HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-21 Kauai Historic Preservation Reveiw Commission Agenda PacketKAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION
GERALD IDA,CHAIR JAMES GUERBER.MEMBER R E CE 1 V ED
SUSAN REMOALDO,VICE CHAIR CAROLYN LARSON,MEMBER
STEPHEN LONG.MEMBER
AUBREY SUMMERS,MEMBER 21 OCT —4 P3 :52
~F .&~
~W~Y
On August 5,2021,Governor David Y.Ige issued an Emergency Proclamation,which cont,e~ii1~f ~cA~A’I
suspension of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)Chapter 92,relating to Public Agency Meetings and Records
(also known as the Sunshine Law)as it pertained to the COVID-19 Response.HRS Chapter 92 was
suspended to the extent necessary to enable boards to conduct business in-person or through remote
technology without any board members or members of the public physically present in the same location.
The meetings of the Kaua’i Historic Preservation Commission will be conducted as follows until further
notice:
•Meetings will be publicly noticed pursuant to HRS Chapter 92.
•In-person meetings will be closed to the public to be consistent with social distancing practices.
•Kauai Historic Preservation Commissioners,Planning Department Staff,parties to agenda items,
and resource individuals may appear via the ZOOM remote technology.
•Written testimony may be submitted on any agenda item and submitted to
planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the Kauai County Planning Department
4444 Rice Street.,Ste A473,Lihue,Hawaii 96766.Written testimony received by the Planning
Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners
prior to the meeting.Any testimony received after this time and up to the start of the meeting will
be summarized by the Clerk of the Commission during the meeting and added to the record
thereafter.
•Oral testimony will be taken during the meeting via Zoom remote technology platform.Anyone
interested in providing oral testimony must register for the meeting and indicate the item you wish
to testify on at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Requests to testify will not be allowed after that
time.
Each meeting link that is unique to each registrant that cannot be shared.
It shall be the responsibility of the testifier to join the meeting through the Zoom link
provided via E-mail to provide their oral testimony.In addition,it shall be the responsibility
of the testifier to ensure that the Zoom software is downloaded and operational prior to the
meeting.
All testifier audio and video will be disabled until it is your turn to testify.
Per the Planning Commission’s and Chairs practice,there is three-minute time limit per
testifier.
If there are temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify,we may have to move
on to the next person due to time constraints;we appreciate your understanding.
•If any major and insurmountable technical difficulties are encountered during the meetings,the
Planning Commission will continue all matters and reconvene at the next scheduled Planning
Commission Meeting.
•Minutes of meetings will be completed pursuant to HRS Chapter 92 and posted to the Planning
Commission’s website upon completion and approval.
KAUA’I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Thursday,October 21,2021
1:30 p.m.or shortly thereafter
ZOOM MEETING REGISTRATION LINK:
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN Bc-i lvNSRcugffIEg4 nRw
A.CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIR
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
1.April 29,2021
2.June 17,2021
E.COMMUNICATIONS
1.Letter from Reid Kawane, Chair of Charter Review Commission,requesting any
proposals to amend the Charter.
F.PUBLIC COMMENT.The Kaua’i Historic Preservation Commission will accept written
testimony for any agenda item.Written testimony indicating your 1)name,and if
applicable,your position/title and organization you are representing,and 2)the agenda
item that you are providing comment on,may be submitted in writing to
planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the County of Kaua’i Planning Department,
4444 Rice Street,Suite 473,Lihu’e,Hawai’i 96766.Written testimony received by the
Planning Department before 1:30 p.m.on Wednesday,October 20,2021,will be
distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting.Written testimony
received after 1:30 p.m.on Wednesday,October 20,2021,will be summarized by the
Clerk of the Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter.
Oral testimony will be taken at the beginning of the meeting on any agenda item via the
Zoom remote technology platform and it shall be the responsibility of the testifier to
ensure that the Zoom software is downloaded prior to the meeting.Requests to provide
oral testimony must be made at least 24 hours prior to the meeting by registering for the
Zoom meeting and specifying the agenda item(s)that you will be testifying on.Requests
will not be allowed after that time.
KAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION —OCTOBER 21,2021 PAGE 2
G.CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Lydgate Park-Kapa’a Bike/Pedestrian Path,Phase 0
Federal Aid Project No.STP-0700(088)
Draft World War II Era Structures Interpretive Signage -Pillboxes
Waipouli,North Olohena,and South Olohena Ahupua’a
Kawaihau District,Island of Kaua’i,Hawai’i
TMK:(4)4-3-002:001,013,014,015,016,018,019,020;(4)4-3-007:027,028
HRS Chapter 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review.
H.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1.Pacific Missile Range Facility (Department of Defense -Missile Defense Agency)
Mãnã,Hawai’i
TMK:(4)1-2-002:1,9,10,13,21,26,31,40,and 999 and (4)1-2-016:1-11,17-20,999
Section 106
Section 106 Consultation for The Missile Defense Agency (MDA)proposal to develop
a plan to construct,test,and operate the Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii (HDR-H)
project that includes a missile defense radar system complex,and related actions in
Hawaii.
a.Director’s Report pertaining to this item.
2.Java Kai Old Köloa Town
Old Kóloa Town Building Renovation
Lot4A,Kôloa,Kaua’i,Hawai’i
TMK:(4)2-8-007:016
Renovation of an existing structure.
a.Revised Plans.
b.Director’s Report pertaining to this item.
3.Discussion on Archeological Guidelines.
J.ANNOUNCEMENTS
K.SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (November 18,2021)
KAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION —OCTOBER 21,2021 PAGE 3
L.ADJOURNMENT
EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Commission may go into executive session on an agenda item for one
of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-5(a)Hawai’i 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 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:IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE,OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A
DISABILITY,OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS,PLEASE CONTACT
THE OFFICE OF BOARDS &COMMISSIONS AT (808)241-4917 OR ASEGRETI@KAUAI.GOV AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE.REQUESTS MADE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME
TO FULFILL YOUR REQUEST.
UPON REQUEST,THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT,
BRAILLE,OR ELECTRONIC COPY.
KAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION —OCTOBER 21,2021 PAGE 4
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Minutes of Special Meeting
OPEN SESSION
Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review
Commission
Meeting Date April 29, 2021
Location 5438 Kōloa Road, Kōloa, Hawai‘i 96756 Start of Meeting: 1:44 p.m. End of Meeting: 3:03 p.m.
Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long (called into the
meeting at 1:49 p.m. by cellphone) and Aubrey Summers.
Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall (Microsoft Teams online video conference). Planning Department Staff: Planning Director
Ka‘aina Hull, Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa and Planner Marisa Valenciano. Office of Boards and Commissions:
Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin.
Excused
Absent
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
The meeting was delayed due to offsite setup complications with no electrical outlets and
meeting table setup area. Commissioner Guerber called Commissioner Stephen Long who was
stuck in north shore traffic and unable to be present at the meeting site.
A. Call To
Order By Chair
Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:44 p.m.
B. Roll Call Planning Director Ka‘aina Hull verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal
response;
Commissioner Summers replied here.
Commissioner Long was not present.
Commissioner Larson replied here.
Commissioner Guerber replied here.
Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here.
Chair Ida replied here.
Quorum was established with
five commissioners present.
C. Approval of
the Agenda
Vice Chair Remoaldo moved
to approve the agenda, as
circulated. Ms. Larson
seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5:0.
DRAFT To Be Approved
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 2
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
D. Approval of
the Minutes
Mr. Hull announced there were no minutes to approve.
E.
Communications There were none.
F. Public
Comment
Chair Ida announced that any member of the public could testify on any agenda item now.
Mr. Hull said seeing no one present, no one called into Teams and no receipt of testimonies,
there were none.
G. General
Business
Matters
There were none.
H. Unfinished
Business
At 1:49 p.m. Mr. Guerber received another phone call from Commissioner Stephen Long who
requested to participate in the meeting by cellphone. Mr. Long stated that he had been to the
site, reviewed the packet and had some comments to address. Mr. Hull accepted Mr. Long’s
request and he attended the meeting by cellphone.
H.1. Mucho Aloha Kōloa Brewhouse
Lot 4A, Kōloa Road
Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-007:016
Kōloa, Hawai‘i
Proposed Renovation of Existing Structures for a Brewery Brewhouse Operation.
Mr. Hull welcomed the commissioners to the first onsite meeting and shared the following;
• The commission was required to conduct the meeting under sunshine law.
• Requested the commissioners speak louder during the meeting so conversations could be
picked up by the one microphone and recorded for the minutes.
• Commissioners could take a recess to individually or as a group inspect the area; however,
they are not allowed to discuss anything about the project between commissioners or
between commissioners and the applicant. All discussions would need to take place at the
meeting table once the meeting was in session.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 3
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
Ms. Valenciano briefly shared a summary.
• At the last meeting the applicant presented alternative plans to the project. Based on
comments from that meeting the onsite meeting was planned for the commissioners to
further discuss the project and inspect the building and surrounding area.
• The department recommended the commission take-action on the project now that they are
at the site. The department did not change its original recommendations and requested the
commission incorporate their comments.
Attorney Ian Jung presented the project to the commission and introduced applicant Gabriel
Tennberg, who attended the meeting by Microsoft Teams.
• Their packet included the second version plans that included updated changes discussed at
the prior meeting.
• Illustrated proposed changes to the actual building site with orange spray paint that
designated the location of the shed roof over the deck and another orange paint mark that
designates the corners of the deck width and length.
Mr. Jung invited the commission to inspect the markings on the building. The Commission
decided to take a recess and allow the group as a whole time to inspect the area. They all left
the meeting table and inspected the proposed changes to the area.
Chair Ida called for a recess at 1:52 p.m.
Chair Ida reconvened the meeting at 1:56 p.m.
1. Ms. Summers asked about the permeable pavers. Mr. Jung replied that the pavers would
be used to blend them into the walkway.
2. Ms. Summers asked if all they planned to remove the existing landscaped areas in front of
the building except for the tree. Mr. Jung referred to the circled landscaped area in front of
the building and said those were the only ones proposed to be removed.
3. Mr. Jung referred to floor plan A101and asked Gabriel Tennberg if the circle planter with
the plumeria tree in front of the building and the other circle planters were going to be
removed. Mr. Tennberg confirmed that the two landscaped circle planters would be
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 4
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
removed and replaced with permeable pavers so outdoor seating/picnic tables could be
placed in that area. They plan to incorporate more landscape around the courtyard with
sugar cane and lawai leaf. Mr. Jung suggested that if the commission had concerns on the
lack of landscaped areas, they would be able to enhance other areas and redirected the
discussion to the proposed changes to the building.
4. Vice Chair Remoaldo expressed concern that the permeable pavers placed in the planter
circles would create an uneven surface if the existing concrete was left untouched. Mr.
Jung replied that for liability purposes the circle planters would be leveled out to create a
flat surface with the existing concrete.
5. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the shed roof would extend beyond the end of the deck
width. Mr. Jung referred to floor plan A101 and said the shed roof would extend one foot
over the deck width.
6. Mr. Guerber stated that floor plan A200 showed the shed roof extended a foot over the
deck. Mr. Jung replied that the overhang was needed to mitigate rain entering onto the
deck area where outdoor seating was planned.
7. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked what the roof material would be used for the shed roof. Mr.
Tennberg replied the building had plastic corrugated roofing and they would use the same
for the shed roof.
8. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked how they planned to repurpose the lava rocks once they
remove the concrete lava rock planters in front of the building. Mr. Jung said they would
work with the contractor to find a way to repurpose the lava rocks.
9. Ms. Larson shared concerns on the size of the deck which had now impacted the removal
of two nearby circle planters to accommodate outdoor seating. She also expressed concern
on the louvered windows on the westside that were proposed to be replaced. Mr. Jung
replied that the owners would keep the original louvers if it could be fixed, and only
replace if the louvers could not open and close.
10. Ms. Summers inquired if the little buildings to the side were proposed to be removed.
Mr. Tennberg replied that pending approval from the owners the little buildings on the
southside of the building would be removed and replaced with landscaping.
11. Mr. Guerber asked why they need the outdoor seating when they already had the deck
area. Mr. Jung replied that the outdoor seating was for patrons to wait to be seated in the
restaurant.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 5
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
12. Ms. Larson agreed with recreating the use in the area and agreed with the deck outdoor
seating; however, her only concern was that the size of the deck would encroach on the
walkway and remove the landscaped circle planters. Mr. Guerber stated a reduction from
13 feet to 10 feet would still allow outdoor seating and keep the circle planters. Mr.
Tennberg could not confirm the reduction of three feet, due to seating revenue and would
need to discuss the effects it could have with the architect.
The commission decided to take a break and inspect the westside louvered windows.
Chair Ida called for a recess at 2:24 p.m.
Chair Ida reconvened the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
13. Mr. Long commented that he visited the site on Tuesday and thought the pavers were a
good idea and the additional landscaped area in place of the little buildings were
excellent. He asked for the color of the corrugated shed roof. Mr. Tennberg said would
match the buildings current corrugated roof color, which was white.
14. Mr. Long asked they incorporate and reuse the lava rock element, reduce the width of the
deck and maintain the original louvered windows on the westside of the building.
They discussed the demolition of the small sheds and was advised by Mr. Hull that removal
of a non-historic structure within a historic context would not trigger a KHPRC review.
15. Ms. Summers commented that the lava rock feature was not historic. Vice Chair
Remoaldo replied that its representative of similar features in the area.
16. Mr. Tennberg said wood box planters would be placed in the surrounding interior
courtyard area and the length of the deck was shortened on both ends to accommodate
additional landscaping features. Ms. Summers suggested to reuse of the lava rocks in
those areas.
Ms. Valenciano suggested the commission review the recommendations provided in the
packet and amend as needed to incorporate conditions from the commission.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 6
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
Mr. Hull shared that KHPRC is an advisory body to the applicant, advisory body to the
department of planning for class one zoning permit and planning commissions use permit and
public hearing level permits. He plans to fold in as many recommended conditions from the
commission as mandated or advised for conditions of approval.
Ms. Larson moved to approve
the Department of Planning
recommendations as written in
the Director’s Report dated
April 15, 2021, for Mucho
Aloha Kōloa Brewhouse
Lot 4A, Kōloa Road, Tax Map
Key: (4) 2-8-007:016, Kōloa,
Hawai‘i, Proposed Renovation
of Existing Structures for a
Brewery Brewhouse Operation
and incorporate the following
recommendations from the
commission; #1 applicant
retain the existing casement
and transit window on the west
side of the building and
recommendation #3 to include
reduction of protrusion of the
deck width, reuse lava rock
feature in surrounding
landscape and avoid paving
over existing landscaped areas.
Mr. Guerber seconded the
motion. Motion carried 6:0.
I. New
Business
There were none
J.
Announcements
There were no announcements
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Special Open Session
April 29, 2021 Page 7
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
K. Selection of
Next Meeting
Date and
Agenda Topics
(June 17, 2021)
Mr. Hull announced the next meeting would be scheduled June 17, 2021.
L.
Adjournment
With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn.
Vice Chair Remoaldo moved
to adjourn the meeting. Ms.
Larson seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6:0.
Chair Ida adjourned the
meeting at 3:03pm
Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________
Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair
( ) Approved as circulated.
( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting.
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Minutes of Meeting
OPEN SESSION
Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review
Commission
Meeting Date June 17, 2021
Location Teleconference by Microsoft Teams Start of Meeting: 1:31 p.m. End of Meeting: 3:28 p.m.
Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long and Aubrey
Summers.
Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall. Planning Department Staff: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Planner Marisa
Valenciano, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Myles Hironaka. Office of Boards and Commissions:
Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin.
Excused
Absent
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
A. Call To
Order
Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m.
B. Roll Call Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa verified attendance by roll call and
requested a verbal response;
Commissioner Guerber replied here.
Commissioner Larson replied merci.
Commissioner Long replied here.
Commissioner Summers replied here.
Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here.
Chair Ida replied here.
Quorum was established with
six commissioners present.
C. Approval of
the Agenda
Mr. Long requested that the minimum requirements for a project presentation before KHPRC
be placed on the next agenda.
Mr. Guerber moved to approve
the June 17, 2021 agenda, as
circulated. Ms. Larson
seconded the motion. Motion
carried 6:0.
D. Approval of
the Minutes
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa announced there were no minutes to approve.
E.
Communications There were none.
DRAFT To Be Approved
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 2
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
F. Public
Comment
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa announced that any member of the public could now testify on any
agenda item. Hearing no response, she moved on to the next agenda item.
G. General
Business
Matters
There were none.
H. Unfinished
Business
H.1. Hanapēpē Readiness Center (Hawai‘i Army National Guard)
1-3460 Kaumuali‘i Hwy
Tax Map Key: (4) 1-8-008:029 and 078, Hanapēpē, Kaua‘i
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation for the proposed
installation of two new rotatable high frequency (HF) antennas at the Hanapēpē Readiness
Center (HRC).
a. Email (5/26/2021) from MAJ (RET) Jeff Hickman transmitting slides.
b. Email (5/28/2021) from MAJ (RET) Jeffrey D. Hickman transmitting pictures and
architectural drawings of antenna.
c. Supplemental #1 to the Director’s Report pertaining to this matter
Ms. Valenciano shared the following;
• The commission’s action was to provide comments and directions that would generate a
Section 106 response letter to;
o Concur or not concur with the agency’s findings and provide comments on the
project
o Decline to comment
o Defer comments until more information becomes available
• At the March 18, 2021, meeting the commission requested the agency provide an
alternative design and location for the antenna towers.
• The department cleared up the overall height of the towers with the agency. In February
2020 the materials received indicated the tower height at 80 feet, but after receiving
architectural drawings for the June 17, 2021, meeting the applicant confirmed that the
height of the tower, including the rotating antenna top, was 95 feet.
• In their February 2020 application the agency noted the antenna turning radius was 60 feet,
which the agency corrected, and it should have been 60 degrees.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 3
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
The Planning Department conveyed that the antennas would be in proximity and adjacent to
significant historic properties and recommended the commission submit a Section 106 letter
that did not concur with the agency’s determination of no effect to historic properties and
provided a sample motion: “move to submit a Section 106 comment letter memorializing
KHPRC decision to not concur with the agency’s determination of no adverse effect to
historic properties. The Section 106 comments should also convey concerns about the
proposed design of the towers and its visual and scenic impact to nearby historic properties”.
State of Hawai‘i (SOH) Department of Defense, Director of Public Affairs Jeffrey Hickman
shared a power point presentation that addressed the commissions comments from the March
18, 2021, meeting;
1. Project Review:
• The antennas would be for emergency use and provide communication capabilities for
Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i after a disaster.
• Construction cost of the towers would be federally subsidized.
• Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Office concurred the project.
2. Sea level rise:
• The Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System determined the property site would not be
affected by a 0.5-to-3.2-foot sea level rise.
• Towers would not be impacted by a category three hurricane storm surge.
• Property site was outside of the 100-year flood zone.
3. Other sites considered and reasoning why not chosen:
• Alternate sites were considered and evaluated based on three criteria’s and the HRC
property ranked first:
o Federally owned property
o Site located in an assessable location
o Area safe from natural disasters
4. Other designs considered:
• The chosen antenna model had a 360 turning radius that was the most effective in
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 4
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
communication signals that other models did not have.
• Looked at mobile versions and one that erected when needed, but those did not offer the
same capability.
• Both towers are required. One to receive and the other to transmit at the same time.
The towers communicate by radio, voice, and text.
• The main reason for two antennas was it provided redundancy of operations.
5. Photos of the area (actual on the ground photos – see slide 6):
• View 1 – looking makai down Puolo Road from Kaumuali‘i Highway.
• View 2 – from the end of Puolo Road looking mauka.
• View 3 – diagonal view from Kaumuali‘i Highway across the street with sight of
temple.
6. Disagreement of the “no significant effect/impact…” from SHPD letter:
• No comments shared
7. Other sites on Kaua‘i that have taller/higher than these antennas:
• 357 ft tall tower in ‘Ele‘ele
• 190 ft tall tower in Kekaha
• 200, 165 and 150 ft tall towers at Pacific Missile Range Facility
• 159 ft tower in Po‘ipū
• 150 ft tower in Kōloa
• 127 ft building in Hanamā‘ulu
• Five 80 ft tall stadium lights at Hanapēpē Stadium
• 20-four ft tall power poles around the immediate area
8. Alternate communication types:
• West Virginal National Guard Emergency Management Specialist and Adjunct
Professor at Georgetown University Anthony Hammerquist said the towers offered post
disaster communication when communication infrastructure failed during and after a
disaster.
• Radio communication allowed the ability to talk to multiple calls at the same time.
• The antennas could communicate interisland, mainland, to aircraft and ship.
9. Include new (other) graphics and drawings (slide 7):
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 5
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
• Displayed updated architectural drawings
Questions:
1. Ms. Larson asked if the antenna towers could be suitable in the other sites that were
considered. Mr. Hammerquist said the other areas considered had existing antennas that
would interfere with the effectiveness of the communication transmission. Existing
antennas surrounding the towers, near aircraft, mountain terrain or lack of space would be
unsuitable.
2. Ms. Larson asked for the wingspan of the antenna arm. Mr. Hickman responded each arm
of the antenna was 30 feet on either side, with a 60 feet circumference. He also noted for
visibility purpose the antennas in the photo were colored black but would be a silver-gray
color.
3. Ms. Larson asked if the arms of the antenna were vulnerable to hurricane winds. Mr.
Hammerquist said the antennas were rated for a category four hurricane resistance. Ms.
Larson found it concerning that a category five hurricane could possibly take down the
antenna.
4. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if they could share the alternate sites considered. Mr.
Hammerquist and Mr. Hickman did not have the information at the time and would
provide a list to the commission.
5. Mr. Long asked if the antenna rotated 60 or 360 degrees. Mr. Hammerquist replied 360
degrees.
6. Mr. Long said cellphones were non-existent and wanted to know what problems would be
solved with the antennas. Mr. Hammerquist said the report from the Hawai‘i civil
emergency service after Hurricane Iniki noted all communications were down, antennas
toppled over and there was no way to assess the devastation until they placed people on the
ground or scheduled a flight inspection. Other sites considered were Moloka‘i and
Barking Sands and neither would be suitable for the antennas. They also looked at other
islands.
7. Mr. Long said the responsibility of this commission was historic and not communication.
He said he disagreed with the archaeologist suggestion of no visual impact and suggested a
Section 106 letter commenting that the antenna towers would have a negative visual effect
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 6
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
on the surrounding historic properties.
8. Chair Ida commented that he had a cellphone and after three days his cellphone reached
O‘ahu. He understood the importance of communication, but the commissions task was
historic.
9. Ms. Larson concurred and acknowledged communication was an issue but the major
responsibility of KHPRC was historic.
Ms. Larson commented that the community should have input on the proposed location of the
antenna towers. She appreciated the project just not appropriate at the Hanapēpē site. The
other commissioners agreed.
Hawai‘i Air National Guard Compliance Manager Karl Bromwell stated that the antenna
radius was seven feet and explained that the antenna would not affect the surrounding nine
historic properties that were about half mile away and that the temple next door would reach
historic status in 2027. He was not aware of any registered view plains in the area and
Ms. Larson moved to approve
a Section 106 letter
memorializing KHPRC
decision to not concur with the
agency’s determination of no
adverse effect to historic
properties for the Hanapēpē
Readiness Center (Hawai‘i
Army National Guard)
1-3460 Kaumuali‘i Hwy
Tax Map Key: (4) 1-8-
008:029 and 078, Hanapēpē,
Kaua‘i, National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)
Section 106 consultation for
the proposed installation of
two new rotatable high
frequency (HF) antennas at the
Hanapēpē Readiness Center
(HRC). Mr. Guerber seconded
the motion.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 7
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
emphasized the need to understand what specific historic properties the proposed project
would have an adverse effect on. He questioned how the project would diminish the integrity
and criteria that made the surrounding historic properties eligible. Mr. Hickman commented
that the commission made a motion and was about to vote.
Deputy County Attorney Hall jumped in and said the commission had their discussion and
further comments should be specific to the motion on the floor; however, the commission
could back track and address Mr. Bromwell’s concerns, if they wanted to.
Vice Chair Remoaldo commented that other community organizations, not included on the
distribution list, would also want to comment on the project. Mr. Hickman said he submitted
requests to the organizations listed and published an advertisement in the Garden Island
Newspaper but did not receive any response.
With no further discussion required from the commission Chair Ida called for the vote.
Roll Call vote Ayes-5 and
Nay-1 (Ms. Summers).
Motion carried 5:1.
H.2. County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division.
Improvements to Collector Road, Portions of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street,
Federal-Aid Project STP 0700(85), TMK: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999,
(4) 4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, & (4) 4-5-015:003.
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian
Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties.
a. Letter (5/27/2021) from Michael Moule, P.E., Chief, Engineering Division transmitting the
final construction plans.
b. Archeological Inventory Survey for Proposed Improvements to Collector Roads – Portion
of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street.
c. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
Ms. Valenciano shared the following;
• The commission’s action was to provide comments and directions that would generate a
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 8
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
Section 106 response letter to;
o Concur or not concur with the agency’s findings of no adverse effect to historic
properties and provide comments on the project
o Decline to comment
o Defer comments until more information becomes available
• Read portions of the Director’s Report dated June 17, 2021
• February 20, 2020 meeting the commission approved the project with restrictions.
• Public Works would present its final designs that include some of the commission’s
comments.
• Department recommends KHPRC submit a Section 106 comment letter that either concurs
or not concur with the agency’s findings of no effect to historic properties. The comment
letter should include comments or concerns on the final design plans and whether the
conversion of a single-lane to a double-lane bridge keeps the historic character of the area.
• This pertains only to phase 1; the project was a split into phase 1 and phase 2.
County of Kaua‘i Chief Engineer of Public Works Michael Moule presented the project to the
commission and with him were Public Works Project Engineer Joel Bautista. He shared a
power point presentation Olohena Road Improvements Project which displayed;
• Site location map
• Existing Bridge – view to the east and southwest
• Abutment under the bridge on west side
• Western wing wall - mauka west side
• Eastern wing wall - mauka on Kapa‘a side
• Western wing wall - downstream west side
• Eastern wing wall - downstream Kapa‘a side
• Upstream parapet
• Downstream parapet
• KHPRC motion on February 18, 2020: “…recommend the project with the following
restrictions: that we retain the wing walls and the cut stone and as much of the old bridge
as possible underneath the new bridge and that the new parapets emulate the parapets on
the old bridge as much as possible.”
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 9
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
• Changes to the bridge: expand the length of bridge, expand the existing abutments, remove
the bridge parapets. The existing deck, wingwalls and channel walls will remain.
• Proposed improvements – layout plan
• Proposed improvements – street view
• Proposed improvements – elevations
• Proposed improvements – demo section view
• Proposed improvements – completed section view
• Pending concurrence from SHPD – if SHPD concurs project will move forward as shown;
if SHPD does not concur, County will review requirements and revise as necessary
Questions:
1. Mr. Long thanked Mr. Moule for listening and incorporating KHPRC comments into the
design which showed they were sensitive to the commissions historical concerns.
2. Ms. Larson inquired on the height of the road level on the bridge above the road level of
the existing bridge. Mr. Moule replied there was a six-inch gap from the bottom of the
new bridge over the old bridge. The new bridge was twenty-six inches higher than the old
bridge.
3. Ms. Larson commented that the height of the new parapet was considerably higher than the
original one. Mr. Moule replied that the new parapet was three feet six inches high and
standard bridge rail height for crash safety.
4. Ms. Larson was concerned over the differences in the design from the old to new, it was
higher off the ground and wider and taller.
5. Ms. Larson commented that the new bridge design did not retain the historical feel of the
original bridge. She wanted input from the community to establish if a two-lane roadway
was necessary. The design fit a two-lane bridge, but it did not maintain the historic feel of
the original bridge with the modern industrial guardrails. She stated that based on the new
design there was no possibility for KHPRC to concur with the findings of no effect to
historic properties.
6. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the parapets were solid precast or casted on site. Mr. Moule
was not sure. She said the original parapets had a rough concrete surface and asked if that
could be recreated without compromising the safety requirements. Mr. Moule replied he
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 10
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
would refer this request to the consultants to provide an expert opinion.
7. Mr. Long stated a mitigating factor would be to provide texture on the face of the concrete
barrier parapets and echoed Ms. Larsons concerns.
8. Ms. Larson remembered that the Historic Hawai‘i Foundation was conducting a study on
bridges and wondered if this bridge could qualify or gain from any guidelines they may
have.
Mr. Moule advised Ms. Larson to rephrase her motion from “findings of no adverse effect to
historic properties” to “findings of no historic properties affected”.
Ms. Larson moved to not
concur with the agency’s
findings of no adverse effect to
historic properties.
(motion died with no second)
Ms. Larson moved to not
concur with the agency’s
findings of no historic
properties affected for the
County of Kaua‘i, Department
of Public Works – Engineering
Division. Improvements to
Collector Road, Portions of
Olohena Road, Kukui Street,
and Ulu Street, Federal-Aid
Project STP 0700(85), TMK:
(4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-
005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4)
4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999,
(4) 4-5-010:999, & (4) 4-5-
015:003. Ms. Summers
seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote Ayes-6 and
Nay-0. Motion carried 6:0.
Mr. Long moved that the
previous motion recognized
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 11
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
the existing historical bridge is
affected and as mitigating
measures accept the county’s
redesign elements presented to
KHPRC at the 6/17/21 meeting
and additional mitigating
request is to investigate a
material or textural facing
design on the new concrete
parapets or guardrails for the
County of Kaua‘i, Department
of Public Works – Engineering
Division. Improvements to
Collector Road, Portions of
Olohena Road, Kukui Street,
and Ulu Street, Federal-Aid
Project STP 0700(85), TMK:
(4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-
005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4)
4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999,
(4) 4-5-010:999, & (4) 4-5-
015:003. Ms. Larson seconded
the motion. Roll Call vote
Aye-6 and Nay-0. Motion
carried 6:0.
I. New Business
There were none.
J.
Announcements
There were none.
K. Selection of
Next Meeting
Next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 19, 2021
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa said the agenda would include the minimum requirements for project
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Open Session
June 17, 2021 Page 12
SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION
Date and
Agenda Topics
(August 19,
2021)
presentations before the commission and CLG (Certified Local Grant) fund update.
Ms. Larson stated she would not be available for the August 19, 2021, meeting.
Mr. Long requested the staff contact Ikaika Kincaid who presented historic bridges and
shared the programmatic agreement to add one-lane bridges.
L.
Adjournment
With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Guerber moved to adjourn
the meeting. Vice Chair
Remoaldo seconded the
motion. Motion carried 6:0.
Chair Ida adjourned the
meeting at 3:28pm
Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________
Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair
( ) Approved as circulated.
( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting.
OFFICE OF BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
ELLEN CHING, ADMINISTRATOR
OEREK S.K. (AWAXAMI, MAYOR
MICHAEI A. DAHIUC, MANAGING DIREC]OR
October 1,2021
Chair Gerald lda
Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission
c/o Kauai PlanninB Department
4444 Rice St.,ste. A473
lihue, Hawaii 96756
RE: Requesting any proposals to amend the Charter
Dear Chair lda and Commissioners of the Historic Preservation Review Commission:
You are invited to present any proposals you may have on any Charter amendments you would like the
Charter Commission to consider.
Should you want to propose any amendments, please provide a brief background on the issue and how
the amendment will address or solve the issue.
Should you have any questions, please feelfree to contact, Ellen Ching at echinq@ kauai.sov or at 24L-
4927.
Sincerely,
"L7-
Reid Kawane, Chair
Charter Review Commission
4444 Rice Street, Suite300. tihu'e, Hawai'i 96766. (808) 241-4917 (b).(808)241,5j27{0
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4992 (b) • (808) 241-6604 (f)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TROY K. TANIGAWA, P.E., ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER
BOYD GAYAGAS, DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER
July 27, 2021
Mr. Gerald Ida
Chairperson
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Commission
c/o County of Kaua‘i Planning Department
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473
Līhu‘e, HI 96766
Submitted via email: planningdepartment@kauai.gov
Subject: HRS Chapter 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review –
Lydgate Park-Kapa‘a Bike/Pedestrian Path, Phase D
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0700(088)
Draft World War II Era Structures Interpretive Signage - Pillboxes
Waipouli, North Olohena, and South Olohena Ahupua‘a
Kawaihau District, Island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i
TMK: (4) 4-3-002:001, 013, 014, 015, 016, 018, 019, 020; (4) 4-3-007:027, 028
Dear Mr. Ida,
The County of Kaua‘i is submitting for review a World War II Era Structures Interpretive Poster regarding
the pillbox remnants that exist along the Lydgate Park-Kapa‘a Bike/Pedestrian Path, Phase D Project.
The creation of this poster was an agreed-upon mitigation measure for the project with the Federal
Highway Administration, your office, and the County of Kaua‘i.
In an attempt to gather community input, the project reached out to the following groups and
individuals; any participation is also noted for your reference.
Coast Defense Study Group (names below were those that responded when we first reached out
trying to contact Mr. John Bennett)
o John Bennett was a part of this group, he is no longer available.
o Terry McGovern
o Mark Berhow – responded, saying poster looked good and no suggestions / input
provided.
o Bolling Smith – responded, saying not an expert on Kaua‘i, relied on John Bennett, but
what was drafted looked good.
o Glen Williford
o Quentin Schillare
Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum
U.S. Army Community Relations and Outreach Division
Kaua‘i Historical Society
Mr. Ida
July 27, 2021
Page 2 of 2
At this time we are requesting your review and consideration of the drafted interpretive poster. We
understand that Mr. John Bennett was one of the most knowledgeable people regarding the topic of
World War II, which led us to the Coast Defense Study Group. We coordinated with other members, as
they were willing. The other groups listed did not respond to our request for review. We feel we
reached out to groups that would have knowledgeable insight on the subject matter, but if you find that
we have overlooked a resource we would appreciate your providing them my contact information,
shown below, so that they may reach out to me if they so choose.
We have also submitted this draft interpretive poster to the following agencies / groups for their review:
Federal Highway Administration
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Kaua‘i Path, Inc.
We are kindly requesting that any comments be provided to us within 30 days of this letter and the
accompanying interpretive poster being assigned a SHPD reviewer through HICRIS.
We appreciate your time and consideration regarding this project. Please contact me at (808) 241-4849
or by email at dhaigh@kauai.gov for any questions or concerns. Mahalo for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Douglas Haigh
Building Division, Chief
Enclosure
The start of World War II saw a feverous attempt to shore the defenses of the Hawaiian Archipelago with Kaua'i receiving its fair share of defense work.Small fortified structures known as pillboxes were constructed in earnest around Kaua'i's shorelines to boost Hawai'i's military prowess during World War II, which began in September of 1939. Concrete machine gun pillboxes emplaced in the Hawaiian Islands were of several designs; the most common example was mass-produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers using precast panels. Reinforcing hoops or staples were included at the four outer corners near the roof which enabled the completed pillbox to be lifted on and off a conveyance for delivery to the site. This construction method allowed the pillboxes to be erected very quickly. In more difficult terrain, such as along steep mountain ridges, concrete pillboxes were constructed on site with material being transported by pack mules and human labor. These structures were square shaped with slab walls and roofs. A second popular design incorporated a rectangular shape with a longer body length, which included a rounded front and a square rear wall. Pillboxes, and their remnants, remain as fixtures throughout the state. Their presence, while perhaps not as visually impactful as the existing military bases and other more imposing structures and memorials, should nonetheless contribute to commemorating the incredible importance of Hawai'i in WWII and the sacrifices that were made by those that lived and fought here.WW II Era Structures - PillboxesWWII Concrete PillboxesExample of a pillbox found on Oahu. Photo attributed to John D. Bennett.Example of a pillbox found on Oahu. Photo attributed to John D. Bennett.Example of a pillbox found on Oahu. Photo attributed to John D. Bennett.Example of a pillbox found on Oahu. Photo attributed to John D. Bennett.Remnant of a pillbox. Lydgate Park-Kapaa Bike/Pedestrian Path, Phases C & D Final Environmental Assessment, April 2014. County of Kauaʻi.DRAFT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MISSILE DEFENSEAGENCY
5700 18THSTRE^;T „.!/„,,„<!BELVOIR,VIRGINIA'.EffidB6';S§7S 3U3'1FORTBELVOIR,•^u'
Aloha to all interested parties:21 AUG n!":^'->fi
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA)is proposing to develop a plan to construct,test,and
operate the Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii (HDR-H)project that includes a missile defense
radar system complex,and related actions in Hawai i.This project constitutes an undertaking
under Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)and its implementing
regulations at 36 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.As discussed below,the HDR-H
program is cun'ently postponed;however,the MDA is continuing with advanced planning,
preparation ofthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),and satisfying all coordination and
consultation requirements,should the program be fanded in the future and a deployment
decision made.The MDA is evaluating two alternative sites for potential constmction and
operation ofthe HDR-H:one at the U.S.Navy Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)Barking
Sands on the island ofKaua'i,and one at the Kahuku Training Area (KTA)on the island of
O'ahu.The MDA recently identified the PMRF altemative site as the HDR-H EIS Prefen'ed
Altemative.
The MDA is identifying individuals and organizations witli an interest in the HDR-H
project and its potential to affect historic properties and culhu-al resources.If you or your
organization have an intcrest in historic properties or cultural resources that may be affected by
the HDR-H undertaking,the MDA invites you to participate in this consultation.Future
consultation regarding this project will focus on the PMRF location as the Prefeired Alternative.
The remainder ofthis letter contains infonnation about the undertaking and the various
alternatives under consideration,definition ofthe Area ofPotential Effects (APE),and oul'plan
to involve the public.The HDR-H project is complex and is still evolving as we continue to
refine the project and consider our options.However,we want to provide as much information
as we can now to be as transparent as possible.Please understand that some aspects of the
project described in this letter may change as we continue to refine the alternatives.You can
check the MDA website for project updates at https://www.mda.mil/hdrh.html.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)ofFiscal Year (FY)2017 requires the
MDA to develop a plan to procure a discrimination radar or equivalent sensor for a location that
will improve homeland defense for the defense ofHawai'i.In December 2019,due to
challenges with finding a suitable deployment location for the HDR-H,the Department of
Defense made the decision to postpone HDR-H development efforts and realign funding to
higher priority investments.The FY 2021 NDAA authorizes the MDA to continue efficient
prodiiction of the radar and the FY 2021 Appropriations Act provided funding for these efforts.
However,there is no change in HDR-H program status in the President's Budget FY 2022.It
remains postponed.Nonetheless,as part ofcontinued advanced planning,should the program be
funded in the future and a deployment decision made,the MDA is continuing to prepare an EIS
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)to support a future Militaiy Consti'uction
project.The EIS is projected to be completed in FY 2023.
If funded,consti'uction for the HDR-H could begin as early as FY 2023 with potential
completion ofall mission and support facilities in 3 to 5 years.The existing Missile Defense
System (MDS)provides protection ofthe U.S.from a limited ballistic missile attack against
simple thi'eats.The HDR-H would provide a capability for the MDS to track and discriminate
(i.e.,identify the threat object among debris and decoys)more sophisticated long-range ballistic
missile tlireats in the Pacific theater.Improving the ability to discriminate lethal from non-lethal
objects expands the defensive capability ofthe U.S.inventory of Groiind-Based Midcourse
Defense interceptors.
The two potential altemative deployment locations for construction and operation ofthe
HDR-H in the EIS are one at the U.S.Navy PMRF Barking Sands on the island ofKaua'i,and
one at U.S.Army Garrison-Hawaii (USAG-HI)KTA on the island ofO'ahu (see Figure 1 and
Figure 2,Enclosure 1).Per the requirements ofNEPA,the MDA is also considering a No
Action Altemative.Other alternatives previously considered at KTA (Site 2)and Kuaokala
Ridge adjacent to the Ka'ena Point Satellite Tracking Station (KPSTS)on O'ahu were
eliminated from further consideration due to multiple factors,including schedule impacts and
concems regarding constmctability,land acquisition,and environmental impacts.Ifthe HDR-H
were sited at the KTA altemative site on O'ahu,operation ofthe HDR-H would require
relocation of a USAF Solar Obsei-vatory at KPSTS to another island.The MDA is considering
two potential altematives for relocating the Solar Observatory,both at the PMRF on Kaua'i.
Because ofthe scope ofthe HDR-H project,MDA has Cooperating Agency relationships
with the USAG-HI,USAF,U.S.Navy,U.S.Coast Guard (USCG),and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).The MDA is the lead federal agency for the NEPA and NHPA
processes.Section 106 ofthe NHPA requires federal agencies like MDA to consider the effects
oftheir undertakings on historic properties,which are sites,buildings,structures,districts,or
objects that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP).
The term "historic properties"also includes properties oftraditional religious and cultural
importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO)and that meet the NRHP
criteria.As the lead federal agency,MDA is responsible for consulting with the Hawai'i State
Historic Preservation Officer.I am MDA's "Agency Official"responsible for Section 106
compliance for the HDR-H project.My staff and I will be working with the staff at the State
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD),local govemment officials,NHOs,and other consulting
parties as we complete the Section 106 consultation process.This process is expected to take
many months,and there will be many opportunities to consult and provide input on all
components ofthe HDR-H project.
General Description ofthe HDR-H Project Deployment Alternatives
Both deployment location altematives would involve constmction and operation ofa
discrimination radar,an In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS)Data Terminal
(IDT);and associated support facilities,utilities,and infrastmcture.The IDT is a ground station
that provides communication support for the MDS.The HDR-H complex includes constmction
within an approximate 50-acre area,in a preferable contiguous facility footprint,as much as
topography and environmental conditions allow.Approximately 100 additional acres adjacent to
the HDR-H location would be used temporarily for construction laydown area and new
infrastmcture,depending on topographic conditions.The HDR-H would require mission
essential,mission support,and common (non-mission)support facilities.
The mission essential facilities would all be constructed above ground and include a
HDR-H Equipment Shelter (HES)up to approximately 85 feet tall,Thennal Control System,
Mission Control Facility (MCF),IDT,Communications Building,a Modernization ofEnterprise
TeiTninal for military satellite communications,HDR-H Power Plant,and a bulk fuel storage
facility.These mission essential facilities and supporting infrastructure (iucluding
communications,electrical connections,water supply,sewer,stormwater drainage,fire water
storage,roads,parking,and sidewalks)would be surrounded by a restricted perimeter fence and
possibly an animal control fence.
The mission support facilities include an Entry Control Facility,water supply building,
electrical substation,remote fuel offloading station,and similar supporting infi'astructiire.They
would be located within or outside ofthe secured area,depending on the facility.In addition,
non-mission support facilities and related infrastructure would be needed by the radar systeill
user for day-to-day operations.Such facilities might include a civil engineering and security
forces building,maintenance facility,fire station,and/or additional housing.Roadway access to
the proposed HDR-H facility location would utilize existing roads as much as possible,but may
require two-lane roadway extensions,road widening,and paving.New roadways and parking
areas would be paved or gravelsurfaced.
Due to potential aircraft hazards from the radar,a Special Use Airspace (SUA)would be
established around the selected altemative to support missile defense needs and provide
peimanent protection for local aviation.Additional site-specific considerations are described
below.The HDR-H alternatives are discussed in more detail below and are shown on the figures
in Enclosure 1.
Taking into consideration operational effectiveness,technical factors,and environmental
consideration;and after coordination with the Cooperating Agencies and potential Host
Installations,the MDA has identified the PMRF site as the HDR-H EIS Prefen'ed Altemative.
Based on analysis conducted to date,locating the HDR-H at PMRF:(1)provides optimal MDS
performance,and (2)minimizes mission impacts to the Host Installation.Identification of a
Preferred Altemative in the EIS does not limit the choice ofreasonable alternatives analyzed in
the EIS and does not prejudice the final deployment decision,should one be made.However,
identification ofthe Preferred Altemative serves to provide the public notice as to which
altemative MDA currently favors and provides MDA the ability to better coordinate discussions
and consultations with regulatory agencies and consulting parties.
This letter provides general infomiation about both altemative site locations being
analyzed in the EIS;however,future consultation regarding this project will focus on the
proposed PMRF deployment location as the Preferred Alternative.
HDR-H Preferred Alternative,PMRF:Under the PMRF AItemative,MDA would
consti-uct HDR-H facilities,utilities,and infrastnjcture entirely on U.S.Navy-owned property in
the southem end ofthe PMRJ?main base,near the intersection ofKokole Point Road and
Sidewinder Road (Figure 3,Enclosure 1).This altemative is located in the Kona Moku;the
Ahupua'a ofWaimea;and portions ofTax Map Keys (TMKs)412002001,412002009,
412002010,412002013,412002021,412002026,412002031,412002040,412002999,
412016001,412016002,412016003,412016004,412016005,412016006,412016007,
412016008,412016009,412016010,412016011,412016017,412016018,412016019,
412016020,and 412016999.
Access to the site during the construction phase would be via a temporary access road off
State Highway 50 (Kaumuali'i Highway),while access during long-tenn operations would be via
the existing PMRF Main and North Gates.Because the proposed location is only 10 to 12 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL),the area is at risk from tsunami inundation.To adequately
mitigate for the tsunami risk,the secured facilities would be constt-ucted on a raised earthen pad
built mostly from imported fill.Final height ofthe new facility pad would measure
approximately 30 feet above MSL,or 18 to 20 feet above existing grade,and occupy
approximately 21 acres.Because ofthe pad height,providing vehicular access to the top would
require grading a raised roadway.A paved 24-foot wide (minimum)roadway likely would
connect to the north end ofthe raised pad.
The project would require the improvement ofthe driveway offKaumuali'i Highway,
which is shared by the Kekaha Landfill,to accommodate the additional construction traffic and
minimize the impact to the landfill's customers.The pavement ofLighthouse Road from the
gate at the Kekaha Landfill driveway to the interior gates at the PMRF propei-ty line will be
widened to approximately 24 feet,including the improvement ofthe gates at both ends ofthe
road,to allow two-way traffic for large construction and delivery vehicles.The total construction
area will require approximately 130 acres to be disturbed for constmction activities with
approximately 60 acres reserved for six consti-uction laydown areas.Development ofthe HDR-
H complex and access road at PMRF would require incremental clearing ofvegetation,gmbbing,
and grading with the finish grades being reestablished with vegetation or pennanent erosion
conti'ol measures once completed.
Multiple options are currently being considered to provide electrical power to the
proposed HDR-H facility,include:(1)a new overhead line and/or underground line to connect
the new Kaua i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC)substation near the Main Gate to a new HDR-
H substation;and (2)a new overhead 57 kV line constmcted from the existing 57 kV distribution
line along State Highway 50 (Kaumuali'i Highway),down Lighthouse Road,onto the
installation,and then connecting to the new HDR-H substation that would be adjacent to the
complex (Figure 4,Enclosure 1).New overhead and underground fiber optic lines would also
be required.
Deployment of the HDR-H at PMRF would require construction of a temporary 0.30 mile
construction access road and 1 .57 miles ofpennanent access road that would be a minimum of
24 feet wide.This includes improvements to Lighthouse Road,which is owned by USCG and
has been used by PMRF on occasion.
Non-mission support facilities associated with the HDR-H deployment at PMRF requires
a new security forces building and a barracks/dormitoi'y.The new security forces building would
be located noith of the PMRF North Gate on a 1.5-acre open parcel that is surrounded by
existing facilities,while the proposed barracks/donnitory would be just offNohili Road on the
south side ofthe installation within a 3.5-acre parcel that is mostly wooded.These new facilities
would include applicable utilities and infrastructure.
The proposed HDR-H site alternative on PMRF has several existing buildings and
facilities that would be within the HDR-H construction area.These facilities are shown on
Figure 5,Enclosure 1.Of the facilities shown on the map,some would be demolished or
dismantled and several would be relocated elsewhere on PMRF.The vast majority ofthese
facilities are not historic in age (older than 50 years);however,some facilities are 50 years old
and would need to be evaluated for listing in the NRHP.Roads and utilities within the
construction area also would be demolished and,in sorae instances,rerouted.Buildings 644,
855,857,and 944 would be either demolished or reclaimed,but would not be moved to another
location.The rail launcher (Facility 641)would be dismantled and removed for temporary
storage until a future mission for this asset is identified,while the antennas would be
consolidated into three new antemia masts and relocated.The MWR Navy Getaways lodging
facility (Building 801),including the MWR Ready Storage (Building 849),archery/golf driving
ranges (Building 846),and the plant nursery would be relocated and constructed at those
locations shown on Figure 3,Enclosure 1,which includes alternate sites for the MWR Navy
Getaways building and plant nursery.The alteraate site for the nursery would be within the
same general area as the proposed HDR-H security forces building.
Because deployment of the HDR-H at PMRF would not affect the existing USAF Solar
Observatory at KPSTS on O'ahu,implementation ofthis alternative does not include demolition
or relocation ofthe Solar Observatory.
HDR-H Alternative,KTA:Under the KTA Alternative,MDA would constnict HDR-H
facilities,utilities,and infrastructure on U.S.Ai'my-owned property near the northwestern comer
of KTA (Figure 6,Enclosure 1),immediately west of State land that is leased to the Army and
permitted to the Hawai'i Motorsports Association (Figure 6,Enclosure 1).This altemative is
located in the Ko'olauloa Moku;the Ahupua'a ofWaiale'e,Kawela,Pahipahi'alua,'Opana 1,'Opana2,andKaunala;andportionsofTMKs 157001005,157001006,157001008,157001021,
157001034,157002001,157002002,157002006,157002016,157002019,157006025,
157006031,158002002,158002004,and 158002006.
Extensive cut and fill would be needed to form level areas for facilities and construction
laydown.Based on the HDR-H complex layout shown on Figure 7 in Enclosure 1,
approximately 58 acres would need to be cleared and graded in the vicinity ofthe HDR-H
footprint.From State Highway 83 (Kamehameha Highway)to the HDR-H footprint,up to
approximately 70 additional acres would need clearing and grading in order to establish the
access road and 83 acres for eight consb-uction laydown areas.Development ofthe HDR-H
complex and access road at KTA would require clearing offorested land and other vegetation,
grubbing,and grading.
A new water well would be installed at the HDR-H complex for supplying potable and
fire protection water.A new fiber optic line and a proposed access road would connect from
Kamehameha Highway along Kawela Camp Road/Bravo Road to the HDR-H complex.The
new line would be installed within the proposed roadway improvements either in underground
duct baiiks or overhead on wood or steel monopoles.Within the HDR-H facility,the fiber optic
line would be in underground duct banks.
Non-mission support facilities associated with the HDR-H deployment at KTA would
include a civil engineering and security forces building,maintenance facility,and a fire station
within the approximate 50-acre HDR-H complex footprint,but outside ofthe secured fenced
area.These facilities would include applicable utilities and infi'astructure.No barracks/
donnitory facility would be needed at KTA,as adequate housing is available within the local
community and at other militaiy installations on O'ahu.
Access to the KTA altemative site would maximize use of 1.31 miles of existing paved
and 0.65 miles ofunimproved dirt roads that lead south from Kamehameha Highway to KTA.
Approximately 2.0 miles ofexisting roads would be improved and 2.41 miles ofnew road would
be built on KTA to access the HDR-H facilities.To handle the expected HDR-H constmction
and operations traffic,the entire route would need to be a paved road approximately 24 feet
wide.The existing paved Bravo Road would need to be widened in most areas and the radius
increased on several curves to accormnodate tractor trailers.In addition,the cun'ent U.S.Navy
controlled access gate at the KTA boundary would need to be replaced and widened.The
unimproved road portions also would need to be widened and paved.The road improvements
and construction of the new access road shown on Figure 6 and Figure 7,Enclosure 1 would
require the clearing and grading of approximately 70 acres.To maintain proper stormwater
drainage,several culverts and drainpipes would be installed along the route.An existing power
line through the area would be rerouted around the HDR-H facilities and connected to a new
substation to support the HDR-H.
Solar Observatory Facility Relocation Alternatives
For the KTA altemative,due to radio frequency interference,USAF would need to make
a decision on where to relocate the Solar Observatory from the KPSTS on O'ahu to another
military location in Hawai'i (Figure 9,Enclosure 1).In cooperation with USAF,MDA is
considering two potential altematives for relocating the Solar Observatory,both at the PMRF on
Kaua'i (Figure 10,Enclosure 1).
The relocated Solar Observatory would consist of the Radio Interference Measurement
Set (RIMS)antenna system,Solar Radio Spectrograph (SRS)system,an administrative building,
and supporting in&astructure and utilities.To the extent practicable,existing equipment would
be relocated.Remaining facilities at could be left in place or demolished.Depending on the
location selected,the administrative building would be constmcted new or an existing facility
would be utilized.The new location would require supporting infrastmcture,including
communications,electrical connections,water supply,sewer,stormwater drainage,fire
protection,roads,parking,and would be surrounded by a restricted perimeter fence.These
altematives are described below and shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10 in Endosure 1.
PMRF Kokole Point Road AIternative:Under this altemative,MDA would relocate
the existing solar observatory equipment from KPSTS and consti-uct an administrative building,
associated fencing,parking,and access roads on a 2.0-acrc,undeveloped area at PMRF.All or
most ofthe site would be cleared for consti'uction and a temporary laydown area.Constmction
vehicles would utilize existing installation access gates and roadways.Communications,
commercial power,water,sewer,and stormwater management systems are all present on PMRF,
but would need to be extended to the Kokole Point Road location.Utility infrasti-ucture would
be built using existing utility con'idors.
PMRF Building 1115 Alternative:Under this altemative,MDA would relocate the
solar observatory equipment from KPSTS to a previously disturbed 3.79-acre area at PMRF that
contains existing parking and paved areas.The RIMS and SRS would be installed adjacent to
Building 1115 in unpaved areas within the altemative footprint that could require vegetation
clearing and grading.All construction laydown would occur within the propeily boundary or
immediately adjacent in existing parking or cleared areas.The existing building on site would be
utilized for the Solar Observatory administrative building.All renovations to the building would
be on the interior with no exterior modifications proposed.Constfuction vehicles would utilize
existing installation access gates and roadways.Additional preparations and construction for
utilities ai'e not anticipated.As an existing operational facility,commercial power,
communications,water,sewer,and stormwater systems are currently in place.Additional utility
connections could be built within the site ifneeded.
Special Use Airspace
A SUA would be established around the selected altemative to support missile defense
needs and provide pennanent protection for aircraft from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).
For both ofthe HDR-H alternatives on Kaua'i and O'ahu,the HDR-H radar would generate
potentially hazardous HIRF during testing and long-term operations.The MDA would
coordinate with FAA to establish an airspace restricted area (a form of SUA)within the radar
view where the flight ofaircraft would be subject to access restrictions that would be published
in airway and flight procedure amendments.For both altematives,the restricted airspace would
consist of one or two exclusion zones that extend approximately eight nautical miles out from the
proposed radar complex (Figure 11 and Figure 12,Enclosure 1).
Area of Potential Effects
The APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or
indirectly cause alteration in the character or use ofhistoric properties,if any such properties
exist.In defining the APE,MDA considered how the HDR-H undertaking may directly or
indirectly affect historic properties for each altemative.The undertaking would involve ground
disturbance,building demolition,new construction,and changes in existing utilities and
infrastmcture that could physically affect historic properties.The undertaking would also have
potential visual or auditory effects on historic properties ifpresent.The undertaking would
constnict new above-ground stmctiires,some of which would be atypical from the existing
environment and could change the visual character ofhistoric setting or feeling at historic
properties.Noise produced during operation ofthe HDR-H and/or Solar Observatory could
similarly have auditory effects on historic properties close to noise-producing facilities.The
undertaking could also potentially cause changes in access to historic properties.The
e.stablishment ofnew SUA at either HDR-H altemative could also affect the setting and feeling
ofhistoric properties by re-routing air traffic closer to or farther from historic properties.
Consistent with the definition at 36 CPR §800.16(d),MDA has proposed three APEs for the
HDR-H undertaking based on the different types ofpotential effects:an Archaeological APE,an
Architectural APE,and a SUA APE.These are described further below and are shown in Figure
11 and Figure 12,Enclosure 1.
Archaeological APE:The Ai-chaeological APE for each altemative comprises all areas
ofproposed ground disturbance,building demolition,and new or upgraded utilities and
infrastmcture associated with each altemative.These areas include constniction laydown areas,
constmction footprints,demolition footprints,new/upgraded utility con'idors,and new/improved
road corridors.A 50m buffer was placed around project components,including new/improved
road and utility con'idors to accommodate possible shifts during design and constmction.
The Archaeological APE at PMRF shown on Figure 13,Enclosure 1 includes 318.08
acres,ofwhich approximately 160.40 acres are for the HDR-H complex site,99.33 acres for
laydown areas,12.52 acres for new and improved roads and utilities,and 32.34 acres for facility
relocation sites.Remaining acreage results from a 50m buffer around project components.
The Archaeological APE at the KTA altemative shown on Figure 14,Enclosure 1
includes 340.39 acres,ofwhich approximately 56.70 acres are for the HDR-H complex site,83
acres for laydown areas,and 106.30 acres for new and improved roads and utilities.Remaining
acreage results from a 50m buffer around project components.
The Archaeological APEs for each Solar Observatoiy altemative are shown on Figure
15-Figure 17,Enclosure 1.The size ofthe Archaeological APE is 2.00 acres at the PMRF
Kokole Point Road altemative and 3.79 acres at the PMRF Building 115 alteiTiative.The
Archaeological APE for the existing Solar Observatory at KPSTS is 0.64 acre.
Architectural APE:The Architectural APE comprises areas ofpotential visual and
auditory effects of each altemative,and areas where the altematives could cause changes in
access to or the use ofhistoric properties.The Architectural APE was defined with consideration
to the specific visual and auditory environment for each altemative.In general,visual effects
would be possible in areas that are within 0.25 mile of,and have line-of-sight to new
construction that is atypical from existing structures,such as the proposed HES.However,new
support and relocated facilities,laydown areas (which are temporary),new and/or upgraded
access roads and utilities would be constmcted either adjacent to existing structures or new
facilities of similar height and density and would be markedly smaller and less intmsive than the
proposed HES.Rather,visual effects would be more limited to the immediate vicinity ofthe
laydown areas,proposed support facilities,new and relocated facilities,access roads,and utilities
resulting in an Architectural APE in these areas that would be limited to a 250-foot radius.
Auditory effects would be possible within 50 feet ofnew facilities.Beyond this distance,noise
would not noticeably exceed current conditions at any of the altematives and would not have
potential to effect historic properties.
The size ofthe Architectural APE for each HDR-H altcmative is 874.01 acres at PMRF
(Figure 18,Enclosure 1)and 882.13 acres at KTA (Figure 19,Enclosure 1).The size ofthe
Architectural APE for each Solar Obsei-vatory altemative is as follows:163.34 acres at the
PMRF Kokole Point Road altemative,and 179.92 acres at the PMRF Building 115 alternative.
The Architectural APE for the existing Solar Observatory at KPSTS is 8.93 acres.
SUA APE:The SUA APE comprises areas associated with restricted airspace and
extends approximately eight nautical miles from the radar location at each HDR-H altemative as
seen on Figure 11 and Figure 12 in Enclosure 1.This APE takes into account the changes in
the airspace that may affect historic properties.The PMRF SUA APE totals approximately
79,140 acres while the KTA SUA APE comprises approximately 58,857 acres.
Continuing Consultation
MDA invites your comments on the proposed APEs and also welcomes your assistance
in identifying resources ofhistoric or cultural significance within the proposed APEs for the
HDR-H project.The MDA is currently consulting with the SHPD and will be working with
them to determine the appropriate scope ofour efforts to identify historic properties in the APEs.
We have begun reviewing existing infoiTnation such as archaeological sui'vey reports,
architectural inventories,and ethnographic studies,and will be undertaking additional cultural
resource sm-veys to identify historic properties.Information you provide will help us to identify
historic properties and to assess effects ofthe HDR-H undertaking on historic and cultural
resources that may exist within the APE.The MDA will also develop an archaeological work
plan upon your concurrence with the APE to specify the process for the identification ofhistoric
properties,assessment ofeffects,and resolution of,or mitigation for,potential adverse effects to
identified historic properties.
As previously noted,the PMRF alternative has been selected as the Preferred Alternative
for the deployment of the HDR-H,should deployment decision be made and the project is
funded.Therefore,moving forward,consultation will be focused exclusively on the PMRF
altemative.The MDA understands that some potential consulting parties may only have an
interest in one of the alternatives or activities on a particular island or installation.As the
consultation process proceeds,you may elect to consult with MDA as a consulting party,but you
may also elect to withdraw your request to be a consulting party in the future.The MDA will
consider requests for consulting party status throughout the consultation process.The MDA will
also provide multiple opportunities to comment on this project and its potential effects on
historic properties.
Conclusion
The MDA understands the HDR-H project is complex,and I hope the enclosed
information helps to outline the different altematives under consideration.Ifyou have any
questions about the HDR-H undertaking or how we plan to move through the Section 106
process,I encourage you to reach out to Dr.Buff Crosby,the HDR-H Environmental Lead who
will be managing the day-to-day aspects ofthis consultation.You may reach Dr.Crosby and her
team at mda.hdrh.106@kfs-llc.com or 256-955-4032.
Please contact us ifyou would like to participate in the Section 106 consultation process
for the HDR-H undertaking,preferably using the Consulting Party Response Form in
Enclosure 2.We request your response within 30 days ofreceipt ofthis letter.We also request
that you provide us with your current email address.Moving forward,we will be
communicating with our consultlng parties primarily by email;if you do not have access to
email,please let us know and we will continue to provide you with physical communication.If
you would like to set up a meeting for MDA to present information about the HDR-H project
and the Section 106 consultation process to your organization,please contact Dr.Crosby at the
email address above with your request.
We look forward to working with you on cultural resources matters related to the HDR-H
project.
Sincerely,
TODD L.WATTS,PE,PMP
Director for Real Property,
Investments,and Deployments
Enclosures:
1.HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
2.Consulting Party Response Form
10
MDA HomelandDefense Radar -HawauProject,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure l:HDR-H Project Location andAPEMaps
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Contents:
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Island ofKaua'i -Potential HDR-H Deployment at Pacific Missile Range Facility
Island ofO'ahu -Potential HDR-H Deployment at Kahuku Training Area
PMRF Altemative -Site Overview and Facility Relocation Parcels (Preferred
Altemative)
Figure 4.PMRF Alternative -Proposed HDR-H Complex Area
Figure 5.PMRF Altemative -Detailed view ofExisting Facilities within the HDR-H
Constmction Area (Prefen'ed Altemative)
Figure 6.KTA Altemative -Site Overview
Figure 7.KTA Altemative -Proposed HDR-H Complex
Figure 8.Solar Observatory Existing Site and Relocation Altematives
Figure 9.Existing USAF Solar Observatory at KPSTS
Figure 10.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Alternatives -Kokole Point Road and Buildin;
Figure 11.PMRF Altemative -SUA APE for the Proposed HDR-H Airspace Restricted Area
Figure 12.KTA Altemative -SUA APE for the Proposed HDR-H Airspace Restricted Area
Figure 13.PMRF Altemative -Archaeological APE (Preferred Altemative)
Figure 14.KTA Alternative -Archaeological APE
Figure 15.Solar Observatory at KPSTS -Archaeological and Architectural APEs
Figure 16.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Altemative -Kokole Point Road APEs
Figure 17.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Alternative -Building 1115 APEs
Figure 18.PMRF Altemative -Architectural APE (Prefen'ed Altemative)
Figure 19.KTA Alternative -Architectural APE
Enclosure
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Pacific Missile Range Facility
Figure 1.Island ofKaua'i -Potential HDR-H Deployment at Pacific Missile Range
Facility
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Seclion 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
I I Kahuku Training Area
Figure 2.Island of O'ahu —Potential HDR-H Deployment at Kahuku Training Area
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Projecl Location andAPEMaps
CZ|HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)
I 1 PMRF Installation Boundary
Areas for Proposed New and
Relocated Facililies
Figure 3.PMRF AIternative -Site Overview and Facility Relocation Parcels (Pret'erred
Alternative)
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
(1 HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)--Radar Beam Fan Line/Field-of-View
r Construction Laydown Area EMF Hazard Zone Fence
1 1 PMRF Installation Boundary x—x-Securily/Animal Control Fences
•Radar Face Center Point Proposed Construction Free Zone Fence
Proposed Conslruction Access Road
Proposed Permanent Access Road Options
Proposed Power Line Options
O )W W»0 1,000
fect
Mciert
O 100 ?CO A
Figure 4.PMRF Alteniative -Proposed HDR-H Complex Area
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure I:HDR-H Project Location ancl APE Maps
I 1 Archaeological APE
11 Architectural APE
Antenna~_]
Building/Facility
x—x-Security/Animal Control Fences
1—1HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)
I 1 PMRF Installation Boundary
Figure 5.PMRF Alternative -Detailed view of Existing Facilities within the HDR-H
Construction Area (Preferred Alternative)
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Imtiation
Enclosure I:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
(I HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)x—x-Security/Animal Control Fences
KTA Installation Boundary
Construction LaydownAreas
Existing Paved Road
Existing Unpaved Road
Proposed Access Road
—~Existing 46 kV PowerLine
Proposed FiberOptic Line
Figure 6.KTA Alternative -Site Overview
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Pacific Ocean p.^,,^^".
O'AHU
Security/Animal Control Fences
Proposed Access Road
HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)
(t KTA installation Boundary
State Leased Land
(„„]Construction Laydown Areas
Radar Face Cenler Pojnt
Existing Overhead 46 kV
Power Line
Rerouted Overhead 46 kV
Power Line
Radar Beam Fan Line/
Field-of-View
Proposed Fiber Optic Line
Existing Power Line Pole to
RemainEMFHazardZoneFence
Existing Power Line Pole for
Removal
Proposed Power LJne Pole
Figure 7.KTA Alternative -Proposed HDR-H Complex
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Wthatf
l-ana'i
Kaho'efawe
PMRF Bujlding
111S
;bko!o
PointRd
/'(/(.///L'OcC(lt)
Existing USAF Solar
Observatory at KPSTS
USAF Solar Observatory
Relocation Alternatives
Figure 8.Solar Observatory Existing Site and Relocation Alternatives
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location andAPE Maps
Pwlftc Ocvm ,,,,.,,/^«'
O'AHU
,—,Exlsting USAF Solar
1—Observatory at KPSTS
KPSTS Installation (Leased
Land)Boundary
Existing Pavad Road
Figure 9.Existing USAF Solar Observatory at KPSTS
10
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure I:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
•'-\~WH
Solar Observatory Relocatlon
Project Area Boundary
I 1 PMRF Installatlon Boundary
Figure 10.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Alternatives -Kokole Point Road and
Building 1115
11
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location andAPEMaps
Paeijie pcean
Special Use Airspace APE
HDR-H Footprinl (Sfudy Area)
Existing R-3101 Airspace
Restricted Area
"i Proposed CivilAircraftTransition
Corridor
1 1 PMRF installation Boundary
Figure 11.PMRF Alternative -SUA APE for the Proposed HDR-H Airspace Restricted
Area
12
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
)j Special Use Airspace APE
HDR-H Footplnt (Study Area)
^]KTA Installation Boundary
Figure 12.KTA Alternative -SUA APE for the Proposed HDR-H Airspace Restricted
Area
13
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Encloswe 1:HDR-H Project Locatioii and APE Maps
1 1 Archaeological APE
C~~|HDR-H Footprint (StudyArea)
PMRF Installation Boundary
Construction Laydown Area
1,500 3,000 6,000
400 800 1,600
1'A
Areas for Proposed New and
Relocated Facllities
Proposed Construction Access
Road
Proposed PermanentAccess
Road Options
Proposed Power Line Options
Figure 13.PMRF Alternative -Archaeological APE (Preferred Alternative)
14
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 tnitiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location aiid APE Maps
KMfiiaBn
Pacific Ocean ^,,^^{'•^\wy^
I 1 Archaeological APE
1 1 HDR-H Footprint (Study Area)
;KTA Instaliation Boundary
Constnjction LaydownAreas
x—x.Security/Animal Control Fences
Existing Paved Road
Existing Unpaved Road
**•*-ProposedAccess Road
Existing 46 kV Power Line
Rerouted Overhead 46 kV
Power Line
Proposed Fiber Qptic Line
Figure 14.KTA Alternative -Archaeological APE
15
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Archaeological APE
11 Architectural APE
KPSTS Installation Boundary
Figure 15.Solar Observatory at KPSTS -Archaeological and Architectural APE
Ifi
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Seclion 106 Imtiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project LoccitioK and APE Maps
Pacific Ocean
I 1 Archaeological APE
I1 Architectural APE
Proposed Administrative
Facility
PMRF Installatlon Boundary
Figure 16.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Alternative -Kokole Point Road APE
17
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure I:HDR-H Project Location andAPEMaps
Pcicifk'Qt.'vufi
I 1 Archaeological APE
I 1 Architectural APE
Proposed Administrative
Facllity
I1 PMRF Installation Boundary
O ^S 50
\-
Figure 17.PMRF Solar Observatory Relocation Alternative -Building 1115 APE
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-ff Project Location and APE Maps
Pacific Qcecm
r
11 Architectural APE Areas for Proposed New and
1—1HDR-H Footprint (Study Area)'^Relocated Facilities
Proposed Construction Access
Road
PMRF Installation Boundary
Construction Laydown Area
O 1,500 3,000 6,000 Proposed Permanent Access
Road Options
Proposed Power Line Options
Figure 18.PMRF Alternative -Architectural APE (Preferred Alternative)
19
MDA Homeland Defense Radar -Hawaii Project,Section 106 Initiation
Enclosure 1:HDR-H Project Location and APE Maps
Pacific Ocean „,„,..
I 1 Architactural APE
HDR-H Footprint(StudyArea)
r~I KTA Installation Boundary
Constructlon Laydown Areas (1 to 5)
x—x-Security/Animal Control Fences
Existing Paved Road
Existing Unpaved Road
Proposed Access Road
Exisling 46 kV Power Line
Rerouted Overhead 46 kV
Power Line
Proposed Fiber Optic Line
Figure 19.KTA AIternative -Architectural APE
,ZQ
ISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
https://www.mda.mil
mda.info@mda.mil
Consulting Party Respanse
Homeland Defense Radar -Hawai'i
Thank you for your interest in consulting on the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)proposed Homeland Defense Radar -Hawai'i (HDR-
H)project.Consultation is the process ofseeking,discussing,and considering the views ofconsulting parties about how project effects
on historic properties should be handled.Consulting parties play an important role in the Section 106 process and are provided with
opportunities to share their views,receive and review pertinent information,offer ideas,and consider possible solutions with MDA and
other consulting parties.It is up to you to decide how actively you want to participate in consultation.'Per 36 CFR Part
800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A),Native Hawaiian Organizations are afforded a reasonable opportunity to identify their concerns about historic
properties,advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties,including those of traditional religious and cultural
importance,articulate their views on the undertaking's effects on such properties,and participate in the resolution of adverse effects.
Please complete this form and return it via email or physical mail to:
KFS,LLC
Attn:MDAHDR-HSection106
303WilliamsAve.,Suite116
Huntsvilte,AL 35801
nnda.hdrh.106(5ikfs-llc.com,with subject line as MDA HDR-H Section 106
Consyltation Participation
D 1 accept MDA's invitation to be a consulting party on the proposed Homeland Defense Radar -Hawai'i project.
D 1 do not wish to partidpate in consultation on the Homeland Defense Radar -Hawai'i project (pfease nofe you may request
to re-join the consultation process at any time).
Contact Information
Please take this opportunity to provide us with and/or update your contact information with us,including your email address and
phone number.Please note that all future correspondence will be conducted via email.If you prefer physical copies,please check the
box below.
Name:(First)(Last)
Agency/Organization/
NHO Name:
Titte/
Role
Address:(Slreet)(City/Town)(State)
Phone:Email:
D Please provide all future correspondence via physical mail to the address above.
'Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,Protecling Historic Properties:A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review,available electronically at
httDS://www.achD.aov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-01/CitizenGuide2021 011321.pdf.
Enclosure 2
Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii (HDR-H)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Update and Preferred Alternative
Missile Defense Agency Mission
To develop and deploy a layered Missile Defense System to
defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and
friends from missile attacks in all phases of flight
Missile Defense Capability
Globally Deployed
2
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Today’s Layered Active Missile Defense System
3
Strengthen United States missile defense capabilities
Increase the Missile Defense System effectiveness against future
complex threats
Optimize support of the Nation’s current defense system by tracking,
identifying, and classifying missile threats to Hawai‘i
Why is the HDR-H Needed?
THE
WHY
•The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017
requires MDA to develop a plan to procure a discrimination radar, or
equivalent sensor, for a location that will improve homeland missile
defense for the defense of Hawai'i.
•In December 2019 due to siting challenges, DOD postponed the
HDR-H development efforts and realigned funding to higher-priority
investments
•The NDAA FY21 authorizes MDA to continue efficient radar
production and the FY21 Appropriation Act provided funding.
•Should the program be funded in the future and a deployment
decision made, MDA is engaged is continuing to prepare an EIS to
support a FY23 Military Construction project.
THE
WHAT
4
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Homeland Defense Radar -
Hawaii
5
5
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Notional Rendering of HDR-H Facilities
IFICS Data Terminal (IDT)
Water Supply Building Mission Control
Facility (MCF)
Modernization of Enterprise
Terminal (MET)
Communications Building
Power Plant
Bulk Fuel
StorageArea
Logistics Support Facility
Entry Control Facility
HDR-H Equipment
Shelter
HDR-H Radar
Face
Facilities may be moved within the site to fit the candidate location
6
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Process
ACRONYM KEY
DEIS:Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOPAA:Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR: Federal Register
NOA: Notice of Availability
NOI: Notice of Intent
ROD: Record of Decision
Identify
Sites
Prepare
DOPAA
Publish
NOI in FR
Public
Scoping
Meetings
Publish NOA in
FR/Release
DEIS to Public
Public
Review/
Meetings
Release
ROD/
Publish in FR
Publish NOA in
FR/Release
FEIS to Public
Implement
Action
<30-Day
Mandatory
Waiting Period
<Prepare
Final EIS
<45-Day
Minimum
Public Comment Period
<Prepare
Draft EISHDR-H EIS
7
MDA Will:
•Gather information about current environmental quality;
•Conduct studies, surveys, research to analyze potential
impacts of the project to the environment; and
•Prepare Environmental Impact Statement, detailing the
potential impacts of proposed construction and operations
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Environmental Resources and
Potential Impacts
•Analysis of Environmental Resources covers all courses of action and scenarios associated with proposed action (Utilities/Power, Roadways, Building Relocations & Footprints, etc.) for both construction and operation.
8
Environmental Resources Analyzed in the EIS
Airspace Noise
Air Quality Hazardous Wastes & Contamination
Biological Resources Health & Safety
Cultural Resources Transportation
Coastal Zone Management Utilities/Power
Environmental Justice Socioeconomics
Floodplain Management Visual Resources
Geology & Soils Water Resources
Land Use & Recreation
9
HDR-H EIS Preferred Alternative
•May 2021: MDA Identified Pacific Missile Range Facility
(PMRF) Site as the HDR-H EIS Preferred Alternative
•Based on Analysis To Date:
•provides optimal MDS performance, and
•minimizes mission impacts to the Host Installation
•Serves to let public know which alternative MDA
currently favors
•Allows MDA to better coordinate discussions and
consultations
•Does not limit the choice of reasonable alternatives
analyzed in the EIS
•Does not prejudice the final deployment decision,
should one be made
•EIS will continue to consider PMRF, KTA 1, and No Action
Alternatives
9
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10880 (02 JUL 21)
HDR-H Site Alternatives
Locations
•Site alternatives under consideration in the HDR-H EIS:
─PMRF Site 4 (Kauai) (Preferred Alternative), KTA 1 (Oahu), and a No Action Alternative
10
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10690 (9 FEB 21)
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
HDR-H Site Alternatives
PMRF Site Layout and Relocations
11
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10880 (02 JUL 21)
Notional Rendering of HDR-H Elevation
for Tsunami Mitigation at PMRF
HDR-H Site would need to be raised to protect from potential
Tsunamis;ongoing probabilistic analysis will determine final
height,approximated at less than 24 ft above ground level
Radar would be approximately 20
ft taller than the current Aegis
Ashore Structure
Approved for Public Release
20-MDA-10646 (08 Dec 20)
12
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
HDR-H Site Alternatives
KTA Site Layout and Relocations
13
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10880 (02 JUL 21)
14
HDR-H Site Alternatives
Proposed Airspace Restrictions
Distribution Statement A: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited
Approved for Public Release
21-MDA-10880 (02 JUL 21)
Environmental
Consultation Requirements
•National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) and other interested parties
─Section 106 requires agencies to assess effects of their projects
on historic properties (cultural resources eligible for or listed in
National Register of Historic Places)
─Consultation with Consulting Parties helps MDA identify historic
properties and their significance
─Cultural Resources surveys will be conducted and MDA will assess effects on identified historic properties
─If there is an adverse effect, MDA will consult on ways to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse effects and determine appropriate
treatments which would be documented in a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA).
15
Environmental
Consultation Requirements (cont’d)
•Endangered Species Act Section 7 formal consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
─Section 7 requires interagency cooperation
─Specific process for determining affects; agree to mitigations
─Formal agreement documented in Biological Opinion issued by USFWS
16
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
000000
Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I. SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC: To memorialize comments in a response letter for
the Section 106 consultation process.
KHPRC actions may include the following:
a. Provide comments in a response letter.
b. Defer comments until more information becomes available.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
Parcel
Location:
Mānā, Hawai‘i
The project site is primarily located on the South Gate side of the
PMRF base site.
Tax Map
Key(s):
(4) 1-2-002: Parcels 1, 9, 10, 13,
21, 26, 31, 40, and 999
(4) 1-2-016: Parcels 1-11, 17-20,
999
Area: Approx. 130- 160 acres
including laydown areas
Age of
Structures
N/A
Agency Department of Defense- Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is proposing to develop a plan to construct,
test, and operate the Homeland Defense Radar- Hawaii (HDR-H) project that
includes a missile defense radar system complex, and related actions in Hawaii.
Currently, the project is postponed, but the agency is proceeding with their
environmental planning should the program get funded in the future.
There are three possible alternatives for this project. In addition to the “no
alternative” option, the other alternatives include two potential sites with the
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Section 106- MDA
PMRF Defense Radar Project
HPRC-2022-3
Page 2
preferred location at PMRF on Kauai. If the PMRF site is located, then the solar
observatory will not need to be relocated from Oahu to Kauai.
Under the PMRF scenario, the HDR-H radar complex is proposed to be installed
on the south gate side of the base property and will occupy approximately 50
acres. The HDR-H complex consists of the 85 ft. radar (to project towards the
Northwest) and support facilities including but not limited to an equipment shelter,
power plant, control facility building, data terminal building, and a logistics support
facility. To mitigate tsunami risk, the entire HDR-H radar complex and accessory
buildings will be constructed on top of a raised earthen pad that will not exceed 20
feet in height. Altogether, the maximum height of the entire project should not
exceed 105 feet. During the construction phase, the agency is proposing laydown
areas and temporary road access. In addition, a permanent roadway around the
HDR-H complex is being proposed as part of this project.
The proposed HDR-H radar complex will also involve the proposed relocation and
demolition of existing structures. In conversations with the agency, the existing
structures are accessory structures (i.e. sheds, recreational structures) and a
lodging facility that appear unlikely to be historically significant.
IV. Department’s Analysis and Additional Findings
Based on the Department’s research, there is the potential for burials in this area
due to the sand and soil type and burials being found in this area. A higher
concentration of cultural and historic sites are located on the North Gate side of the
PMRF property where the proposed getaway building may be located.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation
Review Commission make a motion to provide comments in a response
letter.
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 making.
The entire record includes but is not limited to:
a. Government agency comments;
b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Section 106- MDA
PMRF Defense Radar Project
HPRC-2022-3
Page 3
c. The land owner’s response.
By _________________________________
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved & Recommended to Commission:
By _________________________________
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date: ___________________
10-1-2021
+BWB,BJ
0ME,PMPB5PXO
,PMPB
,BVBJ
)JTUPSJD%FTJHO3FWJFX
4FQUFNCFSSE
/PIP8PSLTIPQ/PIP8PSLTIPQ ++BBWB,WB,BBJ0J0ME,ME,PPMPMPB5B5PPXXOO],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX
4FQUFNCFSSE
.BUFSJBM#PBSE.BUFSJBM#PBSE
3PPG$PSSVHBUFE.FUBM
$MFBS3PPG$PSSVHBUFE.FUBM
$MFBS
)JOHFE%PPST5PVOHFBOE(SPPWF1BOFMT
8IJUF)JOHFE%PPST5PVOHFBOE(SPPWF1BOFMT
8IJUF
'MPPST *OUFSJPS
'JFME4UPOF
/BUVSBM'MPPST *OUFSJPS
'JFME4UPOF
/BUVSBM
8BMMT &YUFJPS
#PBSEBOE#BUUFO
8IJUF8BMMT &YUFJPS
#PBSEBOE#BUUFO
8IJUF
'MPPST &YUFSJPS
$PODSFUF
/BUVSBM'MPPST &YUFSJPS
$PODSFUF
/BUVSBM
8BMMT *OUFJSPS
1MBTUFS
0GG IJUF8BMMT *OUFJSPS
1MBTUFS
0GG IJUF
8JOEPXT8PPE'SBNFE
8IJUF8JOEPXT8PPE'SBNFE
8IJUF
#BSO%PPS#PBSEBOE#BUUFO
8IJUF#BSO%PPS#PBSEBOE#BUUFO
8IJUF
SUBJECT
(E) BUILDING
PARKING
(2 STALLS MIN.)
ADDITIONAL
PARKING
(AS NEEDED)
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ Java Kai Old Koloa Town ],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX4JUF1MBO
4FQUFNCFSSE
PLAN KEY
STRUCTURE / OBJECT ABOVE
EXISTING TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TO REMAIN
PROPOSED NEW WALL
REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW
WITH NEW, CONSISTENT WITH
EXISTING AESTHETIC
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
REPLACE EXISTING BARN
DOOR WITH NEW BARN
DOOR, MATCH TO EXISTING
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS
TO BE REMOVED
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ Java Kai Old Koloa Town ],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX%FNP1MBO
4FQUFNCFSSE
3'-5 3/4"11'-5 3/4"6'-7"3'-1 1/2"21'-8 1/4"4'-0 1/4"4'-0"4'-0"23'-11"30'-0 3/4"
01 02 03 04
05
07
08
10 11 12 12
13 13
17 17
1616
19
19
19
19
1819
20
14
21
22
22
22
OVERHEAD DOOROVERHEAD DOOR OVERHEAD DOOR
01
22
REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW
WITH NEW, CONSISTENT WITH
EXISTING AESTHETIC
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
REPLACE EXISTING BARN
DOOR WITH NEW BARN
DOOR, MATCH TO EXISTING
EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS
TO BE REMOVED
PLAN KEY
STRUCTURE / OBJECT ABOVE
EXISTING TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TO REMAIN
PROPOSED NEW WALL
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
15
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MILK FRIDGE
ESPRESSO MACHINE
COFFEE GRINDER
EXPRESSO GRINDER
COFFEE BREWER
ICE MACHINE
BLENDER
SMOOTHIE FREEZER
PLAN KEYNOTES
IPAD REGISTER
SANDWICH PREP FRIDGE
PANINI PRESS
MICROWAVE
TOASTER
UPRIGHT FREEZER
DISWASHER
UPRIGHT FRIDGE
INDUCTION COOKER
MERCHANDISE
SHELVING
SINK
BAKERY DISPLAY
WORK COUNTER
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ +Java Kai Old Koloa Town ],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX1SPQPTFE1MBO
4FQUFNCFSSE
12'-5 1/4"8'-5"2'-11 1/4"
TYP.
Existing South Elevation
Existing West Elevation
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ Java Kai Old Koloa Town ],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX&YJTUJOH&MFWBUJPOT
4FQUFNCFSSE
12'-5 1/4"8'-5"Existing East Elevation
Existing North Elevation
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ Java Kai Old Koloa Town ],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX&YJTUJOH&MFWBUJPOT
4FQUFNCFSSE
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
12'-5 1/4"8'-5"2'-11 1/4"
TYP.
REPLACE EXISTING BARN
DOOR WITH NEW BARN
DOOR, MATCH TO EXISTING
South Elevation
West Elevation
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ ++BBWB,BBJJ0ME,PPMPB5PPXXOO],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX1SPQPTFE&MFWBUJPOT
4FQUFNCFSSE
12'-5 1/4"8'-5"REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW
WITH NEW, CONSISTENT WITH
EXISTING AESTHETIC
REMOVE 2 EXISTING WINDOW
AND ADD 1 NEW, CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING AESTHETIC
East Elevation
North Elevation
//PPIPIP88PPSLSLTIPTIPQQ Java Kai Old Koloa Town],PMPB
,BVBhJ
)JTUPSJD3FWJFX1SPQPTFE&MFWBUJPOT
4FQUFNCFSSE
Noho WorkshopNoho Workshop JJaava Kva Kaai Oi Old Kld Koololoa Ta Toowwn n | Koloa, Kaua'i
Historic Review3FOEFSJOHT
September SE, 2021
Exterior Rendering 1 - Closed Exterior Rendering 1 - Closed
Noho WorkshopNoho Workshop JJaava Kva Kaai Oi Old Kld Koololoa Ta Toowwn n | Koloa, Kaua'i
Historic Review3FOEFSJOHT
September SE, 2021
Exterior Rendering 1 - OpenExterior Rendering 1 - Open
Noho WorkshopNoho Workshop 1JJaava Kva Kaai Oi Old Kld Koololoa Ta Toowwn n | Koloa, Kaua'i
Historic Review3FOEFSJOHT
September SE, 2021
Exterior Rendering 2 - OpenExterior Rendering 2 - Open
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC:
a.Consideration of proposed plans to convert and renovate the interior and
exterior of an existing structure, currently utilized as the Koloa History Center,
into a coffee shop operation located within the Old Koloa Town shopping
complex.
KHPRC action may include the following:
1)Support for the project; or
2)A recommendation to the Planning Department that its approval of
any zoning permit should incorporate conditions of approval; or
3)A recommendation to the Planning Department to consider denial of
the permit(s); or
4)A recommendation to defer action on the permits.
II.PROJECT INFORMATION
Permit Numbers HPRC-2022-8
Class I Zoning Permit Z-2022-XX
Building Permit Number BP-2022-XX
Parcel Location: Kōloa Town, Hawaii
Tax Map Key(s): (4)2-8-007:016 Area: 33,098 sq. ft.
(entire lot)
Structure Area=
Approx. 720 sq. ft.
Age of Structures Unable to confirm the official age of the structure
Real Property Records:
Approx. 1986 (35 years old)
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 2
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES
Zoning: T4- Village Center (SKCP FBC)
State Land Use
District:
Urban
General Plan
Designation:
Neighborhood Center
Owner(s): Smith Waterhouse Family Old Kōloa Town
Applicant: Viva Kai LLC (Java Kai)
III. PERMIT HISTORY & BACKGROUND
a. The subject property is part of the Old Koloa Town shopping complex located
along Koloa Road near the corner of Poipu and Koloa Road. The existing
structure is currently utilized as the Koloa History Center with historic photos
on the interior walls.
b. Based on the Department’s research and information available, it appears
that the existing structure was formerly known as the Yamamoto Garage. It is
likely that the garage was used in conjunction with a residence that was once
located in front of the garage. The residence was demolished in 1983 and is
now an open courtyard.
c. The existing structure was damaged by Hurricane Iwa in 1982. Class I
Zoning Permit Z-932-1983 was approved to rebuild the garage damaged by
the storm. In the general notes section of the plan, the permit states the
following:
“2. Reconstruction of this building is being undertaken due to hurricane
damage suffered in November, maximum building materials to be
salvaged and reused, those not salvageable will be replaced with the
same size and type.
3. Total construction cost is less than 50 percent or replacement value of
building
4. Building size and use will be reconstructed to existing.”
d. Based on the limited information contained in Z-932-1983, the Department is
unable to confirm the extent of the hurricane damage for the garage structure.
Although the permit plans confirm that the structure was in existence in 1982,
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 3
the Department was unable to find additional information to confirm if the
original construction date was over 50 years old.
Table 1. Summary of Zoning Permits for the Garage Structure
Year Permit Permit Description Applicant
1983 Z-932-1983 1)Demolish Existing
Residence
2)Rebuild garage
damaged by hurricane
Kōloa Town
Association
1986 Z-1114-1986 Garage Door Addition to
the former Yamamoto
Garage Structure
Kōloa Town
Association
IV.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a.The applicant is proposing interior and exterior renovations to an existing
structure (formerly the Yamamoto Garage) to convert the space into a coffee
house operation. The current use of the structure is a history center with
story boards and large photographic exhibits. The applicant intends to
relocate the historic photos and information to an area within the courtyard
complex as part of a separate and ongoing historic signage project.
b.The proposed EXTERIOR improvements include:
1)Replacing the existing metal roll-up entry façade to hinged
doors with a horizontal tongue and groove wood-cladded veneer
siding.
2)Rear Side Window improvements- Removing 2 existing
windows and replacing with 1 new window consistent with the
existing aesthetics
3)East Side Window Improvements- 1) Replacing existing
window with a new window in the same location and consistent with
the existing aesthetic. 2) Removing 2 existing windows and
replacing with 1 new window to be consistent with the existing
aesthetic.
4)Barn Door Replacement- replacing the existing barn door
with a new barn door to match the existing
c.The proposed INTERIOR improvements include:
1)Removing existing interior walls
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 4
2) Addition of new interior walls
V. TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW AND HISTORIC PROFILE
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-2 defines “Historic property” as “any
building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater
site, which is over fifty years old.”
Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Title 13 defines “Significant Historic Property” as
“any historic property that meets the criteria” for listing on the Hawai‘i Register
of Historic Places under HAR 275-6(b) or HAR 2846(b).
VI. EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
a. Site/Building/Structure/Object is NOT Listed on Register – State and/or
National Register
b. The property is NOT located in a Historic District
c. The property may be over 50 years old and may by law be defined as a
“historic property.”
d. The specific structure IS NOT included on the KHPRC Inventory List
The existing structure is not specifically listed on the KHPRC inventory list;
however, the existing structure is surrounded by other historic structures
within the same shopping complex (Yamamoto Store, Koloa Hotel, Kahalewai
Building, Crazy Shirts, and the Salvation Army Building) that are listed on the
KHPRC inventory list.
e. Evaluation of Significance Under the Criteria for listing to the National
or State Register of Historic Places
Under the criteria for listing a property on the State and National Registers of
Historic Places, the historic nature or significance of the
site/building/structure/object may be assessed as follows:
• Criteria A. The property is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, Koloa
was one of the first thriving plantation towns in Hawaii. The plantation
style architecture, culture, and local traditions that have been preserved
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 5
and maintained over time have contributed to the broad patterns of our
history and may have been associated with significant events. Therefore,
the historic property may meet the National Register Criteria A.
•Criteria B. The property is associated with the lives of significant persons
in our past;
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
subject property is not associated with the lives of significant persons in
our past. Therefore, the subject property is unlikely to qualify under the
National Register Criteria B.
•Criteria C. The property/structure/building embodies 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 information gathered by the Planning Department, the
existing structure may maintain elements that are associated with a
specific type, period, or method of distinctive Hawaiian plantation style
construction. It appears that the existing structure has been altered from
its original design, but it is unclear as to what aspects of the structure are
still original to the historic property. Therefore, the structure may meet the
National Register Criteria C.
•Criteria D. The property has yielded or may be likely to yield, information
important in history or prehistory.
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
historic structure may yield information important in history or prehistory as
it may have functioned as part of the original Kōloa Town that served
residents during the plantation days. Therefore, this historic property may
meet the National Register Criteria D.
•Criteria E. (Hawai‘i Register Only). Important value to native Hawaiian
people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with
cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property; or
due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts – these
associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 6
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
subject property is unlikely to meet the requirements of Criteria E.
• Based on the Department’s review, the historic structure may qualify as
“historically significant” and eligible for listing on the National and/ or State
Historic Register.
f. This project is for review before KHPRC for several reasons. Although the
Department is unable to confirm if the existing structure is historic, the
structure is adjacent to other historic structures that may be eligible for listing
to the National and State Historic Register. In addition, the existing structure
is located nearby to other historic sites such as Sueoka Marketplace and the
Old Sugar Mill site which is listed on the National and State Historic Register.
Finally, this area may meet the criteria for a future nomination as a historic
district.
g. Seven Aspects of Historic Integrity
It is not clear to the Department if the existing structure may retain aspects of
historic integrity such as the location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association.
Based on the Department’s records, it appears that the structure may have
lost integrity through alterations and renovations that were conducted in the
1980s. During the reconstruction of the garage, it is uncertain as to what
original materials and character defining features were carried over into the
existing structure. In addition, the 1986 permit included a garage door
addition and other improvements which altered the structure under the 1983
permit. Therefore, the proposed improvements are unlikely to affect the
historic integrity of the structure.
Although the integrity of the structure may have been lost, the Department
would like to see the proposed improvements be in keeping with the overall
plantation-style historic architecture that is characteristic of Old Koloa Town.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, the Planning Department
recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT
the proposed renovations as represented.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
October 21, 2021 Meeting
Java Kai Renovations
TMK: (4) 2-8-007:016
HPRC-2022-8
Page 7
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 making.
The entire record includes but is not limited to:
a. Government agency comments;
b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and
c. The land owner’s response.
By _________________________________
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved & Recommended to Commission:
By _________________________________
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date: ___________________