Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_0118_KHPRC_Minutes_ApprovedCOUNTY OF KAUA'I KAUA'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KEPRC) 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'dina Hull; Shanlee Jimenez; Alex Wong; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa (left 4:39p.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, I st term ending 12/31/20. The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Kadina 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. Long: 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. Long: 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 Himichi-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-Sayegusa: 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 Teen 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 Tern 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-Sayegusa: At this point the new Chair can take the chainnan 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-Save sa: 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. Hi uucchi-Sayegusa: 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-Sayegusa: 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 L-1hu'e Post Office, that the agenda be amended to have the... excuse me, to have Unfinished Business 1.2., 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 Goven-iment 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 Llhu`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 Govermnent. 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 LISPS — 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 Irrational 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 Lihu`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 LISPS 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 theirs 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 Lihu`e. And exactly the same as the Lihu`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 LISPS 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-Savegusa: City of Berkley and National Trust Register. Mr. Hull: Yes, the National Trust Register. That's right. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sued LISPS. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we receive this inforination. 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 coining 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 pen -nit 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. Wong: 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. Wong: 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. Long: 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 theirs 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 the had any chance of being historic and interestingly it's the the 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 the 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 fraining 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 infonnation 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 fonn 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 donner 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 the — but it may not be the same tile — the the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 fonner 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 donner. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: 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-Sayegusa: 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 staffs 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-Sayegusa: 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 recoimnends 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 naive 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 fagade, 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 fagade, 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. Best: 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 Pennitted 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 finn 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 LThu`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 HANAPIRPIR 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 , &" q� K- - Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk X ) Approved as circulated. 02/15/18 ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. January 18, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 28