including the County of Kauai Planning Department or the Kauai Historic, Preservation Review Commission as consulting parties The County of Kauai has not received any documentation or analysis of no adverse effect to historic properties. On Mar0h--30,— 20 7, rZi l HTUTrFyou"that had an attached letter to the State of Hawaii, Deputy Historic Preservation Officer, Alan Downer. In that letter, you identified myself and the County of Kauai as a consulting party to the Section 106 process, An Equal ��ortur7ry Err�1�Io� er �• • • i FEB) 2019J 1 8 and therein deed was documentation and an analysis that had a findings of "no adverse effect to historic properties"; however, that same day, you sent me a second email retracting the previous first email that initiated the Section 106 process. your email, dated March 30, 2017, stated the following: Sarver, Ann M -Tampa, FL would like to recall the message, "Section 106 Consultation - USPS Lihue Main Post Office". Your recall was noted, and we anticipated further communications once the USPS decided to commence the Section 106 review. Since that time, the County of ICaua`i has not received any communication —email or otherwise —for consultation purposes pertaining to the Section 106 process for the closure or the sale of the Lihue Post Office. Furthermore, on October 11, 2017, USPS Real Estate Specialist, Greg Shelton, met with County Officials, including myself, concerningthe closure of the Lihue Post Office. Atthat meeting, Mr. Shelton made clear that the USPS had not initiated the Section 106 process, and that the USPS would be initiating the Section 106 process at a future time. Minutes of this meeting were recorded and have been transcribed; they can be provided at your request. Pursuant to Section 8-14 of the Kauai County Code, 1987, as amended, The County of Kauai Planning Department and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission are responsible for protecting, preserving, perpetuating, promoting, enhancing, and developing the historic resources of the County of Kauai. Both the Planning Department and the Commission routinely review proposals for historic structures or historic sites within the County of Kauai. The Lihue Post Office is listed as an historic resource on both the State and National Register of Historic Places. As such, the County of Kauai Planning Department and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission should serve as consulting parties to the Section 106 process for the closure or the sale of the Li We Post Office. The County of Kauai OBJECTS to the final decision made by the USPS to close the Mu`e Post Office Prior to initiating the Section 106 process Lastly, the County of Kauai is concerned with the initiation of the Section 106 process after a final decision has already been made to close the Lihue Post Office. The County of Kauai received a letter from the USPS Vice President of Facilities, Tom A. Samra, dated November 29, 2017. The next day, December 1, 2017, the notification you issued initiating the Section 106 process to involve the public was posted at the Lihue Post Office. The purpose of the Section 106 process is to determine whether a proposed undertaking by a federal agency will affect an historic property or resource. By consulting, in good faith, with the public and with identified consulting parties, the. respective federal agency can make an informed decision on its undertaking. Mr. Samra's letter informing the County of Kauai that the USPS has made a final decision to close the Lihue Post Office runs counter to the requirements of the Section 106 process. RECOMMENDATION The County of Kauai recommends that the USPS re -initiate the Section 106 process and provide the public, the County of Kauai Planning Department, the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission, and any other identified consulting parties with any documentation and analysis of no adverse effect to historic properties_ Furthermore, the County of Kauai would recommend that a presentation be made to the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission. This is standardly required with other federal agencies when the Commission is identified as a consulting party. Lastly, the County of Kauai recommends that any input the public and the consulting parties provide be reviewed in good faith. Any public input or consulting party input that requires further follow-up or further discussion with the USPS should be done so accordingly. Only by actively engaging the public and the consulting parties through the Section 106 process, cars the USPS take an informed course of action. Mahalo for your consideration. Should you need to contact me directly, I can be reached at (808) 241-4059 or at khull@kauai.gov. Sincerely, �A,.CJCa`aina Hull Deputy Director of Planning Attachments cc: Honorable Senator Brian Schatz Honorable Senator Mazie Hirono Honorable Representative Tulsi Gabbard Susan Lebo, PhD, State Historic Preservation Division ......................... MWO P tv ............. MFUM? $'If-40WO �1 An solo qaq 4� ;t solo WOW kni Eaton, m 17 Tom A. SAmRA VtcE!PR551os_n1, rkulLr1�* ldovernber 29, 2017 The Honorable Bernard P. CarvAlho Jr, Mayor, County of Kauai 4444 Rice Street, SLlite 235 Lihtse, HI 96766 RE: Final Decision RaWdirig Lthu`e—Main Post Office ('Post Office") 4.441 Rice Street Deai- Mayor Carvalha; in accordance with 39 C.F.R-. 241 A, this Is. to United States Postal Service's final decision with respect to the Postal Service's proposal to relocate retail services From the above-reforenced Post Office to an owned Postal facility located at Lihu'e Carrier Annex at 3230 papule Highway. Ihe Postal Service held community meetings on February. 23, 2017, and October ii, 20E17. The Postal Service has carefully considered all of the concerns expressed in those discussions, -as well as in appeals and comments received after the public meetrig.. For the reasons set forth below., the Postal Service has decided to proceed with the reiacabon. The Postal Service has determined that the relocation is the optimal solution to satisfy the Postal Service°s need to improve operational efficiency, and reduce the financial burdens facing the Postal Service. The Postal Service anticipates providing the same services at the new location as are currently. provided to our customers at the existing location. Additionally, the Postal Service plans to continue services at the existing Post Office. until the replacement facility is open and operating as a Post Office, While the,. Postal Service is sensitive to the impact.of this decision on its-customer5 and the Lihu'e community, the Postal Serviceproperly considered community Input and this decision is consistent with Postal Service objectives. Postsi, service operations are not supported by tax dollars, To be self-sustaining, the Postal Service must make decisions that ensure it provides adequate and affordable postal services in a manner that is as efficient and economical as possible - This is the.firial decision of the Postal Service with respect to this matter, and there is no r1g4tto further administrative or judiclal review of this decision. Since ly, Torn A. Samra 475 L'ENFAu4T r'IAZA SLN WASHING -MN, oC 2r)200-t9e7. VGVW.JSP5,U0!A Facilities TRACKING No. EL 552797632 U5 V+ UNlTEDST4M I POSTAL 5EWKE January 18, 2018 Mr. Ka`aina S. Hull County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, HI 96766-1328 Kauai Historic Preservation Commission c/o County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, HI 96766-1328 Re: Request for Section 106 Consultation Lihue Main Post Office 4441 Rice Street Lihue, Kauai County, Hawaii 96766 (the "Property") Dear Mr. Hull and Commission Members: In March of 2017, the United States Postal Service (LISPS) initiated the Section 106 process pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) §800.3 because the LISPS is considering selling the Property, which may result in the transfer of the Property out of federal ownership. Also in March of 2017, USPS emailed to you our notice of this undertaking, then recalled that transmission, and then through inadvertence, did not recognize that you were awaiting a substitute notice. We apologize for that oversight. We are sending you this notice to provide you with all of the information we provided to other consulting parties and to provide you with the regulation -prescribed opportunity to comment. We have enclosed for your review the necessary documentation and analysis under § 800.11 to support USPS's finding of no adverse effect on historic properties. Mr. Hull, in your letter of December 27, 2017, you requested consulting party status for the County of Kauai Planning Department independent of the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission. USPS grants your request. Accordingly, we are sending separate copies this letter and the enclosed materials to each of the County of Kauai Planning Department and to the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission. The USPS will provide each of those consulting parties a thirty (30) day period to review and comment on USPS's proposed finding of no adverse effect on historic properties. USPS will consider comments received by the USPS on or before the close of business on the 30th day following delivery of this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact the undersigned at (202) 268-2782, or by email at uspsfpa a,usps.gov. Sincerely, Daniel B. Deiahaye USPS Federal Preservation Officer �. I.U. Enclosed: March 30, 2017 letter, USPS to 17r. Alan Downer, with enclosures )FEB 1S 2019 Facilities �+ UIV=STISTES P"OS AL SERVKE March 30, 2017 VIA EMAIL: dlnr.intake.shvd(a?hawaii.aov Alan Downer, PhD. Administrator, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 Re: Request for Section 106 Consultation Lihue Main Post Office 4441 Rice Street Lihue, Kauai County, Hawaii 96766 (the "Property") Dear Dr. Downer: The United States Postal Service (USPS) is initiating the Section 106 process pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §800.3, because the above referenced Property is being considered for a possible future sale, which may result in the transfer of the Property out of federal ownership. We have enclosed for your review the necessary documentation and analysis under § 800.11 to support USPS's finding of no adverse effect to historic properties. Please provide us with a written response within the thirty (30) day time period allotted by §800.3(c)(4). If we have not heard back from you within those thirty days, we will assume you concur with our findings and will end the Section 106 process. If you do not concur with the findings in this submission, please express your specific concerns and/or objections clearly in writing for our review and consideration. Undertakine Pursuant to §800.3(a), the USPS has determined that the proposed sale of the Property is an undertaking and has the potential to affect historic properties. The USPS also determined that the Property was listed to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1989. The USPS recently submitted an addendum to the NRHP original nomination to your office for review (attached hereto). The addendum includes an update that captures the current conditions of the Property. Plan to Involve the Public The USPS intends to involve the public in the Section 106 process by posting a notice in the lobby of the Property for 30-days so that interested citizens can comment on its finding of no adverse effect to historic properties. Comments received by the USPS on or before the close of business on the 30" day following posting will be considered. The public will be copied on any additional correspondence in the same manner, as appropriate. Identification of Consulting Parties The following consulting parties have requested to participate in consultation discussions concerning the Property: Ms. Kiersten Faulkner, Executive Director Historic Hawaii Foundation 680 Iwilei Road Suite 690 Honolulu, HI 96817 preservation@a,hi storichawaii.org 6013 Benjamin Road, Suite 205 Tampa, FL 33634-5178 813-989-4307 ann-m.sarver[?usns. eov Section 106 Consultation Request USPS Lihue MPO March 30, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Ka`aina S. Hull County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, Kauai 96766 khull(a7kauai.gov Mr. Brian Turner National Trust for Historic Preservation San Francisco Field Office The Hearst Building 5 Third Street, Suite 707 San Francisco, CA 94103 BTurnera,,savingplaces. org The USPS also reviewed The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Native American Consultation Database for identification of Federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Two Native Hawaiian organizations were identified for Kauai County. Kunane Aipoalani Kauai/Niihau Island Burial Council 601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 Ms. Haunani ApoIiana Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 info@oha.org The USPS wilt provide the consulting parties a thirty (30) day period to review and comment on USPS's proposed finding of no adverse effect to historic properties. Comments received by the USPS on or before the close of business on the 30'h day following delivery will be considered. The consulting parties will be copied on this letter and any additional correspondence, as appropriate. Identification of Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) has been defined as the Property. Please see the attached map marked with the APE outlined. The USPS made this determination based on the nature of the undertaking and that a preservation covenant will be placed on this Property's deed at the time of Property transfer. Historie Properties within the Area of Potential Effects The USPS has reviewed existing information on historic properties within the APE and has conducted a search on this Property. The Property was listed in the NRHP in 1989. The attached addendum provides the current details of the Property The Property is surrounded by commercial properties. To the north is the Lihue Civic Center, Pi'ikoi Building (c.1974), to the east is the First Hawaiian Bank (c.1966), to the south is the Lihue Plantation Building (c. 1964); and to the west is the Bank of Hawaii (c.1936). The Albert Spencer Wilcox Building (c.1922), currently Kauai Museum, is located to the northeast. This building is also listed on the NRHP. A modern building (c.1987) is located between this building and the Property. Section 106 Consultation Request LISPS Lihue MPO March 30, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Determination of Effect Based upon 36 CFR §800.5(a)(2)(vii), which provides "the transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure longterm preservation of the property's historic significance" is an example of an adverse effect, the USPS determined that the disposition of the Property could have an adverse effect on historic properties, as the Property is listed on the NRHP. The USPS intends to impose a preservation easement as part of the disposition which is both adequate and legally enforceable that will protect the Property. A draft preservation covenant is attached. The preservation covenant will require the review and approval of rehabilitation, alteration, or modifications plans to the building's significant historic character -defining features by the covenant holder prior to any such rehabilitation, alteration, or modification in order to ensure consistency with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and applicable guidelines. The preservation covenant will be recorded with the deed at the time of property transfer. The USPS is actively seeking a preservation covenant enforcer for this Property. The USPS finds that the use of such preservation easement will result in "no adverse effect" to historic properties from the sale on historic properties. As consultation is just commencing with this letter, the USPS will supplement this initial correspondence with a summary of views received by public and all consulting parties after all have had the opportunity to express their views. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 889-4307, or by email at ann.m.sarver us s. ov. Sincerely, D1911a1ly,lgned by Ann 5—, Ann Sarver-'!' "i` ",�°Sps u=Fa�llilies z)a 2017.03.3012:20:23-04'00' Ann M. Sarver Facilities Environmental Specialist cc with encl- Historic Hawaii Foundation— preservationta�,.histonchawaii.or� Kauai Historic Preservation Commission— khull@a 'auai gay National Trust for Historic Preservation — BTurnera,savingplaces.ore Kauai/Nithau Island Burial Council — 70051160000294513394 Office of Hawaiian Affairs — InfoiDa oha orx Local Manager for public posting Daniel Delahaye, FPO Enclosed: Draft preservation covenant, APE map, and NRHP addendum In consideration of the conveyance by the attached Deed dated from the United States Postal Service (the "Grantor") to [buyer] (the "Grantee") of certain real property located at 4441 Rice Street in the City of Lihue, Kauai County, State of Hawaii, as such property is more particularly described in the legal description attached to this Deed as Exhibit which legal description is also attached to this Preservation Covenant and incorporated herein (the "Property"), the Grantee on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns hereby agrees with and covenants to the [Covenant Holder] having an office at [Address] ("Covenant Holder") as follows: (1) Grantee shall at all times to preserve, rehabilitate and/or restore the significant historic features of this property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68, the "Standards") and in accordance with the recommended approaches of the National Park Service, Technical .Preservation Services Branch in order to preserve the physical integrity of those characteristics of the Property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). (2) The Covenant Holder, which has the willingness, expertise and financial resources to monitor and enforce these preservation conditions, will use qualified personnel meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for oversight to provide consistent application of the Standards and recommended approaches of the National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services Branch, has accepted the responsibility of this Preservation Covenant as its enforcement entity as indicated by its signature below. (3) No construction, alteration or rehabilitation shall be undertaken or permitted to be undertaken that would affect the significant historic features of this Property without consultation with, and the express permission of, the Covenant Holder or a fully authorized representative thereof. Project submissions should be sent to the [Covenant Folder] at [Address]. a. The significant historic features of the Property's exterior are as follows: Plan and Common Characteristics of Each Elevation • Single story • Reinforced concrete construction • Mission Revival style of architecture (also referred to in nomination as "Mediterranean -style," "tropical style," and "Spanish -Mission style") • Modified rectangular plan, central section flanked by two stepped wings • Lower section of building that projects 4 feet beyond flanking wings • Main section of building recessed 13 feet behind flanking wings • Shed roof over three central bays • Shed roofs over flanking wings • Gabled roof that projects slightly over the narrow, molded cornice and covers the central section • Four equally spaced horizontal vents with bronze louvers set in the upper wall of all elevations • Red mission roof tiles Copper gutters and downspouts • Exposed concrete rafter tails with shaped ends under shed roofs • Monkey pod tree at northwest corner of building Page I of 4 Main Elevation (North) • Symmetrically arranged front facade • Three sections: a central primary volume with three equally -sized windows, flanked by two stepped wings • Implied concrete lintels that span the main volume windows between flat capitals which top the columns • Square concrete columns with beveled corners dividing bays • Concrete cheek blocks with round ends that flank the stop and landing at the corners of the central section • Two octagonal bronze lanterns aligned above cheek blocks at main facade. • Centered, circular gable opening with bronze louvers • End wings, identical to each other in size and configuration • Single window bay at both end wings, each with a single window bay • Two -section, bronze -sash casement window with five horizontal lights in each section and a slightly recessed concrete lintel set above sash (east wing) • Water table West Elevation • Six original openings on west elevation • Centered open, unframed entry bay with slightly recessed lintel • Aluminum -sash sliders in four originally open bays flanking entry • Bronze railings at lower portion of three bays • Casement window set within a niche identical in size to other bays at rear of this elevation; a bronze -sash with three lights in each section • Flat concrete wall • Shed roof that inclines to the raised central section of the building • Two -section, bronze -sash casement window with five horizontal lights in each section at south end of original elevation (smaller than large bays to the north and identical to original windows on other elevations) • Water table • Concrete cheek blocks with round ends that flank the step and landing East Elevation • Six equally spaced windows —all two -section, bronze casement sashes with five horizontal lights in each section • One window of single section with four horizontal lights • Concrete sills Recessed concrete panel beneath windows Water table South Elevation • Side wings stepped down from the central section; east side slightly lower than the west • Copper parapet caps at the top of the west side and central section • Flat roofs over all three sections b. The significant historic features of the Property's interior are located in the box lobby and are as follows: • Original cast bronze drop lights and wood -beamed ceiling • Terra cotta floor tiles (dark red) in retail lobby area • Decorative wood posts at retail windows • Decorative Postmaster's Office door (4) Authorized representatives of the Covenant Holder shall be permitted at all reasonable times to inspect the property in order to ascertain if the above conditions are being met. The entity requesting the inspection shall provide advance written notification to Grantee of the date and time that such entity wishes to inspect the Property. Page 2 of 4 (5) In the event of a violation of this covenant, and in addition to any remedy now or hereafter provided by law, the Covenant Holder may, following reasonable notice to the Grantee, institute suit to enjoin said violation or to require the restoration of the significant historic features of the Property. (6) This covenant is binding on the Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns in perpetuity. All stipulations and covenants contained herein shall be inserted by the Grantee verbatim or by express reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which the grantee divests itself of any interest in the Property or any part thereof. (7) The failure of any person or entity permitted by the terms hereof to exercise any right or remedy granted under this instrument shall not have the effect of waiving or limiting the exercise of any other right or remedy or use of such right or remedy at any other time. (8) This covenant shall be a binding servitude upon the Property and shall be deemed to run with the land. (9) Execution of this Preservation. Covenant by Grantee shall constitute conclusive evidence that the Grantee agrees to be bound by the foregoing conditions and restrictions and to perform the obligations herein set forth. This Preservation Covenant shall be self-executing and thus the failure by Covenant Holder to execute this Preservation Covenant shall not impair its effectiveness or impeded its enforcement against Grantee. (10) This Preservation Covenant permits the Grantee to respond to an emergency as required by law, or as directed by governmental authorities, or as necessary to protect persons and property, without violation of the Preservation Covenant. In the event the Grantee proposes an emergency action as an essential and immediate response to a disaster, emergency or other immediate threat to life or property, the Grantee shall notify the Covenant Holder of such actions as reasonably feasible. (11) If the Grantee or Covenant Holder determines that the terms of this Protective Covenant cannot or will not be carried out for reasons of disaster, emergency or casualty loss through no fault of the Grantee, that party shall immediately consult to develop an amendment per Paragraph 15, or to extinguish the Protective Covenant by mutual consent or as a result of a judicial proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction. Notice of extinguishment shall be publicized with thirty (30) calendar days prior notice to the public by publication in a media of general circulation and availability. The amendment or extinguishment will be effective on the date a copy signed by Grantee and the Covenant Holder is filed in the appropriate land records against title to the Property. (12) The unenforceability of any term or provision in the Preservation Covenant shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of the Preservation Covenant. (13) This Preservation Covenant shall take effect at the time and date that the Property is conveyed by the Grantor to the Grantee no matter when executed. (14) This Preservation Covenant is not subject to expiration under any Marketable Title Act or similar law. The Covenant Holder may re-record this Preservation Covenant, at the Covenant Holder's expense, from time to time to perpetuate the Page 3 of 4 Covenant Holder's rights. The parties expressly acknowledge that no such recording is necessary in order to perpetuate the validity or enforceability of the Preservation Covenant. (15) 1f circumstances arise under which an amendment to, or modification of this Covenant would be appropriate, Grantee and Covenant Holder may by mutual written agreement jointly amend this Covenant, provided that Covenant Holder will not agree to any amendment that will adversely affect the qualification of this Covenant or the status of Covenant Holder under any applicable laws of the State of Hawaii. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the protection of the preservation values of the Property and the purpose of this Covenant to preserve the significant historic features of the Property; shall not affect its perpetual duration; shall not permit any private inurement to any person or entity, other than Grantee its successors and assigns; and shall not adversely impact the preservation and conservation values protected by this Covenant. Any such amendment shall be recorded in the land records of the City of Lihue, Kauai County, Hawaii. Nothing in this paragraph shall require Grantee or Covenant . Holder to agree to any amendment, (16) The requirements of this Preservation Covenant are not in substitution for any requirements of state, county and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations, all of which may affect the Property and/or. the owner thereof from time to time. (Date) [Covenant Holder] (Date) United States Postal Service Page 4 of 4 P•Y NP5 Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Lihue Main Post Office of P_____ pe Name rorty---------------------- Kauai, Hawaii County and State Name of multiple listing {if applicable) Section number Additional Documentation Page Signature 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide X local Applicable National Register Criteria: A D XC D Signature of certifying official/Title: Date United States Postal Service State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property _ meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official: Date Title : State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register _ determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register T other (explain:) Signature of the Keeper Date of Action NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8I2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 1 l.ihue_Mait�PQst�tii ce...__._----�-----------_--__-_-__-- Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA ame o multiple listing if app ica e National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Nomination Amendment This March 2017 update has been prepared by the United States Postal Service (USPS), based on the site visit of December 2016. The Lihue Main Post Office was originally listed on the NRHP in 1989. The building was constructed in 1939. The nomination foundit significant as representative of the Federal Government's acknowledgement of Lihue's regional importance and an important symbol of the ties between the government and local residents (living in what was then a U.S. territory). It was also considered significant because Lihue residents successfully lobbied the Federal Government to alter the original standardized post office design to one they felt was better suited to Hawaii's climate and regional building traditions. Moreover, it is one of only two post offices constructed by the Federal Government in what was then the Territory of Hawaii during the Great Depression, and was the first federally constructed post office in Lihue and the island of Kauai. The nomination states that it was a well- preserved example of a small, single -purpose post office in the Mission -Revival architectural style. Two art works by a notable regional artist were in the post office lobby at the time of the nomination. For these reasons, the building was determined to be significant at local and state levels under Criteria A and C, and under Criteria Consideration G.1 The building was altered in the late 1970s (prior to the nomination in 1989) with enclosure of the original lanai openings of the west and north facades and an addition at the rear. The nomination determined that neither of these alterations had diminished the integrity of the building. Two carved wood sculptures in low relief in the Post Office lobby have been removed (documented as significant features on the 1989 NRH.P nomination form, although installation dates of these are unknown). Interior Description of Interior of Post Office The 1989 NRHP nomination includes only a brief description of the interior layout of the post office, so a more developed description of the interior is included in this update. The interior of the public areas of the post office is L-shaped. Its main entrance is at its north elevation (the short wing of the "L"). The Postmaster's office is at the east wall and features a door adorned with a decorative grille of painted, turned, wood spindles in keeping with the original architectural style. A bank of 10 retail windows is at the south wall, and a hallway (the longer wing of the "L") leads to three alcoves of post office boxes and terminates at the loading dock at the west. The original main lobby and retail area is in keeping with the Mission -Revival style. The lobby has terra cotta tile flooring, large exposed beams, and hanging lanterns with bronze trim. (also in the post office box lobby). A ribbon of long, narrow windows with recessed lintels is high along walls of the north wall and east walls that separate the interior workroom from the lobby. Two of the 10 retail windows have been converted to mail slots. All 10 retail windows retain their original wood frames and decorative, painted, turned, wood spindles. These decorative wood spindles are shorter versions of those on the Postmaster's office door. 'In 1989, when the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Post Office was prepared, the building was 50 years of age. tt is unclear why Criteria Consideration G, Properties that Hare Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years, was applied to the Lihue Main Post Office in the nomination. NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8I2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 2 Exterior Alterations Since 1989 Li hUP_iMain_PnAOffire_..__.-................... ..... .....w_._ Name of Property Uhue Hawaii County and State NIA Name of multiplelisting (if A site visit on December 20, 2016, confirmed that the property has undergone few exterior alterations since the building was listed. USPS maintenance records indicate that broken roof tiles have been replaced in - kind. to match the original tiles. In 2014, gates were added to the outside staircases that lead to the basement. None of these alterations compromise the historic character of the property. Interior Alterations Since 1989 The 1989 NRHP nomination form did not include interior features. Interior alterations to the building have occurred since 1989notably, addition of a glass and anodized. aluminum vestibule at the lobby entrance. Other interior alterations and repairs include completion of a large project in 1994, during which employee restrooms were remodeled, workroom light fixtures were changed, and post office boxes in the lobby were replaced. Two carved wood sculptures in low relief are no longer displayed in the Post Office; these had been over the Postmaster's office door and in the box lobby, and were included in the NRHP nomination. Summary of 1989 Nomination's Historic Character Defining Features The 1989 nomination discusses the historic character of the Post Office, specifying details of the building that render it eligible for listing on the NHRP. The nomination's significance statement explains that the Lihue Main Post Office was considered "a well-preserved example of a small, single -purpose post office" in the Mission -Revival style. Its period of significance is 1900-1941. It was determined to retain sufficient integrity to merit listing on the NRHP, although it had been altered in the 1970s with a rear addition and enclosure of the open bays with windows. According to the nomination, the building's significance "symbolizes the recognition of Lihue by the Federal Government as the link between the local citizens and far off Washington" (its original design was changed by the Federal Government to the current style because of pressure from the Iocal community). It is Kauai's first and only federally -constructed post office. The nomination further states that the building was the only post office in Hawaii to contain two art works by a notable regional artist. The building was listed on the NRHP at both local and state levels. NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 Unites! States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 3 J.ihsle_ �/JairiP-�st�2ffise-------------_..-------------- Name of Property Lihue Hawaii _ County and State NIA dame o multiple_1lsting iifapiicaiiTe-Y ­-­ -- Historic character defining features of the exterior specified in the 1989 nomination as contributing to the significance of the Property remain definitive: Exterior Plan and Common Characteristic� of Eugh El io • Single story • Reinforced concrete construction • Mission Revival style of architecture (also referred to in nomination as "Mediterranean -style," "tropical style," and "Spanish -Mission style" )z • Modified rectangular plan, central section flanked by two stepped wings • Lower section of building that projects 4 feet beyond flanking wings • Main section of building recessed 13 feet behind flanking wings • Shed roof over three central bays • Shed roofs over flanking wings • Gabled roof that projects slightly over the narrow, molded cornice and covers the central section • Four equally spaced horizontal vents with bronze louvers set in the upper wall of all elevations • Red mission roof tiles • Copper gutters and downspouts • Exposed concrete rafter tails with shaped ends under shed roofs • Monkey pod tree at northwest corner of building Main Elevation (North) • Symmetrically arranged front fagade • Three sections: a central primary volume with three equally -sized windows, flanked by two stepped wings • Implied concrete lintels that span the main volume windows between flat capitals which top the columns • Square concrete columns with beveled corners dividing bays • Concrete cheek blocks with round ends that flank the stop and landing at the corners of the central section • Two octagonal bronze lanterns aligned above cheek blocks at main fagade • Centered, circular gable opening with bronze louvers • End wings, identical to each other in size and configuration • Single window bay at both end wings, each with a single window bay • Two -section, bronze -sash casement window with five horizontal lights in each section and a slightly recessed concrete lintel set above sash (east wing) • Water table West Elevation • Six original openings on west elevation • Centered open, unframed entry bay with slightly recessed lintel • Aluminum -sash sliders in four originally open bays flanking entry z Tetra Tech's historians consider the post office to be more appropriately characterized as Spanish Revival or Spanish Colonial Revival instead of the nomination's description ofthe building as Mission Revival style ofarchitecture. The original nomination did not include this tree; however, the Hawaii Historic Preservation Division communicated to the USPS in 2011 that the tree was considered part of the historic property_ NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 4 llhue.Main_ftsLOffise.............. .... _.._..__-_. Name of Property Lihue_Hawaii County and State���"�_._�_____��._____.�____.�_W__w.�._... NIA blame otmultipfe listing (f appiicab�e�---­---------`---- • Bronze railings at lower portion of three bays • Casement window set within a niche identical in size to other bays at rear of this elevation; a bronze -sash with three lights in each section • Flat concrete wall • Shed roof that inclines to the raised central section of the building • Two -section, bronze -sash casement window with five horizontal lights in each section at south end of original elevation (smaller than large bays to the north and identical to original windows on other elevations) • Water table • Concrete cheek blocks with round ends that flank the step and landing East Elevation • Six equally spaced windows —all two -section, bronze casement sashes with five horizontal lights in each section • One window of single section with four horizontal lights • Concrete sills • Recessed concrete panel beneath windows • Water table South Elevation • Side wings stepped down from the central section; east side slightly lower than the west • Copper parapet caps at the top of the west side and central section • Flat roofs over all three sections Interior The 1989 NRHP nomination does not specify significant interior architectural features that contributed to the property's significance, other than the carved wood low relief artworks, which have been removed. This evaluation determined that the portions of the lobby retain historic architectural integrity, contribute to the building's significance, and is defined by significant historic character defining features include: • Original cast bronze drop lights and wood -beamed ceiling • Terra cotta floor tiles (dark red) in retail lobby area • Decorative wood posts at retail windows • Decorative Postmaster's Office door Amendment Findings The Lihue Main Post Office has not been significantly altered since originally listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989. Exterior alterations to the building occurred in the late 1970s, including enclosure of some bays at the north and east elevations, and construction of a rear addition. The nomination detennined that these alterations had not diminished the integrity of the property. Exterior alterations since 1989 included in -kind replacement of broken or damaged original roof tiles. Interior alterations included closure of one of the retail windows in the lobby for use as mail slots; however, the original wood frame and decorative wood posts are still in place. A modern, aluminum -frame, glass vestibule has been installed at the main entryway, and artworks documented on the 1989 nomination form have been NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 5 J!hu_e_M.@jn_P_mL0ffj_ce ---------------------------------------- Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA .,_..,_....-.. _ -... ,._..._---------- ------ ame of mu tip a listing i app ica e) removed. All other interior alterations have been completed in non-public areas, such as the workroom and employee restrooms. The Lihue Main Post Office retains the same level of integrity and ability to convey its historic significance as it did when listed on the NRHP in 1989. NP5 Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 6 Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA - ------------------------------------------------ Name of multiple (sting (if applicable) Form Prepared By Name/title: Julia Mates Organization: Tetra Tech, Inc. Street & number: 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612 City or town: Oakland State: CA e-mail: iuiia-mates@tetratech.com Telephone: 510.3 02.63 0 0 Date: March 3, 2017 Photographs Photograph Log Name of Property: City or Vicinity: County: State: Name of Photographer: Date of Photographs: Location of Original Digital Files Number of Photographs: 9 Zip Code: 94612 Lihue Main Post Office Lihue Kauai County HI Julia Mates, Tetra Tech, Inc. December 20 and 21, 2016 LISPS Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Rm, 6670 Washington DC 20260-1862 Photograph Al North (main) and west elevations (camera facing southeast). Photograph #2 West elevation (camera facing southeast). Photograph #3 West elevation (camera facing southeast) Photograph 44 East elevation (camera facing southwest). Photograph 15 Rear (south) elevation, northeast. Photograph 46 Interior lobby (camera facing northeast). NP5 Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 7 Photograph #7 Interior lobby, fetail windows (camera facing northeast). Lihus.MaiaPsQst -Offics-------------------------------------- Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA Fame of ............. Photograph #8 Interior post office box lobby at west elevation (camera facing southeast). Photograph #9 Postmaster's Office Door, east elevation (camera facing cast). NP5 Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 8 Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA ame of multiple lis#�ng (i applicab ej Photograph 91. North (main) and west elevations (camera facing southeast). NPS Form 10-800-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 9 Name of Property Lihue Hawaii County and State NIA ame of multiple listing {if app ica e) Photograph 42. West elevation (camera facing southeast). NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) [$0,100 [01ZINIIII[N United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 11 Lihue Main Post Office --------------------- - Name of Property LihueHawaii Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Photograph #4. East elevation (camera facing southwest). NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0019 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 12 Lihue Main Post Office Name of Property Lihue Hawaii Name of multiple listing (if applicable) - ............................................. .-- ... ................... ... Photograph #5. Rear (south) elevation, northeast. NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 13 Lihue Main Past Office Name of Property bue Hawaii -------------- ________ Name of multiple listing (if applicable) .............................. Photograph 46. Interior lobby (camera facing northeast). NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 14 OMB No. 1 D24-0018 Lihue Main Post Office Name of Property Lil Hawaii ------- ________--_ Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Photograph V. Interior lobby, retail windows (camera facing northeast). NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) ED]IL]Pran [OX19111111TI United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 15 Lihue Main Post Office Name of Property UtzLte Hawai L ---------------------------- ------- ------------------- Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Photograph #S. Interior post office box lobby at west elevation (camera facing southeast). NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Additional Documentation Page 16 Lihue Main Post Office Name of Property LihuaeHwaii Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Photograph 49. Postmaster's Office Door, cast elevation (camera facing cast).