HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 17, 2019 KHPRC Agenda Packet 2 per page reducedCOUNTY OF KAUA'I KAUA'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo’ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) was held on November 15, 2018, in the Mo’ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair James Guerber, Althea Arinaga, Lawrence Chaffin Jr., Gerald Ida, Aubrey Summers and Victoria Wichman. The following Commissioners were excused: Vice Chair Anne Schneider and Commissioner Deatri Nakea. The following staff members were present: Planning Department Deputy Planning Director Ka‘Ɨina Hull and Alex Wong. Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa. Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator Nicholas R. Courson and Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. The following staff member were excused: Shanlee Jimenez CALL TO ORDER Chair Guerber called the meeting to order at 2:59 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Ka‘Ɨina Hull: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. First order of business is roll call. Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chaffin. Mr. Chaffin: Present. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ida. Mr. Ida: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Nakea and Schneider, are excused. Commissioner Summers. Ms. Summers: Here.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Wichman. Ms. Wichman: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Guerber. Mr. Guerber: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Chair. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: Next agenda item is approval of the agenda. The Department has no recommendations or amendments. Chair Guerber: No recommendations? Mr. Hull: We have no recommendations to amend it…to keep as is. Mr. Chaffin: Do I hear a motion? Ms. Summers: Yes. Ms. Arinaga: I move that we accept – Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Summers: No, I didn’t…I am sorry. Ms. Arinaga: –accept the September 20th minutes. Mr. Hull: Oh no, that’s the agenda. Ms. Arinaga: Oh, wait, I am sorry, the agenda. Ms. Wichman: Second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. Motion carried 6:0. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 MINUTES Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the September 20, 2018, minutes. Chair Guerber: Now. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 Ms. Arinaga: Now, right, I move that we accept the September 20th minutes. Ms. Summers: I second that. Chair Guerber: Discussion? (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Chair. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is Agenda Item E, Hearings and Public Comment. For those in the audience, if there’s any agenda item you would like to speak on at this time, the Chair does allow for three minutes. However, if you are here for a particular agenda item, the Chair will also be allowing you to speak then, but if you want to speak at this time, now would be the time. Seeing none, Chair. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Mr. Hull: We have no announcements for F. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hull: No communications for G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Kilohana Plantation (Wilcox Homestead) TMK: (4) 3-4-005:001, LƯhu‘e, Kaua‘i Proposed construction of a living room lanai. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull: We have a Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. It was received at the last meeting and remains the same. We have no changes to the Director’s Report, but I believe the applicant is here to further discuss some of his proposals with you folks. Fred Atkins: Thank you Chair, for having me. My name is Fred Atkins. I am the General Partner of Kaua‘i Kilohana Partners dba Kilohana Plantation. At the end of the last meeting, you had requested some more information from me, so I am here today to kind of give you some update on that. And also, there was, I think, a couple of commissioners that weren’t here at the
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 last meeting. Do you want me to give you a reason why we’re trying to go for it or you got enough information? We can go straight to…okay. Ms. Arinaga: I was here. Ms. Wichman: You were here? Was I the only one gone? Yes, it’s fine. Mr. Atkins: Okay. Ms. Wichman: Thank you. Mr. Hull: So, Commissioner Summers, were you… Chair Guerber: She was not… Ms. Arinaga: She was not here. Mr. Hull: Did you need Mr. Atkins to go over… Ms. Summers: No, I got it. Mr. Atkins: No? Okay, that’s great. Ms. Summers: Thank you for asking. Mr. Hull: Okay. Mr. Atkins: So there’s a couple different issues. One of them was attaching the gutter to the main home, and I went back and I discussed it with the architect. And the way he designed it is that the gutter did not run the full length of the wall or the roof that connects to the home or goes right up close to it. He put strong brackets on there that could run under the eaves, and the water would fall into the gutter without touching the building, so that’s good news for us. And then it goes…if you see in the picture, there’s a fireplace on that side. In that area we left that open because we’re going to have like a planter, a low planter, around the fireplace and then the decking so you can see the fireplace itself. The architect is really beautiful. So that helps me from the historical commission side. From the Planning Department…the Building Department, if you don’t touch a structure, then you need to be 10 feet away, okay. So, it’s kind of a catch-22 because it’s my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, its 10 feet from wall to wall. So on the eaves of the home, there (is) an English Tudor eave and its (a) four feet overhang. So we designed a four-foot overhang on the (living room) lanai so it matched, which leaves a two-foot opening. So when you’re coming out of the living room onto the (living room) lanai, there would be two feet of open air, which would create a liability problem as you’re walking from one to the other. So, when we decided to put a bar in the living room to increase our revenue, because we never really had a bar in the restaurant proper, one of the things that the Building Department…the first question was, November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 are you going to impact the existing oak floors? And I said, “No, because in 1992 with Hurricane Iwa the rafter tails left the building.” They were, you know, they were nailed into the trusses and the nails didn’t hold. At that time they didn’t have the bolts. Since then, you know, when we redid it, they required us to put the major bolts through the rafters; through the, you know, rafters itself and hopefully that would not sustain the same type of damage. So they said since it’s not the original oak floors, then we can go ahead and do the bar as long as the bar could be taken away if the home was ever returned to its natural state and, maybe, turned into a museum. So that led me to think about the rafter tails because they’re not the original rafter tails. And with that, I would hope you would consider that we could put…and it doesn’t happen…we won’t even need it in all of them because the way the gutters are designed, but then we would be over the hurdle of not having it attached to the home, okay. So that is just for your consideration. Let me see. The other one – you wanted renderings. One of the Commissioners asked; she just couldn’t get a good feel from the plans that we gave you, and I have to agree with her. The plans show the sketch of what it would look like and it wasn’t a very good sketch. And it made it look like the patio was going to come right up to the front of the house. So she wanted a rendering to get a feel. So I’ve given you two angles: one from the front of the house and those, yes I got a larger…so this one right here (held up a rendering) shows it much larger of how it kind of ties in. And the one thing I want to emphasize…we spent a lot of time on this… Mr. Hull: Fred, hold on one second here. Yes, you have to speak into the mic. Mr. Atkins: Thank you. What we try to do is we try to put ourselves in Gaylord Wilcox’s place. What would he do if he tried to add something on and how would it be esthetically pleasing to the home? So Tim Bradley came up with a design that tried to match these existing peaks. There’s three of them here. And this matches what we put into the back courtyard because this… everything white here, that’s all brick. So we tried to match the brick, tried to match the eave lines, and that was…we sent these plans to Gaylord and he had his architect in Honolulu look at them and we got very nice feedback. In your packet you have support letters, very strong support letter from Gaylord and his architect, the way we did the layout and the design. So that shows you as you’re driving in and I think this one’s a very realistic look. The second one we did – we want to give you an example of how it would look from the back or from the side. This one here (held up a rendering) – it gives you a representation (of) how it’s going to look in regards to the chimney and how far it’s going to go up. If you can look at the very back of this, it doesn’t show the existing home so this thing makes it look as much farther out into the yard than it really is because we have a coral pathway that goes right through it; but this was Palms Architecture. And I went down and said, you know, it doesn’t really…it shows the look and the design, and he said this is the right height but this tree over here, the way…if he would’ve done it and put (it) exactly where this tree is, you wouldn’t see this much. So he was trying to give you more of an idea of how this looks in relationship to the height and that was one of the questions that was asked. But in regards to where exactly…it doesn’t stand out like that. There’s another rendering here that I presented the first time around and it shows the…it shows just a little more of the side angle. So it’s tucked behind this…the palm that you see right here that’s…and you can see that on the first one…on the first page, it’s tucked behind that, so it’s pretty far around the side. And this one shows a more…little more the walkway, where this one
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 is way beyond it. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. It looks like its way out, it doesn’t go that far, it’s like 20-something feet out in the yard; this (is) a massive yard. The other thing that I definitely want to make sure you understand is this – when you walk out onto the (living room) lanai, you’re looking at a beautiful poinsettia tree. The poinsettia tree takes up about half of the lanai. That is not going to go away and it’ll be pruned a little, but that is going to be like the focal point of being on the lanai because that will be lit up at night; this can be gorgeous, okay. It also gives us access to this side lawn, so with this we can do…we have a lot of requests from local people that want to do special dinners for, like, 40 or so, and we really don’t have…the private dining room holds about 30. We do 40 and it’s in the restaurant and it really…the ambiance kind of leaves when you have people really partying, you know, and then the rest of the people are there for a romantic dinner or they’re trying to have some kind of conversation. So this would help us financially and that’s the main thrust of this. I did talk to the historical people in Honolulu because it was mentioned to me that we should not be paying land taxes that are on the State Historical Register, and that’s what she thought and she looked at it and in Honolulu they do not pay tax, okay. Kaua‘i does and that’s about $76,000 a year. I was kind of excited, but then I didn’t think she was right because we are Special Use Commercial, but even in Honolulu it was Special Use Commercial (and) they waive the land tax. So we need to try to find a different way of increasing our revenue so we can pay for upgrades, okay. The next 18 months we are going to look at about a half million dollars’ worth of upgrades. We have to redo the roof, we got to redo the oak floors again, we got to tent the place and to build this would cost about $150,000 is what I am estimating. So, those are the reasons we’re doing it. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you have. But, we would like to move forward if possible. Chair Guerber: Are there any questions? Mr. Atkins: No questions? Chair Guerber: I have to say I was really concerned about this, not that I…I visited the place, twice, since the last meeting. This really helps a lot…this rendering helps a lot. I was afraid that it was going to come out so far that we were going to have…you were going to have to chop down a tree, and it’s not even close to it. Mr. Atkins: No. If you look at the plans and I don’t have the plans right in front of me but I think you have there…I think its 20 something feet, or 26 or something, by…it’s longer than it is wider. You know, like I said, it won’t even go across that middle…we have a walkway that takes us back to Clay Works and the other shops that we have in the back. Chair Guerber: That walkway has to move, right? November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 Mr. Atkins: No, it doesn’t have to move. It doesn’t get to the walkway. So that’ll give you a better description. That’s why when I saw this, I wasn’t too excited because it’s nice, it looks nice, but it doesn’t…it looks massive… Chair Guerber: It looks massive. Mr. Atkins: It looks big. Chair Guerber: This looks much larger than… Mr. Atkins: Yes. Chair Guerber: I saw the walkway… Mr. Atkins: Yes, and I asked them, I went down and I said, you know, this…a rendering should be a rendering, why can’t…he said one of the problems is that tree. You know, if I did it from that angle with the tree there, you wouldn’t see it. That’s why I said if you look at the back wall, they didn’t even show the back wall, you know. The first one really shows exactly how it’s going to fit in. This one, I don’t know, I don’t do renderings. I didn’t…I couldn’t understand why he said they worked on it a little more. But I said I don’t want you to not make it smaller where the dimensions…the roof…they were concerned how that would look from the side with the chimney. So, my thing…I didn’t like that side of the house because the roof is flat. It’s the only place because it has a deck up there off the master bedroom, and I have a picture of that. So, if you look at this, here you can see that flat roof. This is the most– Chair Guerber: This is how it looks now. Mr. Atkins: Yes, it’s the least esthetically pleasing part of the property. If you look at that and you look at this, even though it’s not to the, you know, dimensions. The dimensions this way, on this one, you can see where you can still see the courtyard, you can see all, you don’t…in that picture there’s that tree. You don’t see that nice curvature when you first look at the home, you know, where there used to be the nursery, but this – I am telling you – it’s going to look gorgeous when it’s done. Mr. Hull: Just a quick question. Is Palm Architecture your architect then, for the project? Mr. Atkins: No. Mr. Hull: Or they’re just doing the renderings? Mr. Atkins: No, Tim Bradley is the architect that did the plans; he doesn’t do renderings. Tim still drafts with his pencil, okay. He’s one of those old-style, beautiful work but that was something and so a gentleman John at Palms Architecture is the one that did it.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 Chair Guerber: So everyone should know that everyone read Alex’s report and there were three criteria that he has to have met. And two of them, I think, are met and the other one we have to excuse, I suppose. Mr. Hull: What, what… Chair Guerber: That’s the distance, the setback distance? Mr. Atkins: Well, that’s more of a County, is that… Mr. Hull: Yes, that’s not something (that) you folks need to review, as far as setbacks. They’re just hard fast standards as far as you have to meet them for a certain degree. And one of the issues that our report was bringing up is, and Mr. Atkins kind of highlighted on, is whether or not it’s going to touch. And regardless of where we are in the project, it was kind of like, if it touches, arguably it triggers all types of other requirements, including but not limited to that very lengthy and expensive environmental review (sic) process, and so that was the trick, I think. Mr. Atkins himself was kind of basically…how do we propose something that doesn’t necessarily physically touch the building? And so… Mr. Atkins: So, Ka’Ɨina, just drawing clear what you just said that if it touches, then is it the Commission…through this Commission that would be triggered or… Mr. Hull: No, no– Mr. Atkins: The Planning… Mr. Hull: –the Planning Department itself. Mr. Atkins: I got to go to Planning (Department), so they understand from here it’s not a done deal. I still got to go to Planning (Department). Mr. Hull: Still got to go to the Planning Department. And I think as long as we’re able to resolve that, the Department doesn’t have any further concerns over the project. The one that I can bring up but I think can be resolved at the Planning Department level is…and I really appreciate what Mr. Atkins has provided with the renderings and what Palms Architecture (has) done so we can really get a feel for it. The one issue, and there is some debate among, I think, a lot of people – but under the Secretary of Interior Standards for Preservation, when you have a historical site and you have a new building, while common, you know, sense practice will say of course you got to make that building blend in with the historical structure, which Mr. Atkins has done. It feels and looks wonderful. I think historic preservation that the Secretary of Interior Standards aren’t really concerned so much with the aesthetics as they are with preserving the story of that original structure. And so that’s why the standard generally is to make that new structure, while it can blend to a certain degree, it has to be a distinctive element that separates it from the original structure. And I am not sure if this structure has a specifically distinctive element that does separate from it. Having said that, though, I think during the permitting process that that could be worked out. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 Mr. Atkins: I respect what you said, Ka’Ɨina. I am just going one process at a time and you know, we tried to keep the…our tag line is a glimpse of Kaua‘i’s past and we’ve had it for 31 years, and it’s to our benefit sometimes and to our detriment because local people think we’re just a special occasion host, you know, classy– Mr. Hull: Yes, yes. Mr. Atkins: It goes back and forth with that but I’ve always stayed with keep Kilohana, Kilohana, and keep Gaylord’s…that feel, but it’s the expenses of running a restaurant nowadays with all the health care, and property insurance will probably go up with the disasters this year on the mainland and California fires. It just never stops, so. Mr. Hull: Yes, and to Mr. Atkins credit, you know, we’re kind of hemming and hawing over a lot of things, but at the end of the day, what he’s been able to do is take a piece of Kaua‘i’s story, a piece of Kaua‘i’s history and actually turn it into an enterprise that’s not just (for) tourists, but indeed the public and the local public can interact and engage with that history. And there’s not many areas on Kaua‘i’s built environment where you can do that, so I really appreciate the efforts he’s making there. I think also, too, in this distinctive from new…we’re going to get into a discussion later on (in) the agenda because that very same discussion came up in which one of the Commissioners was like, “No, I want the structure to look exactly like the other building” and that’s what Commissioner (sic) Atkins was doing, actually, with his proposal. And that’s what I am saying…I don’t think it’s a sticking point for the Planning Department. The Planning Department has no further input or comment on the application if the Commission is ready to act upon it. I think some of that distinctive architecture element can be resolved during the permitting process, but at the end of the day, I leave it for you folks to discern on what to...what course of action to take. Ms. Summers: So I was more concerned when I saw the drawings about how much it looked like the existing scene. This rendering makes me feel like it’s different enough that even the railings on the hand-drawn one look a little bit more like they’re trying to be historic, whereas…and I don’t…you know it’s the rendering that I am responding to. This appears different enough to me but within the same vocabulary as far as the roof and everything that I feel much better after seeing this as far as being different enough but yet fitting in, so that you don’t feel like you put something very (inaudible) in relationship to the existing. Mr. Hull: You see, that’s why Aubrey is a Commissioner. Because ultimately, what I was going to do – both myself and Alex and even Myles, we’re not architects – but what I was going to do is turn around to an architect and say is this distinctive enough, what do you think, and I think Commissioner Summers comments are to that point. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Atkins: Thank you for your input. Chair Guerber: Do I have a motion? Ms. Summers: I motion to accept.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 Chair Guerber: That’s good enough. Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Oh discussion, any discussion? Larry? Mr. Chaffin: This is slightly off the subject but your intent is to keep it as historic as possible? Mr. Atkins: Yes. Mr. Chaffin: And I think what you’ve done in the living room is obnoxious – putting that bar in – and I’ve mentioned that every time. You said it increases your cash flow but it certainly spoils that ambiance of the living room. Mr. Atkins: And I respect your opinion. On the other hand, people will walk into– Mr. Hull: I am going to step in right here. I appreciate you want to respond, Mr. Atkins. At the same time, I do have to step in and say that in order to have this discussion on a public forum that has been under Sunshine Law published, it has to have a properly agendized and this is not. I respect your input as well, Commissioner Chaffin. At this time, if you want to discuss, you know, other aspects of how the historic structure is run, you can discuss that with the Chair by having that put on the agenda. But right now, that is not on the agenda and not really up for discussion. Chair Guerber: Well, I maybe, should say something about the commercial aspect of this since I own an establishment kind of like Fred’s. And it is difficult to maintain a profitable business and what we’re concerned about here is to preserve, somehow to preserve this wonderful piece of art through time, this building; it needs maintenance and this restaurant helps maintain it. It brings revenue in that will go back into it and keep it for all of Kaua‘i. And actually, it lets people, all people – come to see it and experience it inside, which is very important to me as a part of the community. So I feel that this will enhance your business and I am really all for that. Okay, take a vote. All in favor? (Few responses) Opposed? (One response) Ms. Summers: Do you want to take a roll call? Mr. Hull: Yes, let’s do a roll call vote. The motion is to accept as proposed the improvements to the subject property. Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: Accept. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chaffin. Mr. Chaffin: Deny. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ida. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 Mr. Ida: Accept. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Summers. Ms. Summers: Accept. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Wichman. Ms. Wichman: Accept. Mr. Hull: Chair Guerber. Chair Guerber: Accept. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Chair. Thank you, Fred. Motion carried 5:1. 2. 3 Palms, LLC (Douglas Baldwin Beach House) TMK (4) 5-5-002:107 5242 Weke Road, Hanalei, Hawai‘i 96714 Proposed conversion of an existing historic dwelling unit into an accessory structure, addition of new decking, and removal of the existing kitchen facilities. Proposed demolition of existing garage associated with existing historic residence. a. Letter (10/9/19) from Ian K. Jung, Belles Graham Proudfoot Wilson & Chun, LLP. b. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull: Which I don’t believe there have been any further amendments made to our Director’s Report, so it stands as is. This agenda item was ultimately…a motion was made to approve and accept as proposed. The vote was taken. While the majority held the vote in approval, the rules of the Commission require, at a bare minimum, a quorum majority, meaning you need at least five votes in the affirmative to pass the agenda item. So being that there was no action, essentially because there was not enough votes for an action, it is being brought back to you folks for discussion. And I believe Mr. Jung has a bit more to add to try and convince five of you fine people to…go ahead. Mr. Ian Jung: Okay, good afternoon Chair, members of the Commission, Ian Jung on behalf of the applicant 3 Palms, LLC. Also with me is Marc Ventura, the architect of record who will be working on the project as well. Following the last meeting, as the Deputy Director indicated, we did have no action on the item, so one of the Commissioners requested that we do additional renderings to show how there’s going to be a setup buffer, as well as a vegetative buffer, between the rehabilitated Douglas Baldwin Beach House and the proposed new structure and guest house. So when we looked at it, you know, I think we just heard from the Deputy Director about the philosophical theories of the Secretary of Interior Standards. One of the important things, I think, when looking at…I mean there’s all kinds of scenarios you can run into, but one of the important things when you look at a singular structure on the Registry is how…how you
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 can build on the same property that’s not where the registered property is. And so that issue brings it to the proximity issue. And so one of the Secretary of Interior Standards is when you’re going to…and I think it’s sort of a modernist preservation approach that actually originated in the late 1800s from this guy John Ruskin. But his theory is that you try and create what’s referred to as potential opposition, where you make the rehabilitated structure distinct from the proposed new structures. And this applies, well I think, when you actually have a singular structure versus in an area where you have a historic district or landmark, where there’s multiple structures that are on a registration for a similar feature, architectural feature that holistically is an entire area. So what we’re trying to do here, just to recap; I think there were two commissioners that were here. The Douglas Family Beach House, which is on…if you look at the pane on the top right, there’s that structure there, which is the existing residence that was built in the 1920s. There were some alterations to that structure one in 1935 and the other one in 1960s that added some…some features that warrant historic to the context of vernacular style of what it was. So our proposed approach on this is to look at doing a rehabilitation to the historic structure but a conversion of its use, so we could build a residence in the back. And that was the main question that was an issue in the last Commission meeting. So these photo’s here, looking at the bottom left pane, you can see that’s…there’s a request, we show a photo from the beach. And as indicated in the last meeting, the new structure will be outside the shoreline setback area. We did a certified shoreline to that effect and visually it’s set back, kind of like how the old historic homes were at the time in the Hanalei Bay area where you had a great big front yard. Alright, then going laterally over to the right pane, that’s looking at the structure from sort of the first jaunt of the yard coming up from the beach. And so, looking at that, you can see the home is of a contemporary modern style where there’s a lot of wood and glass involved in it. And then looking at the top pane where we just look…the rehabilitated structure will be vegetated to have that mitigation. So when you’re looking from the road it would be very difficult to see the new proposed structure in the back. And then with this angle as you drive by you won’t even be able to see the guest house. The guest house will be about 20 feet in-between some trees and you can see that on the site plan which is the top left pane. On the site plan there, you can see how there’s some vegetation that’ll block the Douglas…the rehabilitated Douglas Family Beach Cabin (sic) from the guest house and then a distance of about 60 feet from the rehabilitated historic structure over to the proposed new residence. And so with this…with this approach we’re trying to maintain the preservation of the structure restored to its original character from what we know. Unfortunately, our historic architecture consultant, Glen Mason, was unable to find original photos of the house. We did find some more recent photos of the house and then with the help of Marc and another architect we’re able to basically work to restore what that house would probably look like. We didn’t enclose…the lanai was enclosed in the 30s but we left that to keep the vernacular style sort of in line with what it appeared like it was in the past. So this, I hope is enough information now for the Commission to take action on this. The request for these additional renderings, I think, helps give that perspective, but if you have any questions either Marc or myself can address those for you. Chair Guerber: The last meeting, which I was…I did not attend, there were two commissioners that objected to this. Can you tell us why? November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 Mr. Jung: I think Commissioner Schneider had a concern about how the new structure would look from a massing standpoint and a style standpoint on the registered property. And the issue was how do you affect the registered property or the historic structure itself? So the way we’re looking at it is we would like to restore the historic structure to what it was, you know, as a feature of its time and place, and to maintain it, and keep it, and then build the new residence in the back…sort of in the back two-thirds of the lot. And I am not sure… Chair Guerber: You’re kind of hiding the new structure from the street and letting the historic structure stand. Mr. Jung: That’s correct and I think from a visual standpoint, you know, that would be the structure that would want to be seen, you know, and understood of what it was in its time and place. So that would remain visible from the Weke Road location but in the back, we’ll try and mask as best as we can, you know, with the vegetation elements that we show on the site plan to mask how that structure will be seen from the roadway. But as you know with the north shore development plan, we have a 25-foot height limitation, so (it) would be hard to see it anyways because it’ll be…although it’ll be 2 stories, it’ll still be below that 25-foot mark. And the other Commissioner was Mr. Chaffin, who didn’t have too many comments on it; I think just voted no. Mr. Hull: The comments that Commission Schneider…Ian is referring to is somewhat what we were talking with (inaudible). And part of me is kind of with Commissioner Schneider in a sense that why on earth would you create something so vastly different looking? It doesn’t have that right feel. So there is a part of me that understands where Commissioner Schneider is coming from sitting in the role and having to…this role and still having to adhere to preservations elements, I understand why they are there. Like I said on the previous application, they are there to ensure the protection of a particular area’s built environment story. And the story behind that building is that was the type of building it was in the time and place (and) you don’t try to replicate it with a faux 1930-ish, 1940-ish plantation house. So I can completely understand where Commissioner Schneider was coming from. But ultimately, and that’s why the Department isn’t any different to those sentiments and to those philosophies, we do adhere to the Secretary of Interior Standards despite some not necessary liking the outcome of it. But at the end of the day, the Department can stand by the recommendation because it aligns with the Secretary of Interior Standards of having a distinct structure different from the one with historical integrity. Ms. Wichman: Ian, I have a question for you. Mr. Jung: Sure. Ms. Wichman: You wrote here about the historical character that you’re going to keep it remaining as a record of its time. Then it goes…however, the applicant should enjoy the right to contrast the architect of the past by allowing a contemporary feature or design that may very well be recognized as a significant – in the future. So is that just like maybe this would happen? Mr. Jung: Well, I think and that was sort of the theory of…and this goes somewhat when they were rebuilding cities and how do you allow for architecture of the past to sort of be merged with
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 new architectural theories. And I think, you know, in all architects – and I am sure Marc can chime in on this – there seems to be like this willingness to have a freedom of their own expression, and so with a modern structure like this, it’s almost as if they feel okay, this is how…this is my new creation, which may be in the future a record of its time for the modern contemporary design. And that’s the point I was trying to make, where you know I am not saying that this will be something that’s going to be a notable (inaudible) house or something like that in the future. But you never know because of its type of design where it’s a unique feature from an architect who may be a normal person and not necessarily know but in the future, it could be an important thing that could be looked at as a record of its time in the future. Because ironically, you know, I know the Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) issue has been sort of this ongoing elaborate issue with the County, but the Douglas Baldwin Family Beach House was like one of the first TVRs in Hanalei. It was like this vacation rental, not vacation rental but a vacation house. So moving forward from that, you know, having a new contemporary residence that contrasts with an old historic might be a cool feature 50 years from now. It actually may be eligible for the Registry because the standard under State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) is 50 years. Ms. Wichman: Thank you. Mr. Hull: So Ian, are you saying that you guys are amenable to having a plaque identifying this as ground zero for TVR appropriation? Mr. Jung: It’s not a vacation rental, for the record. Chair Guerber: Any other discussion? Does someone want to make a motion? Yes. Mr. Ida: There’s a pool on this property? Or there will be a pool? Mr. Jung: Yes, so the pool is proposed. It’s actually going to be on the roof. And so you have the bedrooms up top, which Marc pointed out, and then on the side it’s a roof. And it’s a little unique because this is in the open district and so it’s constrained for land coverage so there’s not a lot of land coverage; it’s a 10 percent threshold for land coverage. Mr. Ida: What’s a green roof? Mr. Jung: A green roof is a…maybe, Marc, he can better explain this, but the idea is they’re going to put some vegetation along the rim to sort of mask the visual impact of it. And so along the rim of the roof line adjacent to the bedroom…Marc, if you can point that out. Marc Ventura: Yes, so the pool here on top is basically planters, it’s basically… Mr. Hull: Oh, hold on Marc, hold on for one second. Mr. Ventura: Hello. Okay, yes, so a green roof is basically a roof top garden. So it’s a garden with planter box that is integral to the roof, so it’s not a roof plan here. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 Ms. Summers: So it’s literally green because of the plantings and then it’s also more environmentally acceptable on a roof. So it’s kind of… Mr. Ventura: Sort of absorbs heat, mitigates heat and what not. It runs the perimeter…these particular images, you can’t…there’s a planter that runs along the edge of the roof top there. I think I’d just like to point out a couple of things about the…this particular design. Although it is a modern design it is…I think it’s so far from being an ostentatious design there’s just very little detail…it’s a very simple structure. Its glass with a couple of solid sort of pilaster elements and glass and then basically the floor plane that we’re trying to make green. There’s a pool on the roof, yes, but it’s really a low impact I think, as you can get, but it was just trying to be a very light low impact structure. The other thing I’d like to point out is that while 20 feet is your typical plane height for a two-story building, plus your roof, because we have a flat roof, the top of that roof is at 20 feet, so it’s a pretty low-lying structure. Again, just a pretty minimal impact as far as that goes for a modern structure but it was really just about transparency and almost you can see through it. Ms. Summers: What’s the material on the solid portions? Mr. Ventura: The structural frame is going to be concrete but it’s going to be wood clad. So we want to do a wood, like an ipe wood, so it would be a weather resistant hardwood that’s going to clad the whole thing. Ms. Summers: Is that what the fence is also? Mr. Ventura: Yes, that’s what the fence is and we’re looking at, kind of, maybe putting that on the existing structure as well. Ms. Summers: So the new will be allowed to gray out also? Or will it be gray out like the fence? Mr. Ventura: Yes, it’ll naturally finish over time. Ms. Summers: So it’ll look kind of (like) the color of the bark on these… Mr. Ventura: Yes, yes, that’s right. The intent is to really kind of have a natural…and there’s not a lot of finishes, either. We’re trying to minimize and just make everything uniform so while the floors wood clad perimeter everywhere and glass. That’s pretty much what… Ms. Summers: And plantings and green… Mr. Ventura: And plantings and green and… Ms. Summers: Wood. Mr. Ventura: Yes, yes.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 Chair Guerber: Just how far is the new building from the old? Mr. Ventura: Approximately 60 feet. Mr. Jung: Yes, I measured it at 60 feet. Mr. Ventura: So… Chair Guerber: Six-zero. Mr. Jung: Six-zero. Ms. Summers: It looks farther on here if you look at the…well, sorry, I can’t tell where that deadline is. I think it’s here? Mr. Ida: These are separate buildings? Mr. Ventura: No, these are…there’re all one building… Mr. Hull: Sorry, gentlemen, sorry. Gentlemen, you’re (being) recorded for the purpose of recordation and so Aunty Sandra is glaring at me. If you can speak into the microphone. Mr. Ventura: Yes, this is actually a roof plane here. So that’s what you’re seeing is the roof. But these are…its all one building but this is the second story of…sorry, I can’t quite get the mic over there. So, what you’re seeing there are these three bedrooms on top. It’s all part of the structure. I am going to point it out here. Those are those three bedrooms, if you will, on top and then this is the roof deck and the pool. So there’s three bedrooms and that’s the deck. So really, your 20-foot height only happens at this…that’s the second story area, is right there on those three bedrooms. Mr. Ida: What are these? Mr. Ventura: Those are…that’s a graphic for pool side seating, adjacent… Ms. Summers: That’s the lounge seats– Mr. Ventura: Lounge seating. Ms. Summers: –we’ll be invited to when the project is done. Mr. Ida: Are all these trees big trees or like existing? Mr. Ventura: Some are existing, some are relocated, some are being…where this new structure is going they’re actually relocating these. I think it’s the dark ones that are being replaced. So some will be relocated and some will be new. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 Mr. Jung: I have the plan if you want to see the tree plan, which was in the original set that went out to the Commission. Mr. Ida: This wall is (inaudible). Mr. Ventura: Yes, there’s actually a wall there now, but that’s going to be a new wall that’s going to come in. It’s going to be a six-foot top, so it’s going to be under six feet. Ms. Summers: It’s a fence, a wood fence. Mr. Ventura: Wood fence. Ms. Summers: Not a wall, right? Mr. Ventura: Yes, yes. Mr. Jung: Here’s the relocated trees. These are the existing trees and these will be the relocated trees. Chair Guerber: Any other questions? Ms. Wichman: I have a question, please. Has there been any archaeology done on this property? Mr. Jung: Not yet. And so the way the process is for us to get through this initial phase, then we go in and will do the test trenching for when the…once we relocate the structure once we get this first round of approvals on how to convert over the residence. Ms. Wichman: Seems like we would want to know that before putting a new structure on top of something? Mr. Jung: Yes, no, so we’re going to get into…once we get the foot plan, you know, have the foot print laid out and we know we can move forward with the rehabilitation of the Douglas Family Beach House (sic) and then allow for the second structure. Then our next phase is to do the archaeology and ensure that there’s no historic remains under the subsurface. Mr. Chaffin: Prior to actual construction? Mr. Jung: Correct. Chair Guerber: Could we stipulate that if you find anything that you come back to us? Mr. Hull: Yes, so generally what happens if they find a particular…like an iwi, then they would go to the Burial Council and work with the Burial Council on what to do for mitigation or…yes, for mitigation should iwi be found. If there’s anything above and beyond that, like if there are archaeological features that is to be (handed) over to SHPD and indeed come back to here. But
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 in most scenarios out here, the only thing that you’re probably going to find out there is…if you do find anything, (it) is going to be iwi, which would result in them going to the Burial Council. Mr. Jung: Yes, we would chart that a new course in going through…if we do the archaeological inventory survey and I do the test trenching and I come out clean. You know, we start construction and we find something, then it becomes an inadvertent find. But if we find something when we go through our archaeology inventory survey, then it’s a known burial site and we go through a separate process. So there’s two separate processes that would convert to SHPD in one course and the Burial Council in another. Mr. Hull: And so one course of action where it could end up back here, say, is…say they do in their trenching, find iwi. Go to the Burial Council. The Burial Council says keep in place but move the structure in this matter and, say, they move the structure in a manner which may not have been accounted for by this Commission in its analysis (of) the historical impact on the structure, then it would come back to you folks for another possible round of review for siting and whatnot. Mr. Jung: And that’s statutory, so we would have to go through that process anyway. Chair Guerber: Okay. Any other questions? (Hearing none) Is there a motion? Ms. Summers: I motion to accept as presented. Chair Guerber: And a second? If not, I second. No, I can’t. Commissioner Chaffin seconded. Chair Guerber: All in favor? Oh, sorry. Discussion? (Hearing none) Is there anyone from the public that (would) like to come forward and discuss? (Seeing none) No discussion. All in favor? (Unanimous consent) Opposed? Hearing none, it passes. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. Mr. Jung: Thank you very much, Chair. 3. Request (10/16/18) from Max W.J. Graham, Esq., Authorized Agent, to amend the proposed building design for an office and gift shop addition involving Use Permit U-2005-22, Variance Permit V-2005-6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-28, Tax Map Key: (4)3-6-005:005, LƯhu‘e, Kaua‘i, Kaua‘i Museum. Mr. Hull: Just a little background on this. As you can see there’s no Director’s Report on this. The Historic Preservation Review Commission reviewed this proposal about two years ago, I want to say, and pretty much was in complete agreement with the proposal. Many were very happy with what was being proposed. There’s actually been a series of proposals. Some of them – this Commission had severe reservations and criticism concerning the particulars of particular proposals to punch through one of the stained glass windows for a walkway. Of course you folks let the applicant know that that would not be acceptable in historical preservation terms and they November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 took that to heed and came back with the separate proposals you guys reviewed a year and a half to two years ago. We’re all good with it. There was some concern about the rock façade and the applicant is here now just to kind of go over the rock façade issues and to see if there is any agreement on their proposal at this time, so. Mr. Jung: Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission, again. Ian Jung on behalf of Kaua‘i Museum and with me here is Chucky Boy Chock the Executive Director of the Kaua‘i Museum. We just went through the Planning Commission actually last week Tuesday. And just for a little bit of background on the project, I know some of you who are sitting on the Commission heard it before when they were going through the environmental assessment for the project because of the use of State funds that were being applied to do the work. In this particular case, we appreciate the hastiness to get this on the agenda because we asked the Planning Department to do this as soon as we possibly could because we have the grant-in-aid coming up for an extension. We wanted to show that we’re actually getting a good degree of progress on this project, so what we did is we looked back and just for project background – what we’re doing is adding…and there’s two buildings. The Wilcox Building was built in 1924, which was originally a library and then the Rice Building was an addition where we’re going to propose this new addition. And unlike the two past projects where they were sort of disconnected, this one is an actual physical addition to a historic structure. And so what we’re looking at here is adding this north wing, which Chucky will explain what the use will be. But the north wing will add about 1,000 square feet for new space for the museum and some of the previous iterations were ground-level proposals but in this case, it was elevated so we could use that space below as sort of like the pa‘ina space that the tent was out there for in the past few years. And so with this new approach, we looked at it from a historical prospective and Ron Agor was the architect. And Ron’s conversations with SHPD on this is they actually wanted the rock wall veneer that was proposed. And I went back and I took a look at the Commission minutes from a…I think it was March 24, 2016, two years ago. There was some concern by the Commission about the type of rock wall veneer, so what we did is we got a sampling for you. There’s two sample photos: one is the actual sample that’s used by the contractor and then another one is the actual installation of it. As many of you know, the use of moss rocks has been somewhat of a controversy recently about where and how you get those rocks. And so there’s this company out of O‘ahu where a contractor found that they actually design these rocks and cast them in Honolulu where it actually has a good physical appearance of how it should be. Ms. Wichman: They’re not real? Mr. Jung: They’re not real. Yes, so it’s a veneer and I had the same concern looking at it. Because typically when you don’t…you know what we just discussed is, when you build a new addition compared to something of the past, you want to make it distinct, so the historic structure can stay sort of a standout compared to the new structure, but this is a physical addition and in the conversations the architect had with a then-SHPD employee and a (inaudible) they actually wanted this rock veneer. And I know some of you would see how the concern would be looking at it from the County Rotunda, looking out to the east on the west wall, how it looked, but Chucky did some research with the contractor and found that you can actually…because that rock wall has been aged pretty significantly and it has that red dirt tint that it’s almost like that west side rock. And so they’re able to match that tint to make the photo element here (that) I
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 have to be that color. And it’s going to be sort of a creative approach on how they attach it to the sheet rock because if you look at the existing structure, there’s some lateral lines…concrete lines that sort of create bands of those rocks so we’re going to have to mimic that as well. So if you have any questions, we can answer questions to that, but I’ll turn it over to Chucky to explain the proposed use for that new structure. Mr. Chucky Boy Chock: Thank you. Chucky Boy Chock. I think the best example for this is Punahou School. They’ve been doing hundred, little over a hundred thousand square feet of this same rock like our library, like our building to match it, and they got more work there at Punahou School. Conrad Nonaka, if you know him, Kaua‘i Chef who just passed his dream building is being completed with this look also, (and) it’s called the Culinary Center in Honolulu on Diamond Head. So…and they make it look old. So that’s the best analogy and as far as the space, this is for an exhibit center for mainly traveling exhibits and of course in-house exhibits. That’s really what it’s for. It’s for the community and it’s really geared to, not only our kids our children but also for our Kupuna. Mr. Jung: And just to update the Commission, we did get comments back originally from SHPD on this about not only the rocks but also they wanted some vegetation along the…looking on the north face of the wall where you have the columns going up, just a mass sort of that greenery where you look into the museum. And I don’t think I circulated that one, Alex, but did you pass that to the Commission, the SHPD comments? The SHPD letter? Mr. Alex Wong: No, I did not, I did not print that out, sorry. Mr. Jung: So we’re happy to answer any questions. The Planning Commission did approve it on Tuesday and the reason we had to go to the Planning Commission is because this particular area is a Special Treatment Public District. So any three-dimensional addition to a structure triggers a Use Permit, so we had to amend the existing permit, but we had the condition set up subject to commentary from this body, so that’s what brings us here today. Ms. Wichman: I have a comment. I think I was one of the Commissioners that wanted the rock and was told that there is no rock. So I appreciate Chucky Boy and probably you or the architect finding this façade rock and finding the rock pohaku façade. Mr. Chock: Called a friend at Punahou School. Ms. Wichman: That’s great though and nobody’s going to question where the pohaku came from, etcetera, etcetera, you know, and it’s not real. So that’s…I am glad that SHPD concurred that we needed something that matched, you know, to go along with the Wilcox Building. Yes, yes, I think this is great. Thank you. Mr. Chaffin: I have a question. Are these real rocks or are these artificial? Mr. Chock: We have the make, you know; how they create it. Chair Guerber: So these are real rocks– November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 Ms. Wichman: They’re not real. Chair Guerber: –right? Mr. Chock: They make it. Chair Guerber: This is made? Ms. Wichman: Yes. Mr. Chaffin: No, artificial rocks. Chair Guerber: Artificial? And so is this? Mr. Chock: Yes, sir. Ms. Wichman: They color it to make it… Mr. Chock: So, in Honolulu, drive by Punahou School, you won’t know the difference. Chair Guerber: Because I have seen veneer that’s done with cast rock and it’s not this… Mr. Chock: This is the latest, and it’s called Big Rock Hawai‘i. They’re on the cutting edge. I think they use rock material to make this. Mr. Ida: So this stuff, like weighs the same as a rock? Mr. Chock: Not quite. Mr. Ida: Is it lighter? Mr. Chock: Yes, sir. Mr. Ida: And the normal application is to, like just stick it on sheet rock? Mr. Chock: I think the process is piece by piece. Ms. Summers: That’s also the typical process for a true rock veneer, so you would use the same process for real or faux rock veneer. Mr. Ida: This is pretty cool. No excuse to go stealing rocks. Mr. Chock: You know, I can’t answer that but we do have…should have it in there, the making of it, how they make it.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 Mr. Jung: Yes, I passed out…I read it but it kind of went over my head because I am not a contractor but it has the whole installation process. There’s actual physical cast concrete that’s dyed and porous to match an original rock that they used to do the casting. Then what they do is then they attach it to the sheet rock by whatever ways they do it and then they pick pigment colors to match the type of look you want, whether it’s like a moss rock, greenish, red dirt, red tintish, or the cleaner blue rock, which is sort of that newer rock. Mr. Ida: And they can put fake moss on? Ms. Arinaga: I have a question. So, did you…did I hear you say it can be seen only at Punahou? Or how about here on the islands? Mr. Chock: No, this is the project they’re working on and so this is actually for Punahou. Ms. Arinaga: Okay. Mr. Chock: But they’re doing like…right now, they just finished about a hundred thousand square feet of it. Ms. Arinaga: Okay, with this. Mr. Chock: And so they…they’re just completing the Culinary Center also, with the same thing. Ms. Arinaga: That’s pretty cool. Mr. Ida: What is the cost differential between that and real rocks? Mr. Chock: Well, for one, getting the real rock was the problem and then secondly, it’s more affordable this way – much more affordable. Ms. Arinaga: So once you get these rocks, you would have to hire someone to… Mr. Chock: Yes, the contractor that we’re working with– Ms. Arinaga: Okay. Mr. Chock: –is the guys that will install this. Ms. Arinaga: Okay. Chair Guerber: So I have a bit of a question here. Where is this rock wall that we’re talking about? This section? Mr. Jung: It’s the upper right pane. Chair Guerber: Right pane. November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 Mr. Jung: It’s the west elevation. Ms. Arinaga: To the right. Ms. Summers: The page shows it better. Doesn’t it? The color. Mr. Jung: The rendering on the bottom just shows what the wing would look like but that’s looking from the north east. So on the actual plans and elevations, it’s the west elevation on the top right. Chair Guerber: So the west elevation – this is all the rocks we’re talking about. This is the rock wall. Mr. Jung: Yes, so… Chair Guerber: The other rocks, these rocks are like the east elevation, we see that every day. Right? Mr. Jung: Right. Ms. Summers: But the pilaster is under the new, right? Aren’t those new? Mr. Jung: Plaster? Ms. Summers: The rock columns. Mr. Jung: Yes, those will be new. Ms. Summers: Those are all new too? Mr. Jung: Yes, that was actually requested by SHPD as well. Ms. Summers: So that (when) it turns the corner its all… Mr. Jung: Right. So if you’re looking…if you’re standing here looking back, you’ll see this wall. Ms. Summers: Right. Chair Guerber: That’s…we’ll (inaudible). Mr. Jung: And this section here is the new wing. Chair Guerber: Okay. Any other questions? (Hearing none) Is there a motion? Ms. Arinaga: I move to accept the project.
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 Ms. Summers: I second the motion. Chair Guerber: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? No Discussion. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Hearing none, it passed. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. Mr. Jung: Thank you, Commissioners. 4. Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. Mr. Hull: We have no further updates on the CLG status. We maintain CLG status but we have not been in communication, really, with State Historic Preservation Division, the Architectural Branch… Ms. Wichman: Have they replaced some of their people that left? Mr. Hull: No. Ms. Wichman: And I just heard Kaiwi’s leaving also. Mr. Hull: I was not aware of that. Ms. Wichman: Yes. Mr. Hull: Okay. So I am going to imagine the radio silence that we’ve had with them for the past several months is going to become that much more silent. It all comes down to a staffing issue over there. We’re not saying that there’s any particular person at fault, it’s just they have very little at this point and close to no staff it appears. Ms. Wichman: So the other CLG’s, Maui and the Hawai‘i island, in the same boat… Mr. Hull: Yes. Ms. Wichman: Right? Mr. Hull: Correct, so we have, I’ll say a lot of…we’ve had some discussions with the archeological branch, but as far as the architectural branch, which is the one that generally steers the Certified Local Government status for the County has been fairly silent. I can say and the first application reviewed, you know, put it back on the radar, because it kind of fell by the wayside. I guess with the various things going on, and I think discussions were going on right before the flood, so perhaps that’s why they got kind of fell by the wayside. But there was some discussion and Fred (Atkins) kind of reminded me of that, of looking at routing through this commission a proposal to amend the tax code. Because as Fred was pointing out in Honolulu, on O‘ahu there are tax…lower tax status for historical properties, commercial and residential. On November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 Kaua‘i that status is only afforded to the residential properties. And so there was a discussion that I believe, about a year ago, where there was some interest in looking at proposing from this body, a proposed draft ordinance to also apply that tax rate to commercial properties, as well. Chair Guerber: So was there any incentive to make a commercial property historical? Mr. Hull: At the County level, no. And there’s other, of course, Federal grants-in-aid which can be provided for those properties that are on the Register, but as far as any County incentive, no. It only exist for residences. So, not that Alex’s plate isn’t already full, but…and we’ll be looking at where the next administration would want to go, but I think that is a possible package that we can put together should the incoming administration want to pursue that. Without that…well, without any further…I have no other further updates on the CLG. Ms. Wichman: So the CLG, that means we’re not getting any money either? Or is the parks system… Mr. Hull: For the most part the last conversation I had with the individual processing CLG applications indicated that they weren’t…they can review it, but they’re not in any position to manage providing those or allocating those funds; that was about a year, year and a half ago. Quite honestly, some of the rigmarole that surrounds those funds and the various T’s that we to cross and the I’s that we have to dot, to a certain degree it doesn’t make it worth it. Yes, the amount that we have to go through…contract procurement and referring back to them. The timelines, I think I alluded to you folks before – sometimes we don’t see that money, because it has to be freed up federally. We see that money like, within two months of having to finalize the project and a lot of these projects take a lot longer than that. And so we did go through…what was one of those we used the money for recently? We did get CLG monies recently….I can’t recall, but I know it’s a lot of heartache for Myles (Hironaka) to go through, and it’s only after seeing that we don’t get those monies and we, the Planning Department and the County, expend those monies expecting to be reimbursed by the Federal Government. And a lot of times those monies don’t get reimbursed until sometimes after the close of the project. It was a nomination of a site that we used CLG monies for…the HanapƝpƝ Bridge, I believe. We used CLG monies for and quite honestly…we got an estimate, which we’re allowed to do procurement wise on how much it would cost to hire a consultant to nominate the bridge. It was a well-renowned preservationist and consultant that gave us the figure of…I believe it was $4,000. And when we finally secured the award, when we went to procure the services, that very same individual who put the figure out at roughly $4,000 did not put in a bid. And when we kind of had the discussion why wouldn’t you do that, his response was, within the year and a half that I gave you that figure, I’ve been working with the state and county governments, and to have to go through the hoops of, like, the insurance he has to get, and all the various requirements he has to meet, he said I am not going to bid for that. So ultimately, a larger firm bid for it and we know that then they subbed it out to him. So that’s some of the issues that we run into when managing the CLG grant funds. Sometimes there a little more headache than what they’re worth. So, anyway, that’s where it is. NEW BUSINESS
November 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 Mr. Hull: Sorry, there’s no new business and we have no further agenda items. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE KAUA'I HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE HANAPƜPƜ BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (12/20/2018) ADJOURNMENT Chair Guerber: Shall we move to adjourn? Ms. Arinaga: I move to adjourn. Mr. Chaffin: Second. Chair Guerber: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) We are adjourned. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Guerber adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of ____________ meeting.
west kaua॒icommunity planWorkshop #2Thursday, January 24th from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pmKekaha Neighborhood CenterHERITAGE RESOURCESWorkshop #1Wednesday, January 23rdfrom 5:00 pm to 7:00 pmHanapēpē LibraryFOCUSED WORKSHOPSwestkauaiplan.org@@plankauaiKauai CountyPlanningDepartment(808)241-4050#showyourWESTsideIf you need an ASL Interpreter, materials in an alternate format, or other auxiliary aid support, or an interpreter for a language other than English, please contact (808)241-4050 at least seven calendar days before the event.west kaua॒icommunity planFOCUSED WORKSHOPSwestkauaiplan.org@@plankauaiKauai CountyPlanningDepartment(808)241-4050#showyourWESTsideIf you need an ASL Interpreter, materials in an alternate format, or other auxiliary aid support, or an interpreter for a language other than English, please contact (808)241-4050 at least seven calendar days before the event. Workshop #2Thursday, January 24th from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pmKekaha Neighborhood CenterHERITAGE RESOURCESWorkshop #1Wednesday, January 23rdfrom 5:00 pm to 7:00 pmHanapēpē Library
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:32May 16, 2018bridge would allow hikers to pass safely over the stream regardless of weather and keep those returning from Kalalau Valley from becoming stranded at the river crossing (Figs.4-5). Importantly, it would also reduce demands placed on emergency responders, both those of Kaua‘i County and State Parks, who also provide services to other parts of the island. Rescues and evacuations in this remote location are particularly difficult and costly because they are only accessible by foot trail, helicopter if conditions permit, and boat when the ocean is sufficiently calm.The total project area, that which will be directly affected by construction of the bridge and a new spur trail, is roughly 0.16 acres (Fig. 29). The project staging areas have yet to be determined, but four areas near the bridge site are considered potentially appropriate. For the purposes of this review, the area of potential effect includes these four possible staging areas plus locations directly affected by construction. This would be a total of 0.54 acres. State Parks is requesting a determination of “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments” for this project and concurrence to proceed if the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) agrees that the proposed mitigation precautions are sufficient to avoid altering historic properties within the vicinity of the project area and staging areas. State Parks archaeologists believe that an archaeological inventory survey for this project is not needed as sufficient information exists on the location and significance of archaeological features in the area based on archeological work conducted since 1979 (Hawaii Administrative Rules, §13-275-5(b)(4)). An archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted of HanakƗSƯµDL9DOOH\in 1979 and a follow-up site inventory and assessment carried out in 1981 (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981). In 2010, an inventory survey of the historic Kalalau Trail was completed which includes atrail segment located immediately downslope of a project element (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010). Recent projects conducted in or near potential project staging areas were monitored in 2016 in accordance with an approved archaeological monitoring plan(Carpenter 2015).In addition to previous work, State Parks archaeologists participated in selecting the bridge placement and design to insure that project elements would not disturb archaeological features. A subsequent field inspection confirmed that this remains true with the final construction plans. This inspection also verified that subsurface cultural deposits and features are highly unlikely given the composition of boulders, soils, and basalt outcrops lying beneath the proposed bridge abutments (Figs. 17-18, 21). The composition of natural deposits beneath the abutments was also confirmed by soil borings drilled at the abutment sites.Note that the project area lies within the expansive Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-02-3200) which was listed in the Hawaii and National Register of Historic Places in 1984 (Yent 1984). An archeological complex (SIHP #50-30-02-7023) contributing to the significance of this district encompasses three areas that may be used for project staging (Figs. 25-26, 29). This use will not diminish the integrity of this already heavily disturbed complex nor will any of the remaining archaeological surface HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:33May 16, 2018features in the complex be altered. The proposed bridge will, however, have a visual effect on the general setting of the valley which contains multiple archaeological complexes and is culturally important. Design of the bridge, including its scale, use of materials, and color selections, was specifically developed to minimize this unavoidable visual effect (Fig. 4). Also limiting visibility of the bridge is the valley’s dense vegetation. It shields the view of the bridge from most parts of the valley and confines itseffects primarily to the immediate area of the bridge, nearby trail segments, portions of the stream, and portions of the beach. The project is located within the Special Management Area (SMA) and the State Conservation District (Resource Subzone). It may therefore be subject to additional review under §6E-42, HRS, when the County of Kaua‘i Planning Department considers the State Parks SMA permit application for the project and when the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands reviews the project’s Site Plan Approval application. This submittal is intended to provide information for these reviews as well. Project DescriptionThe proposed bridge project is composed of three primarily elements: the truss-style EULGJHWKDWZLOOVSDQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP FRQFUHWHDEXWPHQWVLQVWDOOHGRQWKHVORSHVWReither side of the stream to support the bridge frame; and a new spur trail providing access from the existing Kalalau Trail to the bridge abutment on WKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD side of the river. Only construction related activities for the abutments and spur trail involve excavation and significant ground disturbance. The bridge would be located approximately 300 feet inland from the beach.The 81.67’ long and 5.8’ wide truss bridge will be constructed of an aluminum frame covered with a dark brown powder coating to help the bridge blend with the surrounding vegetation and terrain (Figs. 4 and 7). A brown plastic wood composite will be used for the bridge’s 4-foot wide pedestrian deckwhich also supports a brown picket hand rail running along both sides of the deck (Figs. 4 and 9). Truss-style bridges are generally composed of triangular-shaped connected units which give bridge superstructures the load-bearing capacity needed to support heavy loads over relatively lengthy spans while also being constructed of comparatively little material (Tetra Tech 2016:7). Aluminum was selected for this project because its light weight allows the truss bridge to span the stream without any intermediate piers in the stream bed (Tetra Tech 2016:9). Aluminum is well suited to this remote coastal location because it is durable and has low corrosion properties which reduce maintenance costs. When completed, it will stand approximately 14 feet, 6 inches above the current stream bottom which is above projected flood levels(Fig. 9). The bridge will be pre-fabricated off-site in three segments and then flown to the site by helicopter where it will be bolted together in place.The two reinforced concrete abutments will be installed into the slopes adjacent to the stream. The abutment sites were selected because they are at comparable elevations and the distance between them allows for installation of a level bridge with a short span which is at least 4 feet above predicted maximum flood heights (Figs. 14 and 19). The
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:34May 16, 2018advantage of the selected locations is that they minimizes the need to construct larger or taller abutments to achieve the required bridge heights, levels, and support. On the western (Kalalau) side of the stream, the abutment will be located adjacent to the Kalalau Trail and constructed into the slope to a depth of 8 feet (Figs. 9 and 15). The maximum width of the abutment is 6.5 feet. A four-foot wide and five-foot long unpavedpath will provide level access from the main Kalalau Trail to the bridge (Figs. 7 and 9). 2QWKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD VLGHRIWKHVWUHDPWKHDEXWPHQWZLOOEHSODFHRYHUDQGLQWHJUDWHGinto a large existing outcrop (Figs. 9, 20 and 21). This abutment will reach a depth of 9.5 feet and be 5.7 feet wide at the widest. For added stability, MAI type micropiles will be drilled through the footings of both abutments and into the soils, boulders, and bedrock beneath the abutments to minimum depths of 20 feet (Figs. 9 and 12). This type of micropile is well suited to highly variable substrates composed of soil and boulders such as those found in the project area (Tetra Tech 2016: 10). Framed concrete washdowns, measuring 10 by 20 feet, will be temporarily installed near the abutments to contain all water used to wash tools and equipment during construction. All excess concrete and residue in the washdowns will be remove from the site after water in the washdowns evaporates.The QHZVSXUWUDLORQWKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD VLGHRIWKHstream is needed to provide relatively level access from the existing Kalalau Trail to the bridge deck. The boulder outcrop on which the abutment rests is12 to 13 feet above the existing Kalalau Trail at the base of the slope (Fig. 9). The four-foot wide spur trail needs to follow the slope contour for about 50 feet to join the Kalalau Trail at a comparable elevation (Figs. 7, 21, 23 and 24). Notes on the project plans emphasize that the spur trail alignment depicted on project plans is only approximate (Fig. 7). The trail’s exact location will be determined after vegetation is cleared and project engineers can best assess the slope and then design a detailed alignment that best fits these conditions.Also uncertain is placement of a retaining wall needed to create the level trail bed on the steep and uneven slope. The plan presents two alternatives. In one, the anticipated design, the trail bed will be primarily cut into the slope and the retaining wall would be constructed along the upslope side of the trail to prevent slope wash and slippage from covering the trail (Figs. 7 and 8). The three-foot tall retaining wall would be constructed of tightly fit stacked stones with suitable soil used as mortar (Fig. 8). Lodge pole headers,six inches in diameter, would define and stabilize the downslope edge of the trail. The alternative design places the retaining wall on the downslope side of the trail where it would primarily support fill used to level the trail bed.This wall would also be constructed of tightly fit stacked stones with soil mortar.Site preparation work for the bridge abutments and spur tail include grubbing and clearing these areas of vegetation and rocks (Fig. 6). Clearing will not extend more than two feet from the abutment and trail foot prints and, if needed, all excess soil and rock generated by clearing and subsequent construction will remain in the valley at a designated location. This would include fragments of boulders and outcrops that need to be broken up during this process. Mature hala trees within the cleared area will be HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:35May 16, 2018preserved when possible. To contain soil erosion during clearing and construction, composite filter socks will be installed along the slope below the areas to be altered (Figs.6 and 8).One or more staging areas will be needed during the project to store and organize construction supplies, materials, and equipment, most of which will be brought in by helicopter. Construction related debris, will also be kept in staging areas before being taken out of the valley. The construction notes state that staging areas will be determined during pre-construction meetings between the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) project engineer and contractor because the amount of material being staged at any given time will depend on how the selected contractor decides to schedule the work.Four staging areas have been identified as being potentially suitable because of their proximity to the project area, existing trails, designated helicopter landing zone, park support facilities (e.g. composting toilets and shelter), and former camping areas (Fig. 29). These areas have also been heavily disturbed and can be used without affecting know historic properties. Areas of Potential Effect:The project’s “area of potential effect” is presented in two parts. The first and primary area is that directly affected by construction activities needed to install the bridge and create the new spur trail connecting the bridge to the existing Kalalau Trail (Fig. 29).This also encompasses adjacent areas that will be grubbed and cleared of vegetation prior to construction and where erosion containment filter socks and concrete washdowns will be placed. Combined, these project elements cover an area of approximately 0.16 acres.The secondary “area of potential effect” covers the four potential locations to be used for support activities such as staging construction materials and supplies, consolidating rubbish before removal, depositing excess soil or rocks, and, if needed, crew overnight camping. All are located on the westeUQ .DODODX VLGHRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDPand collectively cover 0.38 acres (Fig. 29). The final determination on which areas to use will not be made until the DLNR project engineer meets with the contractor on site prior to construction. A State Parks Archaeologist will be at this meeting to insure that no archeological surface features are within selected staging areas and that they have been disturbed by past use. One or more of these areas may be used concurrently for different purposes.The first of these four areas is the recently created helicopter landing zone for +DQDNƗSƯµDLthat will likely be used when helicopters drop off construction materials and equipment and pickup accumulated rubbish and debris (Figs. 29, 30, 35 and 36). The cleared periphery of the landing zone appears to provide sufficient space and shade to stage materials and equipment, particularly when first unloaded from the helicopter. This use can occur without hindering use of the zone for emergency rescues. The old landing zone is an alternative as it remains anopen space along the main trail and would only require clearing of tall grass which covers the site (Figs. 29, 30 and 37). The third possible location previously served as a general camping area and is near the composting
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:36May 16, 2018toilets (Figs. 29, 30 and 33). It is also along the main trail, has been heavily disturbed by decades of use, is protected by shade and is close to the project area. This location would be convenient for construction crews to camp if proposed by the contractor. The fourth location is a level area makai of the bridge’s west bank abutment and adjacent to the current Kalalau trail stream crossing (Figs. 29 and 32). The broad open area is used by most park users to access the beach after having crossed the stream. As with the other proposed staging sites, the area has been heavily used for decades. Not included in these areas of potential effect is the main trail leading from the stream FURVVLQJRQWKHZHVWEDQNWRWKHEDFNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\DQGWR.DODODX(Fig. 29). This trail will be used by crews carrying materials and supplies from staging areas to the bridge site, but this use will not exceed or increase its current usage. The trail is a major thoroughfare used continually by hikers and State Parks staff and is well defined. Another area not included is the beach (Figs. 1 and 31). The bridge’s three pre-fabricated segments will be brought to +DQDNƗSƯµDLand lowered into place by helicopter. A contingency option discussed was staging the three segments on the beach prior to lowering them in place. This option may not be feasible as the sand beach disappears or is diminished during fall and winter storms and can be covered by high tides. These unstable conditions exclude the probability of there being intact cultural deposits or burials in beach sands.Previous Archaeology and BackgroundSystematic archaeological work has been conducted within the project’s “area of potential effect” four times between 1979 and 2016. The first was during a 1979 archaeological reconnaissance survey of the valleys along the NƗpali Coast and the second was a 1981 follow-up inventory and assessment of sites recorded during the 1979survey in +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\(Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981). The third is a 2010 archaeological inventory conducted of the first two miles of the historic Kalalau Trail which includes the stretch reaching WKHHDVWHUQEDQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP &DUSHQWHUand McEldowney 2010). The fourth project involved archaeological monitoring for installation of a new composting toilet and rain shelter and clearing of the new helicopter landing zone (Carpenter 2015November and December). Two studies conducted prior to 1979 established, in general terms, the presence of UHPQDQWDJULFXOWXUDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOIHDWXUHVLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\. Wendell Bennett prepared the first overview of archaeology on Kaua‘i which included fieldwork conducted in 1928 and 1929 (Bennett 1931). His overviewEULHIO\PHQWLRQV+DQDNƗSƯµDLValley as having “…the usual taro and house markings together with some paving near the seashore of indefinite nature and extent.” (Bennett 1931: 138). These were collectively identified as Site 157. The “usual markings” presumably refers to the more detailed evidence he describes as “extensive agricultural work and a fairly extensive population in the five largest valley” of the NƗpali Coast (Bennett 1931: 138). These five valleys were Kalalau, Honopnj, Awa‘awapuhi, Nu‘alolo, and Miloli‘i. This suggests that KHSDVVHGWKURXJK+DQDNƗSƯµDLEULHIO\DQGVSHQWPRUHWLPHexamining the other names valleys. HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:37May 16, 2018The second study was E.S. Craighill Handy’s ethnographic study of Hawaiian plant cultivation undertaken to “present a credible picture of old horticulture in Hawaii”(Handy 1940: 1). His work included 18 months of field work conducted during 1934 and $W+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\KH“explored” the valley a mile inland from the coast. He describes small terraces with stone facings utilizing “all irrigable land for a distance of more than a mile inland” starting from a “few hundred yards inland on the southwest side of Hanakapiai Stream” (Handy 1940: 60). On the northeastern side of the stream, he found “low, relatively level areas similarly utilized” (Handy 1940: 60). He presumed that terraces extended further up the valley from where he was able to explore. The valley was primarily in use as cattle pasturage at the time. Archaeological Reconnaissance of NƗpali Coast State ParkThe 1979 archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted to provide information for a management plan being developed for 1Ɨpali Coast State Park (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 9). This large area was established as a State park unit in 1962 but continued to be managed by the Division of Forestry until 1979. The scope of the seven-week survey included determining the extent of cultural resources in the most heavily used parts of the park (e.g., along trails, campgrounds, coastal areas, etc.), assessing the impact of current uses on cultural resources, and identifying the most vulnerable areas for subsequent protection or mitigation. A week was spent surveying and evaluating +DQDNƗSƯµDLAs with all of the major valleys in the park, the dominant archaeological structures found in +DQDNƗSƯµDLwere the remains of extensive stone and earthen terrace complexes typical of those created for irrigated kalo cultivation. A total of 14 complexes were identified in +DQDNƗSƯµDLDQGDOOZHUHlargely defined by the relatively flat benches formed along the narrow valley floor by the meandering stream (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 27) (Fig. 26). Several possible habitation sites where found nearer the coast and within the irrigated complexes, but these were not sufficient to define a clear settlement pattern in the valley.The terrace complex located closest to the beach, Site No. 50-30-02-7023 (i.e., HKP-3 in the original report), is adjacent to the proposed bridge site and several possible staging areas are situated within the complex (Figs. 25 to 29). The site is described as consisting of a series of terraces that were probably used for irrigated kalo cultivation and as being “in extremely poor condition due to intensive use as a campground” (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 52-53). The terrace facings were vague with a few exceptions. This contrasts with the much better defined and intact terrace systems found inland. A very well-faced terrace (5 m wide, 8 m long, stone facing 1.25 m high) located at the base of the talus slope and near the State Parks tool shed was described as a possible habitation site (Figs. 25, 27 and 29). Other features within the complex included two small enclosures at the edge of the stream bank, both of which encompass large boulders surrounded by stacked cobble and boulder walls, and a large stacked rock wall that bisects the stream bench (22 m long, 0.30 to 1.25 m high) (Figs. 25 and 27).The major trail inland crosses the wallthrough a wide and well-established opening.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:38May 16, 2018Four other sites were identified makai of the terrace complex. One is a paved area located near the edge of the steep embankment formed between talus slope and the water-worn boulder beach below (Site No. -7042, HKP-4) (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 53). The site’s flat boulder paving is 4 by 2 m with a 0.50-meter high retaining wall. This possible house site was considered to be in fair condition although being used as a campsite at the time of the survey. The three other sites were platforms with primarily dirt floors and stone retaining walls (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 52 and 53). All were located at the back of boulder beach near the steep drop in the talus slope (Figs: 25, 26 and 28). One platform, Site -7042 or HKP-2, appeared to be recently constructed because the slope behind the platform was cut away, bamboo poles were placed in two corners, and hala logs supported the wall facings. It measured 5 by 5 m with a 50 cm high, two course boulder faced walls. Another Platform, Site -7021 (HKP-1), was located at the upper edge of the boulder beach and in poor condition due to use by campers and high waves. The rectangular platform measured 6 by 3.5 m defined by 0.50-cm high facing on the makaiside of the platform and a 75-cm facing on the mauka side. Alignments along the east and west were level with the boulder beach. The third platform, Site -7025 or HKP-5, is the only one located on the eastern side of the stream. The square, 4 by 4 m, platform is delineated by boulder alignments. It had also been heavily disturbed by campers and wave action. The remnants of all four of these sites can be avoided during the project.Archaeological Monitoring, Mapping, and Testing of Sites in +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\In 1981, State Parks Archaeologists spent five days in the +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\checking the status and condition of sites identified in 1979, particularly those being most effected by public use (Yent 1981). They also mapped, with a transit, archaeological sites and park facilities in the most highly impacted area to provide baseline information for park planning and resource management. This included tested subsurface deposits in four sties identified as being in this high impact area (Yent 1981). The testing would help determine whether additional archaeological work was need to document and manage these sites. This work, the monitoring of archaeological sites, was recommended in both the 1979 survey report and the subsequent Environmental Impact Statement.As a result of the inspection, they concluded that most of the agricultural terracecomplexes along the main trails leading into the valley were not significantly disturbed because most were obscured by dense vegetation which discourage users from leaving the trails. Their efforts then focused on five sites they believed were most endangered by public use. These were the terrace complex (Site -7023), the three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025), and the paved area (Site -7024) which are all located near or within the proposed bridge project areas (Figs. 25 and 26). All five sites and park facilities at the time (i.e., designated campgrounds, maintenance tool shed, rain shelter, and pit toilet) were mapped by transit and compiled on single map (Figs. 27 and 28). The three platforms and the paved area were tested by auger coring to determine if subsurface cultural deposits were present which could indicate the function or potential age of the features. HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:39May 16, 2018The terrace complex as whole was found to be in poor condition given the continuing use of the area by hikers and campers. Despite this, the prominent features mapped and described in 1979 were still intact with the exception of some indistinct terrace alignments which could not be relocated (compare Figs. 25 and 27-28). The new map and updated descriptions were considered adequate mitigation in that they provided asufficient basis for monitoring site conditions over time. Two exceptions were the stone wall which dissects the level bench and the two small round enclosures near the stream embankment (Fig. 27). The study recommended letting the two the small round enclosures become overgrown with ki and hala to discourage campers from throwing trash in them and installing signs adjacent to the stone wall to ask campers not to remove stones when creating campfires. The area is no longer used as designated campground. Coring and further examination of the three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025) and paved area (Site -7024) suggested that all were created relatively recently, primarily to create leveled camp sites. No non-modern cultural deposits or materials were found in any of the core samples nor were there any other indications of them being anything but recent. Brief descriptions of the coring results are as follows:Site -7021: This site is primarily a cleared dirt area located within the boulder beach at the interface of the beach boulders and soil-boulder slope immediately inland of the beach (Yent 1981: 2). The leveled, silty loam soil of the platform proved to be a shallow layer over beach boulders. An exposed section showed the feature’s retaining wall being underlain by “clayey loam high in basalt rock and iron” (Yent 1981: 2). Site -7022: The core sample extracted from Site -7022 reached a depth of 42 cm before hitting rock (Yent 1981: 7). Two layers were identified; an upper silty loam layer (0-6cm) and a lower clayey loam (6-42 cm). The site is located at the base of the steep embankment cut in the bench inland of the beach.Site -7024: This site is located on the stream bench above the beach and is immediately adjacent to the steep embankment dropping to the beach. It was described as being poorly defined and actively used for camping (Yent 1981: 7 and 9). The core reached a depth of 64 cm with three layers being identified. The upper layer was composed of a silty loam (0-5 cm) and the second was a clayey loam high in iron staining (5-55cm). Decomposing basalt was found within the layer at 35 cm before the surface. Clay soils and decomposing basalt formed the last layer (55-64 cm).Site -7025: Located east RI+DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream, the site sitson a sand and boulder rise inland of the boulder beach. The upper layer was a silty loam with coralline sand (0-2cm). The second was a darker silty loam with less coralline sand and rounded basalt pebbles (2-12 cm). A rubber shoe fragmentwas also found in the second layer. The third lay was composed of clay with some decomposing basalt (Yent 1981: 9).
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:310May 16, 2018Historic Kalalau Trail (State Site #50-30-02-4021)In 2009, State Parks archaeologist Alan Carpenter conducted an inventory survey of the first two miles of the 11-mile long Kalalau Trail. Constructed in the 1860s, the trail provided overland access for those living in the then-populated valleys along the coast (Carpenter and McEldowney, 2010: 6-11). The trail is considered a historic property and was determined significant under multiple criteria. The first two-miles surveyed covered the stretch from trail head at HƗµena State Park to the east bank of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream. The inventory was prompted by a 2007 legislative State Grant-in-Aid that provided a non-profit group funding to restore and repair this section of the trail. Actions needed to repair and restore the trail could, if approached inappropriately, affect the overall integrity and character the trail, much of which remains despite recurrent modificationsand ongoing heavy use by park users. The inventory report was approved by SHPD as were the proposed mitigation measures which were judged to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.The survey scope included inspecting the existing trail alignment and approximately 3 meter (10 feet) to either side of the trail centerline. It focused on identifying, describing, and mapping those trail segments with preserved stonework elements and describing the general characteristics of trail sections not modified by stonework. In all, 31 remnants with stonework elements were identified along the two-mile stretch or what amounts to 9% of the linear project area. Identified elements included stone paving, stacked stone retaining walls; and stone aligned trail edges (Figs. 22-24). The remaining 91% of the trail was either never modified with constructed stonework or previously existing stonework was damaged beyond recognition or destroyed by erosion. Trail beds created along ridge contours were primarily formed by slope cuts and subsequently hardened by use. Based on the best preserved segments, the average trail width appears to be 5.5 feetwhich is consistent with early photographs of the trail. No historic properties were found in the corridor other than the trail itself and its component features.The relative age of the various trail segments could not be determined definitely for lack of specific evidence, including when segments were initially built or significantlymodified over the trail’s 150-year history. Strong similarities among the more intact and stable sections, however, suggest that they provide a long-standing portrait of the trail’sgeneral character and route and reinforce the trail’s historic integrity. Some accounts suggest that the initial 1860s trail was widened and reinforced in the 1900s, including work done by Civilian Conservation Corp crews in the 1930s. After 1960, emergency repairs by State Parks crews contributed to the trial’s ongoing alteration and modification.One of the recorded stone paved trail segments, that designated Remnant EE, lies directly downslope of the propose spur trail that will provide access to the bridge abutment on the eastern side of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream (Figs. 7 and 22-24) (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 84-85). The new trail alignment runs along the slope between 6 to 10 feet above this 33 feet (10.1 m) long, 5.6 feet (1.7 m) wide paved trail segment. The historic segment is thus located within the project area of potential effect. This steep trail segment HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:311May 16, 2018leading to the stream crossing is paved with boulders and cobbles embedded in clay. This was the only trail remnant recorded that appeared constructed with the paved segment intentionally sloped towards the outer or downslope edge of trail to shed water. Archaeological Monitoring of Park Facilities at +DQDNƗSƯ‘aiIn 2015, an archaeological monitoring plan was prepared for construction of a new rain shelter, installation of two new composting toilet units, and creation of a new helicopter landing zone. All are within the heavily used area west of +DQDNƗpƯ‘ai Stream and inland of the proposed bridge (Figs: 29 and 30) (Carpenter December 2015). As all proposed improvements were located within the boundaries of Site -2073, it was determined that the project could affect this historic property (Carpenter November 2015: 13-14). The potential adverse effects identified were the visual effects of the new structures; the possibility of known archaeological surface features being disturbed by construction related actions; the potential for previously unrecorded surface features being exposed when the new helicopter landing zone was cleared of vegetation; and possible subsurface cultural deposits being disturbed when postholes and foundations for the new shelter and composting toilet units were excavated. Most potential effects were addressed during project planning and design. Visual effects were mitigated by keeping the size and footprint of new structures at a minimum and painting the structures a dark brown to blend with the setting. All facilities were locatedin previously disturbed areas and where archeological surface features could be avoided. This was confirmed by previous archaeological studies of Site -7023 and field inspectionsconducted by State Parks archaeologists specifically for this project (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981, and Carpenter 2015 November). The new rain shelter was installed in the exact location of the previous shelter which was removed in the 1990s. The new composting toilet units augment an existing one and were placed adjacent to it. Approximately half the helicopter landing zone was previously used as designated camping sites up until the year 2000. The potential effects of project ground disturbance on subsurface cultural deposits or materials would be mitigated through archeological monitoring as set out in a monitoring plan.In addition to standard procedures required under HAR Chapter 13-279, the archeological monitoring plan committed to two major actions. First all ground disturbing actions required during construction would be monitored by a State Parks archaeologist. This included excavation of six post holes needed to support the rain shelter (each 30 cm diameter, 65 cm deep) and a single pit to contain two holding tanks for the new composting toilets (2 m by 1 m, 65 cm deep). Second, an archaeologist would reexamine the new helicopter landing zone after vegetation clearing incase previously unrecorded surface features were exposed. Any new features would be mapped, described and assessed. If needed, mitigation measures would be proposed.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:312May 16, 2018Archaeological monitoring of the required project elements took place on February 22 and 23, 2016.1A total of 12 postholes were excavated and monitored; six for the new rain shelter and six for the new composting toilet structure.2All post holes were excavated to depths of approximately 90 cm (3’) depending on the slope. At both project sites, the soilwas predominately a dark reddish-brown sandy clay soil mixed with variably sized pebbles and cobbles. Decomposing basalt rock (saprolitic rock) was encountered in some postholes at depths of approximately 35 cm. There was no evidence in any of the excavated postholes that these soil deposits were significantly disturbed other than near the surface. These relatively small samples did confirm that information on past uses of the site complex is present in subsurface deposits although the amount of cultural material encountered was low and the deposits were not clearly stratified.At the rain shelter site, most artifacts recovered were historic-period items such as iron nails, a metal rivet for jeans, a small fishing weight, one 30-caliber shotgun shell, and scattered small pieces of metal. All were recovered from three postholes on the north,northeast, and northwest sides of the rain shelter footprint (i.e., towards beach and stream). Objects reflecting native Hawaiian use, two pieces of volcanic glass and a polished basalt flake, were also found in a posthole on the northeastern side. On the opposite side, a piece of mammal bone was exposed at 15 cm below surface and a piece of coconut shell at 25 cm below surface. A small charcoal sample was taken from an eastern (mauka) posthole. Flecks of charcoal were found scatter throughout all postholes. No artifacts or modern materials were found in the six postholes excavated for the composting toilet structure. Charcoal lenses were encountered in two postholes, one on the northeast side of the structure’s footprint and the other on the northwest side. On the northeast side, the lenses was near the base of the posthole at 55 to 81 cm below surface. In the eastern side (mauka-stream side), the lenses was exposed on the edge of the posthole wall at 45 cm below surface and was 10 cm thick and 20 cm wide. The new helicopter landing zone was inspected by a State Parks archaeologist after it was cleared of vegetation and no previously unrecorded surface features were exposed by the clearing. Project Cultural AnalysisIn 2016 a cultural analysis was prepared as part of the bridge project’s environmentalassessment process (NeSmith, et. al 2016). The analysis was based on community outreach and scoping meetingsheld in April and July of 2015 respectively and a review RIWUDGLWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK+DQDNƗSƯµDi as well as the valley’s history. Issues raised during outreach efforts primarily focused on concerns that the bridge would change the character of the valley, that enhanced safety would increase already heavy use of the trail, and that the public safety concerns the bridge is meant to remedy would be better 1This summary was provided by State Parks archaeologist Victoria Wichman who monitored the project. The monitoring report is in preparation. 2Original plans to excavate a pit for the two toilet units were changed. Instead the two units were cover by an elevated, above-ground structure supported by six posts. The six excavated postholes were monitored.HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:313May 16, 2018addressed through management initiatives (e.g., increased enforcement, user education, staffing increases, controlling park visitor numbers, use of technology to monitor stream flow and predict flash flood incidents, etc.).The discussion of traditions associated with HanDNƗSƯµDi was drawn from Hawaiian language sources which can identify wahi pana or celebrated places significant because of their ties to legends, traditional events, myths, mele, or chants. In an 1868 Hawaiian language manuscript, three accounts tell of young Menehune who create structures and objects of stone which then become part of the +DQDNƗSƯµDi landscape. In one account, they create an ahua pohaku (heap of stone) encompassing a large stone somewhere in the valley’s interior and, in another, large fish pond walls are built on a kind of reef at +DQDNƗSƯµDiDQG3ǀKDNXDR(NeSmith et. al. 2016: 12-13). The reef walls were said to bedestroyed by high waves and, by 1868, only a few individual rocks remained. Their work also included a canoe carved of stone which was carried to the top of a steep ridge EHWZHHQWKHYDOOH\VRI+DQDNƗSƯµDiDQG3ǀKDNXDR'XHWRHURVLRQthe canoe eventuallyfell RQWKH+DQDNƗSƯµDi side of the ridge and broke into three or four pieces (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 14-15). An 1892 article in a Hawaiian language newspaper tells of a climbing competition between the gods Kanaloa and Kamapua‘aVWDUWLQJDW+ƗµHQD(NeSmith et. al. 2016: 15-16). After winning, Kamapua‘a descends through the many banana patches in Kokuapu‘u, a side valley in HaQDNƗSƯµDi, and eats a banana. He then decrees that all banana patches in the area would never bear fruit again. This explained why bananas in this area no longer bear fruit.The cultural analysis also examines sayings and epithets used when poetically referring to +DQDNƗSƯµDi. The wind of +DQDNƗSƯµDi was named Peke and the term o‘opu peke was used when UHIHUULQJWRWKHSHRSOHRI+DQDNƗSƯµDi (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 18-19). The o‘opu peke (a freshwater goby) LQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLwere famous for being “plump and shorter in length than those elsewhere” (Pukui 1983: 164 and 276). The report suggests that the fame o‘opu peke may underscore the valley’s connection with Menehune who were fond of eating o‘opu (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 19).None of the places associated with the four traditions are within the project area. The closest would be the fishpond walls said to be built on the reef or beach of +DQDNƗSƯµDLby Menehune, but remnants of these walls were all but gone by 1868. Subsequent exposure to storm waves would make them difficult to recognize today. The other accounts describe places inland in the valley.7KHOHQJWKRI+DQDNƗSƯµDi Stream could be viewed as a significant feature given the fame of its o‘opu peke. Regardless of where the o‘opu peke were most common or frequently caught along the stream, their life cycle requires that they pass beneath the proposed bridge span on their way upstream from off-shore waters. Construction of the bridge was designed to avoid any short or long term disturbance of the stream.The overview of the valley’s history presented in the report is essentially similar that presented in previous studies with some additional details. After the Mahele in 1848,
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:314May 16, 2018+DQDNƗSƯµDi became government lands as did most of the NƗpail valleys and lands. No individual Land Commission Awards were issues to any +DQDNƗSƯµDLUHVLGHQWVQRUwere any government land grants offered for sale. The number of permnant residents presumably diminished during the second half of the 1800s as it did elsewhere along the coast.+DQDNƗSƯµDLDQGRWKHUYDOOH\V, however, must have been sufficiently populated and seen as productive to justify construction of the Kalalau Trail in the 1860s. Any permnant VHWWOHPHQWVLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLwere likely abandoned by or before 1919, the year Kalalau Valley became uninhabited (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 26). The Hawaiian Kingdom issued a 30-year lease for +DQDNƗSƯµDLto D. W. Pua in 1883 who then transferred it to W.W.H Deverill in 1891. Sometime in the late 1800s, a coffee plantation was established in +DQDNƗSƯµDLabout half a mile inland. In 1920, the Territory of Hawaii issued a 260-acre, 15-year pasture lease to W.H. Rice Sr. (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 21). When cattle grazing proved unproductive, the territorial government decided to LQFRUSRUDWHG+DQDNƗSƯµDLLQWRthe Na Pali-Kona Forest Reserve in 1938 (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 19). This brought anend to commercial cattle grazing in the valley and, in 1962+DQDNƗSƯµDLbecame part of anewly established State Park unit which continued to be managed by the Division of Forestry until 1979.Other than the Kalalau Trail, none of the archaeological sites found in or near the project area could be identified as specifically reflecting one of these historic uses although all would have altered the landscape in some way. Clearly use of area near the proposed bridge was altered by recreational uses, first under the management of the Division of Forestry and then State Parks, diminished the integrity of Site -7023.Significance AssessmentsOf the six archaeological sites identified within or near the project area, two are considered significant under multiple criteria. Site -7023, the +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai agricultural complex located closest to the ocean, contributes to the overall significance of the Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-02-3200) which was listed in the Hawaii and National Register of Historic Places in 1984 (Yent 1984: Description, page 6 andSignificance page 8). Site -7023 was also considered significant under multiple criteria when assessed prior to installation of the new rain shelter, composting toilet units, and new helicopter land zone (Carpenter November 2015:13). The historic Kalalau Trail (Site-4021) was, as a whole, found to be significant under multiple criteria in 2010 (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 86-87). The three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025) and paved area (Site -7024) identified in the 1979 survey, and later tested in 1981, were viewed as recent constructions and therefore not considered historic properties (i.e., not over 50 years old). Na Pali Coast Archaeological District encompasses multiple agricultural complexes andother features recorded in the coast’s 7 major valleys (+DQDNƗSƯ‘ai, Hanakoa, Kalalau, Honopnj, Awa‘awapuhi, Nu‘alolo µƖina, and Miloli‘i); in a series of small gulches between Hanakoa and Kalalau Valley (Pohakuao Ahupua‘a), and on the coastal flats adjacent to Nu‘alolo µƖina (Nu‘alolo Kai). The National Register nomination was based on the 1979 survey results and includes all the agricultural complexes identified in theHRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:315May 16, 2018survey, including Site -7035 at +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai. The significance statement in the nomination emphasizes the value of this extensive and relatively complete archaeological record for the information it contains on changing social and cultural interactions over time and adaptations to the varying topography and environments found along this coast. Under Hawaii Administrative Rules, the district would thus be significant under Criteria “a” (associated with events contributing to the broad patters of history), Criterion “c”(embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction), andCriterion “d” (has or is likely to yield information important for research on prehistory or history) (HAR, §13-275-6). Overall, the districthas retained sufficient integrity to convey this significance. The integrity of Site -7023 has been greatly diminished by decades of use, particularly when compared to inland complexes that are significantly more intact, itat least retains some potential to yield information important to research on the prehistory and history of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai, particularly as it is located closest to the shore and the historic-period trail. In the 2015 determination letter submitted to SHPD for installation of the rain shelter, composting toilet units, and helicopter land zone improvements, Site -7023 was found to be significant under Criteria “a” and “d” (Carpenter November 2015:13). The entire historic Kalalau Trail was argued to be significant under Criteria “a”, “c” and “d” and to have retained sufficient integrity to convey this significance (HAR, §13-275-6) (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 86-87). It is associated with and reflects developments occurring in local agriculture and commerce in the Hawaiian Kingdom between the 1850s and 1890s (Criterion “a”); it embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of trail construction during the Hawaiian Kingdom period and thus serves as a good example of these characteristics (Criterion “c”); and it is likely to yield information on stonemasonry techniques used during this period for the trail and road construction of (Criterion “d”). The trail segment lying downslope of the proposed spur trail leading to the eastern bridge abutment, “Remnant EE”, contributes to the significance of the trail as a whole as it is relatively intact and is the only stone-paved trail segment constructed to intentionally shed water by being sloped toward the outer edge of the trial.Although not mentioned in the Na Pali Coast Archaeological District nomination form, the trail should be considered a contributing property to the district. One of the district’s areas of significance is listed as “Historic-Non-Aboriginal” and one of the periods of significance includes that between 1750 and 1900 (https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/). Both apply to the trail.Determination of Effect:A determination of “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments” is being proposed for the project as a whole because some project elements are within or sufficiently close to significant historic properties. Some project elements are highly unlikely to affect either identified or unknown historic resources while others are within the proximity of cultural
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:316May 16, 2018features and require precautionary measures. These project elements and their potential effects are addressed as follows:Construction of Bridge and Concrete Abutments: It is highly unlikely that construction of the two reinforced concrete bridge abutments will directly affect any archaeological resources. Field inspections conducted by State Parks archaeologists confirmed that there are no surface features at the selected abutment locations. On the western (Kalalau) side of the stream, the abutment footprint is five feet from the current route of the Kalalau Trail and will be linked to the trail by an unpaved foot path which will not permanently alter the character of the adjacent trail (Figs. 7, 9 and 15). This portion of the Kalalau Trail has not been modified by any historic stone work. Any construction related disturbance of the trail, such as moving supplies and equipment to the project locations, will be temporary and not exceed that occurring routinely by the high volume of hikers. On the eastern (HƗµHna) side,the abutment is situated primarily on a large outcrop (Figs. 20 and 21). There are no signs that the outcrop was previously modified nor were there any cavities or crevices visible which could contain cultural or historic-period materials. Theabutment footprint is 12’ to 13’ upslope of the stream crossing used by hikers afterleaving the Kalalau Trail (Figs. 13 and 19). The stream bank at this crossing is repeatedly washed by flood waters. The probability of subsurface cultural deposits or features being encountered is equally unlikely at both abutment locations. On the western embankment, excavation for the 6.5’ wide abutment will reach a depth of 8’ and, on the eastern side, the abutment (5.4’ wide, 9.5’ deep) will largely be integrated with the large outcrop with some excavation occurring adjacent to the outcrop (Fig. 9). Micropiles will be drilled through the abutment footings to a minimum depth of 20 feet. Soil borings and other soil samples were taken by the project geotechnical team at both abutment locations for structural engineering purposes. The geotechnical team concluded that the matrix of large boulders, core stones, outcrops, and soils forming these embankments was primarily the result of weathering in place and not alluvial deposition (Masa Fujioka and Associates 2016: 18-20).No cultural materials or deposits, including charcoal or ash lenses, were uncovered in any of these borings and samples (Masa Fujioka and Associates 2016: 20-23). A State Parks archaeologist was on site to observe the testing and examine samples.State Parks archaeologists also examined the exposed boulder, soil, and outcrop embankments underlying the two proposed abutment locations and saw no evidence of cultural materials or deposits in the slope faces (Figs. 17, 18, 20, and 21). One factor lowering the probability of subsurface cultural deposits is that the abutment sites are not along one of the relatively level stream benches where most of the identified archaeological features are located and subsurface deposits are more likely (e.g., Site -7023). The probability of subsurface cultural deposits being disturbed by construction of the eastern abutment is particularly low as the entire abutment is primarily integrated with the large outcrop (Figs. 9 and 21).HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:317May 16, 2018Spur Trail from Kalalau Trail to Bridge Abutment (HƗµena Side): As with the concrete bridge abutments, construction of the four-foot wide, 50-foot long spur trail from the Kalalau Trail to the eastern abutment will not directly affect any archaeological surface features in the project footprint and it is highly unlikely to encounter subsurface cultural deposits or features in the soil, boulder and outcrop matrix of the slope. The absence of surface features along the slope was verified during site inspections. Construction of the spur trail and its retaining wall could, however, indirectly damage the stone-paved section of the Kalalau Trail, Remnant EE, which lies between 6’ and 10’ directly downslope of the spur tail (Figs. 5, 7, 23 and 24). Slope cuts needed to create a level trail bed and construct the trail’s retaining wall will require dislodging rocks and possibly boulders which could, without precautions, fall and damage the paved trail and require repairs. Disrupting theslope’s soil and boulder matrix could also result in slope slippage. Less extreme potential impacts, such as moderate amounts of slope debris and cleared vegetationfalling on the paved trail segment, would not have a significant effect because neither the debris nor cleanup would damage this heavily used paved trail segment. Use of the paved trail segment to bring supplies and equipment to the project site and to remove excess soil or rock will not exceed routine wear on the trail and is unlikely to damage the paving. The join between the spur trail and the Kalalau Trail is upslope of stone-paved section and will match the existing edge of the Kalalau Trail bed. Use of the spur trail and bridge will route general foot-traffic away from the stone-paved section and therefore reduce on-going wear of the trail and could possibly help maintain its integrity.Staging Areas: Although final selection of project staging areas will be decided with the contractor, the most feasible areas near the proposed bridge appear to be within the boundaries of Site -7023 (Figs. 25-29). Much of the area is relatively level, portions are open and have been heavily disturbed by years of heavy use, and support facilities such as the helicopter landing zone, composting toilets, and rain shed are all located within the site complex. Archaeological surface features within the complex include rock walls, terraces, and other features and recent monitoring established that subsurface cultural deposits, mostly ash lenses, and objects are present within portions of the complex. Routine staging operations have the potential to disrupt the complex’s archaeological surface features, particularly the storing of supplies and equipment and moving them to and from the work sites. Preparation of staging areas, such as clearing or leveling areas, could affect surface or subsurface features if such efforts included moving stones or displacing soil. Several areas have been proposed as potential staging areas prior to coordination with the contractor and are included in the defined project area of potential effect for the purposes of this review (Fig. 29). Visual Effects: The proposed bridge, concrete abutments, and the spur trail will all have some long-term visual effects on the overall setting of the archaeological complexes of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Valley and more directly on the historic Kalalau Trail. Much of the bridge’s broader potential impact will be masked by the valley’s thick
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:318May 16, 2018vegetation. View of the bridge and spur trail from the Kalalau Trail will alter the setting of the trail as it descends into the valley from the east. Mitigation and Precautionary MeasuresBased on an assessment of available information, full time archaeological monitoring of the project does not appear warranted given the very low probability of unknownarchaeological surface or subsurface cultural features or deposits being discovered in the project foot print during construction. Sufficient information also exists to avoid archaeological features recorded within Site -7023 where most of the staging activities are likely to take place and can be confined to heavily disturbed areas within the complex. The following precautionary measures will, however, be taken to ensure that known archaeological features are protected, that potential subsurface deposits in Site-7023 are not disturbed, and that the required regulatory contingencies are in place should unanticipated discoveries be made:Long-Term Visual Effect: The projects most dominant visual effect will be the aluminum frame bridge. To reduce its visibility, project specification call for the frame to be covered with a dark brown powder coating to blend with the surrounding vegetation and terrain and the bridge’s wood composite pedestrian deck and picket hand rails will also be brown (Figs. 4 and 9). The choice of analuminum, light-weight, truss-style bridge, with its open frame and hand rails, also reduces the visual mass of the structure and its intrusive appearance. The concrete abutments are almost entirely below ground and what little is visible will become stained by the surrounding soil (Fig. 9). The spur trail was also designed to blend with the slope in that it will be constructed of local materials with the exception of the lodge pole header (Fig. 8). The trail bed will be compacted soil and soil mortar, instead of concrete, will be used to stabilize the stacked-stone retaining wall.Pre-Construction Crew Briefing: Prior to project mobilization and commencement, aState Parks archaeologist will brief the construction crew, including the crew supervisor, on site about the general cultural significance of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai and its archaeological sites; will show crews which archaeological sites near project locations and staging areas must be avoided and protected; and describe which kinds of previously unidentified archaeological features could, although unlikely, be encountered. Also included would be the statutory and regulatory steps needed should archaeological features or iwi kupuna(human remains) be discovered.Particularly emphasized will be their responsibility to stop construction should an inadvertent discovery occur and that State Parks archaeologist or designated staff have the authority to stop work in the vicinity of the find and determine where construction work can continue. Selection of Staging Locations and Other Project Support Activities: State Park archaeologist will meet with the DLNR project engineer and contractor representatives to determine the location of project staging areas to insure that these meet the needs of the project and are in areas where no archaeological features are HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:319May 16, 2018present (Fig. 29 and 30). Decisions will also be made on whether any nearby features or those along routes to project locations should be marked for their projection. Agreements will also be reached on what ground alteration is allowed to accommodate staging equipment and materials. Excavation or leveling of soil surfaces will not be allowed. The locations of other project support activities will also be determined at this time. For example, locations for the two 10’ x 20’ concrete washdown frames have not been determined yet other than they need to be near the concrete abutments sites (Fig. 6, 7 and 16). Also addressed will be where and how excess soil and rocks will be disposed within +DQDNƗSƯµDLProtection Measures for Kalalau Trail Remnant EE: The State Parks archaeologist, DLNR Engineer, and contractor will decide what measures will be taken to protect the stone-paved trail section located directly downslope of the spur trail and its retaining wall (Figs. 7 and 24). It is premature to determine the most effective and feasible measures at this time because project plans call for the final design of the spur trail and retaining wall to be determined once vegetation is cleared and the slope can be examined in more detail. The planned placement of compost filter socks downslope of the spur tail alignment will protect the stone-paved trail from soil runoff and moderately sized rocks (Fig. 6). Tarps or plywood could be used to cover the stone-paved trail when upslope actions could risk triggering slope instabilities. If the stone-paved segment is damaged, repairs will follow the work guidelines prepared for the 2010 project to repair the first two miles of the Kalalau Trail (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 88-91). These were prepared to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Project Inspections: State Parks archaeologist or a designated representative (i.e., on-island State Parks staff) will periodically inspect the project site and staging areasto confirm that steps taken to avoid and protect archaeological sites are being followed and that there are no indications of inadvertent finds. On-island State Parks staff will also be present at the construction crew briefing so that they are aware of these commitments and concerns. A State Parks archaeologist will periodically inspect the project for the following purposes: view excavationsrelated to installation of the concrete bridge abutments to confirm the presence or absence of subsurface cultural deposits or materials; verify that selected staging locations are being used as agreed upon and that archaeological features near these locations are not altered; examine construction of the spur trail and effectiveness of measures taken to protect the stone-paved remnant of the Kalalau Trail; and conduct an inspection to verify that no archaeological features were damaged and, if needed, determine what actions should be taken to remedy identified concerns. A minimum of four inspections will occur over the anticipated 10-week project.Inadvertent Discoveries: Should any unanticipated archaeological features or human remains (iwi kupuna) be discovered during the project, all requirements of HARChapter 13-280 (Rules Governing General Procedures During a Project Covered by the Historic Preservation Review Process); HRS §6E-43 (Prehistoric and historic burial sites) and §43.6 (Inadvertent discovery of burial sites); HAR
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:320May 16, 2018Chapter 13-300 (Rules of Practice and Procedures Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains); and HAR §13-300-40 (Inadvertent discovery of human remains)will be followed. These procedures will include, but are not necessarily limited to, following:Contact SHPD as soon as possible if cultural materials, objects, or surface features are discovered and mobilize State Parks archaeologists to fully document the discovery and its context and, if appropriate, explore the possibility that the discovery is more than an isolated find and part of a larger recorded or unrecorded feature. State Parks archaeologists will also prepare preliminary significance evaluations and propose mitigation measures. If SHPD concurs, State Parks archaeologists will execute the agreed upon measures.If iwi kupuna are discovered, all work will stop in the immediate area and the Kauai Burial Sites Staff and Archaeology Branch Chief will be notified as soon as possible. A temporary buffer will be established to protect the area and, if exposed to the sun, the iwi kupuna will be covered temporarily. The process established under HAR Chapter 13-300 (Rules of Practice and Procedures Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains) will be followed as will any directives from SHPD staff.Any artifacts or cultural materials discovered and removed from the project area will be held in the State Parks storage facility on O‘ahu until adequate storage is available on Kaua‘i.If significant discoveries occur, a report will be prepared and submitted to SHPD for review and approval. The report would fulfill the requirements of monitoring reports established under HAR §13-279-4.HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:321May 16, 2018References CitedCarpenter, Alan. Bennett, Wendell C. “Archaeology of Kauai,” Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, No. 80, 1931. §6E-8, HRS, Compliance – Request for “No Historic Properties Affected” Determination DQG&RQFXUUHQFHWR3URFHHGIRU:LOGHUQHVV)DFLOLWLHV,QVWDOODWLRQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLNƗpali Coast State Wilderness Park. Memorandum, Curt Cottrell to Alan Downer, November 4, 2015.Carpenter, Alan. Archeological0RQLWRULQJ3ODQIRU3DUN)DFLOLWLHVDW+DQDNƗSƯµDLNƗpali Coast State Wilderness Park. Prepared for the Division of State Parks, December 2015.Carpenter, Alan and Holly McEldowney. Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Portion of the Kalalau Trail. Prepared for the Division of State Parks, 2010.Handy, E.S. Craighill. “The Hawaiian Planter, Volume I: His Plants, Methods and Areas of Cultivation”,Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, No. 161, 1940.Masa Fujioka & Associates. Geotechnical Report–ReviVLRQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK%ULGJH,PSURYHPHQW3URMHFW1ƗSDOL&RDVW6WDWH:LOGHUQHVs Park, Hanalei District, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, Prepared for GeoTek Hawaii, Inc., April 11, 2016.NeSmith, Keao, Trisha Kehaulani Watson, Rosanna Thurman, and Bee Thao.+DQDNƗSƯµDi: Cultural Analysis, Prepared for Tetra Tech Inc. by Keao NeSmith and Honua Consulting, Sept. 2016Tetra Tech. Bridge Type Selection Report, HanakƗpƯµai Bridge Improvement Project.Prepared for Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division,July 2016.Tetra Tech. )LQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW +DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP%ULGJH3URMHFW1ƗSDOL&RDVW6WDWH:LOGHUQHVV3DUN.DXDµL+DZDLL.Prepared for Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks,2017.Tomonari-Tuggle, Myra Jean.An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey: Na Pali Coast State Park, Island of Kaua‘i. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1989.Pukui, Mary Kawena (Compiler and Translator). “µƿlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetic Sayings”.Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication, No. 71, 1983.Yent, Martha. Archaeological Monitoring, Mapping and Testing of Sites in Hanakapi‘ai Valley, Na Pali Coast, Kauai. Memorandum to Bill Gorst, Division of State Parks, August 13, 1981.Yent, Martha. Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-01-3200). National Register of Historic Places Inventory–Nomination Form, September 14, 1984 (Hawaii Register) and November 16, 1984 (National Register).
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, PropoVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:322May 16, 2018ATTACHMENTFigures and Illustrations, HanaNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP%ULGJH3URMHFW )LJ *HQHUDO/RFDWLRQRI3URSRVHG%ULGJHLQ5HODWLRQWR+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK6WUHDPDQG9DOOH\6ORSHV 9LHZ)DFLQJSouth). Switchbacks of Kalalau Trail are visible on ridge face to the right. More gradual trail segments are visible to the left. (2013 Google Image)HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:321May 16, 2018 )LJ 'HWDLORI86*67RSRJUDSKLF0DS6KRZLQJ/RFDWLRQRI3URMHFWDW+DQDNƗSƯµDL+ƗµHQD6WDWHPark, and Kalalau Trail (Haena, HI Quad, USGS, 1983). Kalalau Trail is highlighted in blue. Scale of figure and original quad is 1:24,000.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:322May 16, 2018 )LJ ([WUDFWRI70.0DS6KRZLQJ/RFDWLRQRI3URMHFWDW+DQDNƗSƯµDL+ƗµHQD6WDWH3DUNDQG.DODODX9DOOH\70. -9-01: 001(por.). Extracted from Real Estate Atlas, State of Hawaii, 32ndEdition, 1998. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:323May 16, 2018 Fig. 4: ApproxLPDWH5HQGHULQJRI3URSRVHG%ULGJH&URVVLQJ+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKHDVW +LNHUVXVLQJFXUUHQW.DODODXTrail to left and right of photograph. Rendering is from Final Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2017: Figure 2).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:324May 16, 2018 Fig. 5: Diagram Showing Approximate Location of Proposed Bridge and New Spur Trail to Bridge Abutment. Diagram from Final Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2017, Figure 1).HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:325May 16, 2018 Fig. 6: Erosion Control, Demolition, Vegetation Clearing, and Grubbing Plans (Extract, Drawing C-1). Site preparation includes clearing vegetation; grading new spur trail alignment from current tail to bridge; clearing and leveling bridge abutment sites; and installing erosion control socks. Crosshatched rectangle at bottom left is concrete washdown to prevent runoff to stream.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:326May 16, 2018 Fig. 7: Site, Grading, and Horizontal Control Plans for Proposed Bridge, New Spur Trail, and Limits of Grading (Extract, Drawing C-2). Exact alignment, width, and grade of spur trail segment east of stream will be finalized after clearing and grubbing. Rock retaining wall along spur trail may be installed downslope of spur depending on post-clearing assessment. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:327May 16, 2018 Fig. 8: Details of New Spur Trail, Retaining Wall, Erosion Control Compost Filter Sock, and Concrete Washdown (Extract, Drawing C-3).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:328May 16, 2018 Fig. 9: Bridge Plan and Details (Extract, Drawing S-2). HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:329May 16, 2018 Fig. 10: Typical Section of Proposed Bridge (Extract, Drawing S-2).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:330May 16, 2018 Fig. 11: Detail and Location Plans for Bridge Abutment Anchor Bolts (Extract, Drawing S-3). HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:331May 16, 2018Fig. 12: Details on Micropiling to Secure Abutment Foundations (Extract, Drawing S-4).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:332May 16, 2018 Fig. 13: Drone Image of Current Trail and Stream Crossing with Approximate Bridge Alignment Superimposed in Yellow (View Oriented North-South). Note the steep slope of trail deVFHQGLQJWRVWUHDPEHGRQOHIWLQFOXGLQJSRUWLRQZLWKVWRQHSDYLQJ +ƗµHQDRUHDVWHUQside of stream). Bridge alignment depicted is not to scale. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:333May 16, 2018)LJ /RFDWLRQRI%ULGJH$EXWPHQWRQ:HVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKZHVW The yellow square indicates location of project area, not dimensions of the proposed abutment.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:334May 16, 2018)LJ /RFDWLRQRI3URSRVHG%ULGJH$EXWPHQWDQG([LVWLQJ.DODODX7UDLO:HVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDLStream (View Facing Northeast). Kalalau Trail is in foreground. Path to abutment runs between large boulder on right and smaller boulder on left. Fig. 16: Level Area Potentially Suitable for 20’ by 10’ Concrete Washdown Located Upslope of West Bank Abutment (View Facing Northeast). Area was inspected for archaeological surface features.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:335May 16, 2018Fig. 17: Exposed Slope Face Directly below West Bank Bridge Abutment (View Facing the Northwest). Illustrates mix of clay soil and boulder deposits underlying proposed abutment and low probability of cultural subsurface deposits. Fig. 18: Detail of Lower Slope Face beneath West Bank Bridge Abutment and Directly above the Stream (View Facing the Northwest). Illustrates the high percentage of large stones and boulders in slope deposits.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:336May 16, 2018 Fig. 19: Location of Bridge Abutment on EDVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDLStream (View Facing Northeast). Yellow square indicates location of project area, not dimensions of the proposed abutment.Fig. 20: State Parks Staff Stands on Basalt Outcrop Forming Foundation of Proposed East Bank Bridge Abutment (View Facing East).HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:337May 16, 2018 Fig. 21: Basalt Outcrops Forming Slope Face below East Bank Bridge Abutment Location (View Facing East). Use of outcrop makes probability of subsurface cultural deposits highly unlikely. No cavities or overhangs were seen in this or adjacent outcrops. Fig. 22: Stone-Paved Remnant of Historic Kalalau Trail Located Downslope of Proposed Trail Spur (View Facing Southeast). Spur would run along slope contour above the trail remnant from abutment to main trail
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:338May 16, 2018Fig. 23: Approximate Location of Junction between Proposed Spur Trail to Bridge and Main Kalalau Trail (View Facing Southeast). Spur trail would exit main trail to the left of large trail boulder in foreground of photograph and follow the contour to the bridge. The beginning of the paved trail remnant is visible at the far end of the photograph on the right. Fig. 24: Historic Stone-Paved Remnant (EE), Kalalau Trail (View Facing North). New spur trail to bridge runs along slope above trail to the right.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:339May 16, 2018 Fig. 25: Map of Archaeological Site Identified during 1979 Reconnaissance Survey (Extracted from Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: Fig. 13). Site HP-4 was subsequently given SIHP No. 50-30-01-7024and the complex of sites, HP-3, the number -7023.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:340May 16, 2018 Fig. 26: Distribution of ArchaeoloJLFDO6LWHVDQG6LWH&RPSOH[HV,GHQWLILHGLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLGXULQJ1979 Reconnaissance Survey (Adapted from Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: Fig. 4). Note map was amended to reflect SIHP numbers instead of the temporary field number given during the reconnaissance. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:341May 16, 2018 Fig. 27: Mauka (Inland) Portion of Map Depicting Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities in 1981.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:342May 16, 2018 Fig. 28: Makai (Seaward) Portion of Map Depicting Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities Prepared in 1981. Superimposed is the approximate location of the proposed bridge.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:343May 16, 2018 Fig. 29: Map of Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities Prepared in 1981. Superimposed are general locations of park features established since 1981, the project’s potential areas of effect, and the proposed bridge. Locations and dimensions are approximate.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:344May 16, 2018 Fig. 30: Locations of the Current and Old Helicopter Landing Zones, New Shelter, Composting Toilets, and Proposed Bridge Superimposed on Drone Image (View towards West). The two landing zones and area located adjacent (towards stream) to the composting toilets may be used as project staging areas. Distances among features and their sizes may reflect some distortion in the drone image.HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:345May 16, 2018Fig. 31:+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK 9LHZ)DFLQJ1RUWKZHVW 7KHVDQG\SRUWLRQRIWKHEHDFKPLJKWEHXVHGDVa short-term staging area for pre-fabricated bridge segments prior to installation if sand is present. Winter storms and high waves move beach sand offshore and leave the beach with little or no sand. Fig. 32: Possible Temporary Staging Area for Project Materials and Equipment (View Facing Northwest). Flat area is located makai of the west bank project area (Fig. 29). This area is currently used by hikers as the major route from the trail to the beach.
HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:346May 16, 2018Fig. 33: Potential Temporary Staging Area for Project Materials and Equipment Located Near Composting Toilets (View Facing Southeast). Area is located mauka of west bank project area. It was once an official camp site and is heavily disturbed (Fig. 29). Fig. 34: Stone Wall Identified and Mapped as Part of Archaeological Complex in 1979 (Site -7023) 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKHDVW 7KHZDOOLVLQWHUVHFWHGE\PDLQWUDLOOHDGLQJXS+DQDNƗSƯµLD9DOOH\WRWKHpopular waterfall (See also Figs. 27 and 29). HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:347May 16, 2018Fig. 35: Helicopter Landing Zone Located Mauka of West Bank Project Area (View Facing Northeast). The landing zone is a potential staging area because it is sufficiently wide to accommodate both landings and the storing of materials and equipment along the zone’s periphery (Figs. 29 and 30). Fig. 36: Drone Image of Current Helicopter Landing Zone (View Facing Southwest). Cleared periphery of the landing zone is potentially suitable for staging project supplies and equipment.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:348May 16, 2018 Fig. 37: Old Helicopter Landing Zone Located Mauka of Recently Created Landing Zone (View Facing North). Grass could be cleared from old landing zone to create a staging area for project supplies and equipment (See Figs. 29 and 30).