Loading...
February 18, 2021 KHPRC Meeting Agenda Packet pdf final reduced COUNTY 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 Thursday, February 20, 2020, in the Mo’ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Victoria Wichman, Vice Chair Gerald Ida, James Guerber, Carolyn Larson (arrived 3:08 p.m.), Stephen Long, and Aubrey Summers. The following staff members were present: Planning Department: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa, Shanlee Jimenez, Marisa Valenciano and Alex Wong. Office of Boards and Commissions: Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Prior to the meeting being called to order, Administrative Assistant to the County Clerk Eddie Topenio administered the Oath of Office to history mayoral appointee Carolyn Larson, serving a 1st term ending 12/31/21. A. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:11 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa: Commissioner Guerber. Mr. Guerber: Here. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Commissioner Ida. Mr. Ida: Here. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Commissioner Larson. Ms. Larson: Here. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Commissioner Long. Mr. Long: Present. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Commissioner Summers. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 58 Ms. Summers: Here. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Chair Wichman. Chair Wichman: Here. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: All members present. You have a quorum. Chair Wichman: Quorum. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. C. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER Chair Wichman: And swore in our new commissioner… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Chair Wichman: Member. Welcome, Carolyn Larson. Ms. Larson: Thank you. D. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chair Wichman: And the agenda…we need a motion for the approval of the agenda. Mr. Guerber: I move we approve the agenda. Ms. Summers: I second that. Chair Wichman: Is there any discussion on the agenda. All right, may I have a move to approve? Ms. Summers: You did already. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Motion and second and just… Chair Wichman: A vote. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: A vote. Yes. Chair Wichman: Ayes. (Unanimous voice vote). Any Nays. (Hearing none). So moved. Motion carried 6:0. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 58 E. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 16, 2020 MINUTES Ms. Summers: Motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Guerber: I second. Chair Wichman: All in favor. (Unanimous voice vote). Any nays. (Hearing none). Okay motion passes. Motion carried 6:0. F. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: This is the agenda matter, where any member of the public can…is free to testify on any item on the agenda at this point. You can also choose to testify on the agenda item when that item, is called. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify at this time? Okay, seeing none. G. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: There are, none here. H. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: None. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division improvements to Collector Roads, Portions of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street, Federal- Aid Project STP 0700(085) TMK: (4)4-3-003:999, (4)4-4-005:999, (4)4-4-006:999, (4)4-5-008:999, (4)4-5-009:999, (4)4-5-010:999, & (4)4-5-015:003 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I believe we have the engineering division head, Michael Moule for presentation. Shall we disburse? Dim the lights. Chief Engineer Michael Moule: Yes. Good afternoon Chair and the Commission. Chair Wichman: Good afternoon. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 58 Mr. Moule: My name is Michael Moule Chief of Engineering. Set up projector for power point presentation. Mr. Moule: Okay. So first thing, I should say, is that it does say Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Umi Street. That’s the full project but we split (that) into two phases which means it’s only the Olohena Road. We went through (the Section) 106 process. So, with the full project and as far as APE (Area of Potential Effect), we’re going through (the) 106 process. I should say, the APE (was) approved by (and) concurred with by SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) (and) included the full project. Which included this section here, all of Olohena Road, from Kamalu Road down to Kahau Road which is just above Kapa‘a Middle School. And then we also have a gap here, its been paved recently. And then we had originally scoped this part Olohena Road, from here to here. Anyway from the roundabout in Kapa‘a down to Kukui Street and Kukui Street over the highway. Then also this piece of Umi Street. But these parts are not part of this current phase, (it) will be addressed in (a) future project. So, the action right now that we’re looking at is really just the portion, mostly rural portion of Olohena Road between Kahau Road and Kamaka Road. And I don’t know that I’ll go into a whole lot of detail on most of the project plans. (I want to) just let you know what we’re doing mainly. Maybe I should cover this and just describe it. Covered projector. Mr. Moule: Mainly what we’re doing is move and resurfacing and shoulder widening along the portions of the road where there’s room to widen shoulders without any significant earthwork. We’re not planning to do any cuts and fills and that sort of stuff. And… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We’re done with this portion? Mr. Moule: No, leave it. I am going to probably show something in a minute. I am just trying to get there. And there are two bridges in this segment. One of which is the Olohena Bridge number two which was replaced about 15 years ago and that’s after you turn off of…your coming up Olohena Road and you pass Kapa‘a Middle School, you make that left turn and kind of go down the hill and you come down, go across that bridge. (That) two lane bridge with peg shoulders. And there’s Olohena Bridge number one (which) is the bridge near the top of Kamalu Road. It’s the one lane bridge on Olohena Road. And that (is the) bridge we are planning to make some changes too. And so I was – unless you want to see the entire length of the project and kind of go through page by page…(also) then showing you what kind of shoulder widening we’re doing…I can do that. But, since that was relatively minor work of just shoulder widening within the existing grass shoulders (and) adding paved shoulders to the grass shoulders, I wasn’t going to walk through that because it’s a whole lot of sheets. But (as I said before) I can do that if you want to see it. But, I was really just going to move to the area of the one bridge because that is the one item that’s there, that’s more than just a little bit of earthwork and paving within existing grass shoulder areas. Does that sound reasonable? Okay. Delay…Open file on laptop computer for projector display. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 58 Mr. Moule: So this is the location of the one lane bridge, trying to zoom in…it’s really slow today. So the area sort of between the dash lines and this white color. Here is the existing pavement and the existing bridge is right here. It’s relatively small…kind of see these dash lines here. I’ll come a little closer, right there, existing structure. And the proposed – in this area we’re widening significantly because this is the one area of the road that’s not (inaudible). So, this area here, is the proposed widening and this is the proposed new structure on the bridge for replacement structure for the bridge. This is a – existing structure (which is) actually relatively short. It’s something like 17 feet long or something like that, it’s less than 20 because it’s not, it’s not a Federal aid bridge. In other words, less than 20 feet wide or long, I should say. The (inaudible) structure is a lot bigger than the old structure and this has not been identified as a registered historic structure although it is older than 50 years old. And our proposal is to replace the structure with a new structure, a wider structure. And I will say that if we find that it would have an effect from historic property by replacing this bridge, we would take this out of the project and just not touch it with this project given the time frame of the project. So, we would keep the one lane road in place if we find that’s the case through our work with you all and or with SHPD or any other people that we’re consulting with because we don’t have the time to go through the process of doing that. So, we might move this to a later phase and go through that process as part of a future effort. So our plan is to replace the bridge or not touch the structure at all at this point. Vice Chair Ida: How wide is this...over here? Mr. Moule: So… Vice Chair Ida: And what is this? Mr. Moule: So that little dash there to here, this thing you asked about, that’s a driveway to a private property that we’re actually trying to eliminate. We don’t think it’s – it wasn’t a permitted driveway. People have to get driveway permits from us to connect to our roads and it’s not permitted on this property. This parcel has several other – at least one other major driveway, which is the one they’re supposed to use. So we’re actually – possibly not going to be putting that in at all and just leaving that as unsurfaced area. But this is proposed as a paved driveway in this plan, but we’re looking to take that out. The width of the…it’s a good 10 plus feet wider, that widened area of the road, there is ten to twelve feet wider than (the) existing road. Vice Chair Ida: So is that going to be cut or filled. Mr. Moule: Well, that area, that whole area is relatively flat through there. There’s a big wide – from the existing pavement here out toward this. This is a – someone built their gravel driveway like I said here. It’s relatively flat, there’ll be fill actually, not cut. So, the new structure is proposed to be a couple feet higher than the existing structure, I believe at this end. And I can show you that sheet as well, it shows that these are the structure, later in the plan set. And so I can do that. But that’s…this area here would be some fill, it diminishes as you go this way with pavement on top. That’s pavement. And then here. If I recall correctly the most fill was at the east, the east end of the structure. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 58 Mr. Guerber: So, Michael, did I hear right, that you’re going to replace the single bridge that’s there now with this structure. Mr. Moule: That’s the proposal, it’s either replace it or to not touch the bridge at all. Mr. Guerber: And you’re going to leave it as one, as a single bridge for now. Mr. Moule: Well, our goal is to replace it with a two-lane bridge. Mr. Guerber: Yes. Mr. Moule: And, but if we find that the, that that there would be an effect on historic property by doing so we would defer that replacement to a future project and take it out of this project. Because we don’t have the time with this project to go through the full process of doing that given our timeframe with the funds for this project. So we’re – the main purpose of the overall project is to resurface the road, which is in pretty bad shape. And leaving this piece out while certainly some residences want to have (a) two-lane bridge here. Leaving this piece out doesn’t detract from the main purpose, which is paving and providing the improvement of the two lane bridge is certainly what we’d like to do. But we would defer that, if we needed to do that in order to go through a proper process and all the necessary consultation for – going through consultation now but all the details as far what we might need to change the design to do a two lane bridge. We would delay. Mr. Guerber: Is there any possible historic impact? Mr. Moule: Well, that’s why I am here, I guess. Mr. Guerber: Well, I don’t know. Mr. Moule: I mean, I think the bridge is certainly older than 50 years. It’s not a listed bridge but it’s older than 50 years and you know through this process and through our work with SHPD and other consulting parties we may find that people say there’s impact and we got to go through more steps. And if that’s the case then we’ll probably pull it out of the project. I just want to make that clear to you guys upfront because I don’t want, you know, bait and switch or something like that. I am just saying this is where we are given the project is. Ms. Larson: It’s a distinct change going from a single lane bridge on a road to a double lane bridge. Mr. Moule: Yes. Mr. Long: Do you have photographs of the existing bridge and details as well as rendering and drawing of the proposed two-lane bridge. Mr. Moule: Not sure if I have that all here. I have the drawings of the bridge. And then they’ll be a sort of an image of the existing bridge within that and I can pull that up here. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 58 Delay…Open file on laptop computer for projector display. Mr. Moule: So this is the archaeology inventory survey for this project. I wasn’t sure that I had them with me on this file but thank (inaudible) put them on there for me, so we do have it. So here’s some pictures of this (inaudible) structure. So (a) one lane bridge, small concrete parapets, (and) waterline on the side of the structure. See a bit of a…there’s still work head. Wall there. This is a drawing of the bridge, are there anymore? Here’s an upstream elevation. Sorry I guess I have the bridge numbers wrong, this is number two, I guess. So, the wing walls. I can slow down if you want. Ms. Summers: Are there any safety concerns with how its currently constructed. Mr. Moule: Absolutely. Ms. Summers: Well and that… Mr. Moule: Yes, we want to replace this bridge for that, safety and just usability reasons. Because this being in a curve, (the) one lane bridge…there’s no guardrails. All of that are things that we don’t like to have on roads that carry over 5,000 cars a day. Ms. Summers: And it has gained more popularity or that particular road, as people have moved… Mr. Moule: Yes, this is one of the two main accesses to Wailua Homesteads. You have Olohena Road and Ku’umoo Road and that’s pretty much it, to get up to the homesteads. Well Kuamoo Road is a busier way in because it’s closer to Līhu‘e. This is one of our busier roads on the east side. Probably is – I guess Kawaihau and Ka‘apuni might be as busy, but the y’re right up there as far as (the) county’s busiest roads in that area. Kuamoo Road is actually… Mr. Guerber: Kuamoo Road is a one-lane bridge on a curve. Mr. Moule: It’s a one-lane bridge on a curve on what’s otherwise a two-lane road that’s carrying about 5,000 cars per day. Mr. Guerber: Five thousand cars. Ms. Summers: And the proposal is to widen the road on each side of it to… Mr. Moule: Yes. Ms. Summers: Make that a safer approach. Mr. Moule: Yes, that’s right. So here’s again some more pictures of the structure. Ms. Summers: Do we know if the rock wall was built at the same time as the bridge or does it predate the bridge. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 58 Mr. Moule: We don’t have any plans for the structure. Talked to audience, away from microphone. Mr. Moule: So, we don’t know exactly when this one was built. That’s true for some of the bridges that we have and not others. This one (is) relatively small as I mentioned it’s not long enough to officially be a Federal aid bridge, a Federal aid route, not a Federal aid bridge. So it’s kind of confusing because we are using Federal funds for this (inaudible) which is why we’re going through Section 106. Again, more pictures. And I think that’s it for pictures. So, if I can show you now on the plan set sort of what’s proposed. So again, you can see the existing structure here that you saw on those pictures, the rock (inaudible) walls, the small structure here. Mr. Guerber: Are you going to build a new bridge above the old bridge? Mr. Moule: Yes. Mr. Guerber: So than the old bridge will still be there… Mr. Moule: So I think…I am not entirely sure how much the old structure would stay. I know we’re building it above the old bridge and I believe that the wing walls at least would stay. I think that the deck… Talked to audience, away from microphone. Mr. Moule: It wasn’t clear to me looking at the plans honestly. Just reading the plans and I wasn’t sure what the full plans was on that. Ms. Summers: Yes, it’s not showing that they’re being removed… Mr. Moule: No, it’s not… Ms. Summers: Its showing them as staying. Mr. Moule: Yes, so I believe that they are…they are staying in place. But part of the reason for that is just from a constructability point of view. We don’t have – we’re building and the drawings show this as well. But, the (inaudible) bridge is here and we’re putting a new bridge, half of it, above the left of, depending which way you look at the bridge. And we put traffic on that and then we’ll build the other half on top of the old structure is one of the reasons for that, is build and preserve. I think preserve the structure and also make it easier to construct while keeping traffic on the existing bridge. Ms. Summers: It appears, sorry, that you’re also putting a barricade on each side of the bridge that is much taller than what is existing right now… Mr. Moule: Yes… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 58 Ms. Summers: It’s like 18 inches. That looks to be 42 or something… Mr. Moule: Yes, so yes… Ms. Summers: So the safety aspects of it are… Mr. Moule: Yes, here you can see a longer section of the bridge. Ms. Summers: And then it’s showing the side step… Mr. Moule: Yes, sorry I just changed it. This is the elevation showing that, concrete barrier on either side (inaudible) section. There is the section you’re talking about with the, yes 42 inch concrete. (It’s a) pretty traditional concrete bridge rail and then they’ll be guardrails off the end of that for safety purposes. So that’s pretty much what we have proposed. I can go back to any of these images on the proposed structure or the pictures of the existing structure for your information. Mr. Long: Michael, they do appear be a couple of historical elements. The stone wing wall and even the poured concrete parapet. Will either, of those two elements, be carried into the new structure. Mr. Moule: Like I said a moment ago, I believe that the wing walls are not being removed as part of this project. But I would want to confirm that with our consultant if that is going to work. The parapets would need to be removed in order to put the new structure on. You would not be putting the new structure that much higher than the old structure. And the new parapets or railings would be a more official concrete barrier as opposed to the concrete parapets that are there today. Mr. Long: On the new structure that will be built, (will it be) on to the side and over the existing structure where the existing wing walls will not be touched. Will the new structure have wing walls in some way that can carry that rock element through? Mr. Moule: Oh, I don’t think so because of the way this is designed to span over the old structure. I don’t think there’s going to be wing walls on the new structure, because it’s well above the waterway. The waterways down with the old one. Ms. Summers: You can see the footings are buried in the grade… Mr. Moule: Right. Ms. Summers: Actually just comes up, but it looks like it goes to the existing wing walls, which appear to be staying. Mr. Moule: Right. That’s right and as I understand it, that’s correct. So, you can see here these are all the existing wing walls. Underneath the structure and no proposal to take those out February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 58 because they’ll still be there to carry the water through the channel at the road crossing. And I think that’s the reason why we don’t need new wing walls is because they’re standing in place. Mr. Long: Is this Kainahola Stream. Mr. Moule: This is not. This is Waiakea Stream, I guess. Mr. Long: Oh, okay. Mr. Moule: Waikaea. No, its Konohiki Stream, sorry, Konohiki Stream. Ms. Larson: So the new structure is built on post. Ms. Summers: Footings that are in the ground. You can, kind of see where they’re showing the grade. Mr. Moule: So these would be concrete footings… Ms. Larson: Where is the grade? Mr. Moule: So this is sort of the new road grade here, yes. And the existing grade is right there, see on the right side of the bridge. Ms. Larson: So the entire footing would be buried. Ms. Summers: Almost completely. Mr. Moule: Yes, this footing would be – and we would fill around this footing too, probably, actually. So yes, both of these abutments. And footings that the abutments sit on would be visible with the new structure. Ms. Larson: What happens to the – when there’s a lot of water at this place. What happens when it floods? Mr. Moule: You mean after this is built? You mean… Mr. Guerber: No. Mr. Moule: Currently. Ms. Larson: What happens now when it floods? Mr. Moule: I have not heard of any situations where this bridge has been over topped. The other old Olohena Bridge has been over topped. It was last year during the storm, two years ago (inaudible) the storm in April 2018. It did not took place at this structure but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I just didn’t hear about that happening. I will say that this new proposal was – February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 58 would leave the existing channel as is and then have more (inaudible) under the new structure for the overtopping effect (if it) did take place. But I did not, not aware that was (inaudible)… Ms. Larson: But you’re leaving the structure in there. Mr. Moule: Yes, we’re leaving the wing wall portion of the structure in… Ms. Larson: So, there’s no more room for water than the original… Mr. Moule: Well there is, because we’re not taking, I think we are taking the deck off, we’re just leaving the wing walls. If you look here, I think that these, the deck portion is coming off, but the wing walls are staying in place. Ms. Larson: So, the only thing that’s remaining is the wing walls, of the original bridge. Mr. Moule: Yes, that’s correct. You can kind of see the plan view of how that would work. These would stay in place, the wing walls and I guess would be the abutment (also). The wing walls and the abutment, I believe of the old bridge here would stay in place to retain the soil behind you as that one has. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Perhaps we can phase into more of a discussion phase. Unless there’s other… Mr. Moule: I can cover this and bring it back up if you want. So it’s not in your eyes at least. Mr. Long: Michael, are there any elements of the new structure that will be exposed visually that could have some lava/rock wall facing. Mr. Moule: I think it’s possible that the concrete barricade…there’s examples you’ve probably seen them on the north shore. (Like the) Lumaha‘i area where the state has put some of the walls with the lava facing. Fake lava rock facing. Yes, make an actual lava rock that you can pull from the structure point of view… Mr. Long: Right. Mr. Moule: But what they’ve done up there is a face that would be that way that’s something… Ms. Summers: I’ve driven on this bridge many times and never saw the lava rock before so I was really surprised when you showed this photo, because I had no idea that was there. You don’t see it as you’re driving across it, at all. Mr. Long: How about if you’re walking or riding a bike? Ms. Summers: I haven’t walked or ridden a bike across; I’ve driven across it many times. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 58 Mr. Moule: I biked across the bridge a few times (and) don’t recall looking at the bridge though, so I can’t say one way or the other. Going down (inaudible) fast (inaudible) the side of the road in front of you which is the way you want to go on that road because it’s so narrow with traffic. So, I haven’t rode up that road very much, maybe once or twice. Chair Wichman: Any more discussion. Ms. Summers: I want you to talk. Chair Wichman: Me? Ms. Summers: Gerald. Chair Wichman: Oh, Gerald, sorry. Ms. Summers: I want to hear what his take is. Vice Chair Ida: You know, this is kind of a general comment of things, but I can remember back in the day when I was on this commission before, in the ‘80’s. Now I realize from your presentation there’s been an archaeological survey done on this project. How come we don’t get to see this stuff? You know, in the old days we used to have archaeologist in here defending their findings and stuff in front of us and you’re concentration seems to be on structural things but that’s not all this commission deals with. I mean can you tell me who did the survey. When it was done and a summary of the findings. Were there sights found? Was there subsurface testing? You know… Mr. Moule: So, the survey was completed last year as part of this project. Let me go to the summary. So there was a field inspection done by… Talked to audience, away from microphone. Mr. Moule: So, Joel Bautista is our project manager and was out there last September with Robert Becking, Ph...Robert Reckart Phd and David Buckley the DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) SHPD archaeologist. Chair Wichman: May I excuse you for a minute. Could you please state your name and what your title is for the record. Thank you. Civil Engineer, Joel Bautista: Joel Bautista, Civil Engineer. Chair Wichman: Thank you. Mr. Moule: So maybe Joel, can you do a quick summary of what you guys did on that field. Mr. Bautista: Okay, so in September of 2019 we met with DLNR and I think it was Bob Breckman from ‘Aiea (inaudible) and we drove to the sight. And Bob and David (Buckley) they February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 58 kind of were discussing the work and they kind of agreed that because the work was going to be done already, paved already, that no subsurface testing be done over there. And we did identify that the bridge was historic. We talked about how it was that there was probably an earlier version of the bridge they weren’t sure though but then the bridge as it was not they weren’t sure when it was built but they were thinking anywhere from 1906 to 1912, something around there. Mr. Moule: So, specific summary from the summary of the study that states that the; “it retains its integrity, location, design setting, materials, and workmanship feeling and association to be valued as significant under Criterion D for the historical bridge has yielded relative to the development of transportation routes with respect to residential and agriculture land use on the island. This further argued that as this structure is a common example of concrete slab bridge without any ornate characteristics and thus not eligible under Criterion C. No further historic preservation work is needed to supplement the documentation that is presented in this study.” That was the summary, there’s more details in the actual report, of course but that… Chair Wichman: That’s from SHPD from David Buckley… Mr. Moule: I am sorry that… Chair Wichman: That’s from SHPD? Mr. Moule: That’s from the authors of the report that were… Chair Wichman: Oh, from Robert… Mr. Moule: Mr. Reckman. But the field it was done by… Chair Wichman: With the three, right… Mr. Moule: Three authors, Mr. Reckman, Mr. Barner and Ms. Goutay from ASA Affiliates. Chair Wichman: Yes. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So, did the study also accomplish, I mean surveying for archaeological deposits or important items throughout the project area. Mr. Moule: Yes. I think we should have provided (inaudible) so you could look at, I agree. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: But were there any items identified through the study. Mr. Bautista: No, so what was identified was that on the makai side, on the roadside that over there they wanted to have an archaeological monitoring plan, because they’re assuming that there could be some remains that could be unearthed… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: This is… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 58 Mr. Moule: That’s on the makai portion, the part we are not doing as part of this phase. That’s actually one of the reasons we’re not doing it because we felt the potential for discovering remains during that work and another challenge working in Kapa‘a Town. We decided let’s put this into two phases, we don’t really have enough money to do all at once anyway, so let’s put it out and handle the part that’s the most significant… Chair Wichman: Not sensitive. Mr. Moule: From their point of view and be sensitive and do that now and come back to the other piece later. Ms. Summers: So, did David Buckley give a synopsis or report or has SHPD come through with a thing or… Mr. Moule: So we are in the 106 process. We have their concurrence on the APE, but we still haven’t asked for their concurrence in the historic properties affected yet. This is part of the process before we – we are in the consultation process still and we get to that stage after this meeting. And after we finish our other consultation to ask them to concur with the no historic properties affected. Chair Wichman: Any other discussion. Stephen. Mr. Long: On the existing exposed wing wall the rock facing. Is it structural or facing? Mr. Moule: I don’t know for sure but based on my knowledge of similar structures I believe it is structural. But, that is the structure of those walls it’s the… Mr. Long: Right. Mr. Moule: The CRM type (inaudible). Mr. Long: But I feel that the rock facing, the structural rock wing wall are an historic element. And I feel that, that should be carried through into the new construction in a similar construction methodology which means that I understand that maybe the lava rocks aren’t as structural as the concrete, but I would prefer to see some kind of cut rock facing even if it’s not structural. And you have to do the concrete on the new wing walls as opposed to the you know the Disneyland concrete walls that are being done going out to Hā‘ena. So, I guess my feeling is that (as a) commissioner on this commission is that there is a historic element. The rock walls on the wing walls and that element should be carried through esthetically into (the) new construction (with) similar structure and not necessarily structural... Ms. Summers: I would argue because they’re stained… Mr. Long: What? February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 58 Ms. Summers: Well you’re putting that onto – so they’re wing walls right now. There are no new wing walls. If there were new wing walls, I could see replicating that. But you’re talking about replicating it on the barricade or where would you replicate it? Mr. Long: There’s a new concrete piers. Correct. Ms. Summers: Those are covered in dirt. Mr. Guerber: They’re totally buried. Mr. Long: They’re what. Mr. Moule: Yes. Ms. Summers: They’re buried. Mr. Moule: Concrete barricades on the side of the bridge. Mr. Long: Right, so it’s difficult for me to ascertain from the drawings that we were shown if there are any specific areas where the new construction is exposed and if it is I’d like to see the architectural elements carried out throughout the new construction. Ms. Summers: And I can see in the drawings that…well, we could go back to the drawings because it shows it pretty clearly that those post are buried. Mr. Long: So my question is, are there any of the new structure that’s going to be exposed visually. Mr. Moule: The portions of the new structure that will be visually exposed from the road would be the concrete barrier on the side. Which is replacing the concrete – the shorter end more vertically concrete parapets that were on the old bridge. I can show you the difference if you want to see the pictures, again. And then the…on the outside of the bridge you’d see the concrete barrier and you would see the concrete deck planks. So, it would be a deeper concrete section, probably. Let me see what that deck toll is here. Total of 42 and 62 inches. Ms. Larson: The guardrails that lead into the bridge… Mr. Moule: Yes, that will (be) metal guard leading onto… Ms. Summers: Which are there now. I saw in your photo. Ms. Larson: Which are not there now. Ms. Summers: I thought I saw some in the photo. Mr. Moule: There’s not… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 58 Ms. Larson: The guardrails does not complete the new bridge as I saw it. The guardrails come up to where… Mr. Moule: Yes. Ms. Larson: The concrete part of that bridge would be… Mr. Moule: That’s right. Ms. Larson: Visually those pieces are somewhat like the rock walls that are on the old bridge because you have the rock and then you have the concrete. Mr. Moule: Well they’re in a different – I guess the wing walls sort of – the purpose of the wing walls is to separate the water channel from the embankment that supports the structure. And therefore, located in different place than guardrails which are to separate the road from (inaudible) side of the road, like drop offs into the stream with trees and things like that. So, they’re not in the same spot but again the proposed was to leave the wing walls in place. And to get to your point I think that there’s no concrete elements in a similar placement as the existing wing walls. We could put a rock face or rock structure to the only thing – the concrete elements it’ll be there will be the actual super structure of the bridge will be visible, right the bridge deck itself and railings on top of that. The bridge abutments that support the bridge are going to be entirely, mostly, buried in soil… Mr. Long: Entirely or mostly. Mr. Moule: You might see… Mr. Long: I mean… Ms. Summers: The drawing showed a few inches. Mr. Long: I see that. I am just saying is there an opportunity to express the rock wall historic element on any of the new structure. And its either completely buried or mostly buried. If it’s mostly buried than there is an opportunity. You know the drawings better than I do. Ms. Summers: So you wouldn’t see it because of – well if you looked at that section you could see that it was about maybe six inches and that would be buried under the bridge decking. So you wouldn’t – if you put it there no one would see it unless they crawled under… Mr. Moule: Let me go back to that… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So just to maybe get towards…I believe the engineering division at this point is going through a Section 106 review. And so, at this point it sounds like it’s more of an information gathering (and) seeking input from you folks on what type of features might be incorporated with the project and specifically sounds like we’re honing in on the bridges or the bridge. This particular bridge, Olohena Bridge. And so, perhaps at this point, if you want to February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 58 make a motion for a recommendation and then we can move through. If there is a design feature that you folks may want to suggest that they incorporate into the design going forward or whether it’s come back with an archaeological survey so you folks can take another look at that and help you direct recommendation back to – on the project. So perhaps, that may be a way to move the discussion forward. It does sound like they’re still in the information gathering phase, it would be appropriate at this time to make those types of suggestions. Chair Wichman: Commissioners. Yes, Gerald. Vice Chair Ida: So, the County owns this bridge. Mr. Moule: Yes. Vice Chair Ida: Did the County build this bridge. Mr. Moule: It’s hard to say. We don’t have plans for it and we do have plans for the bridge in similar age that say County of Kaua‘i construction. I think that it’s likely this bridge was built by the County or was built by a sugar cane company or pineapple company and taken over by the County later. If I had to estimate, I’d say it’s more likely not the County built the bridge, but I think it’s also possible that a cane company built the bridge or similar company. It’s based on my knowledge and other structures that we have in plans. I’ve seen other structures that are similar. Vice Chair Ida: So, the construction of the new bridge will not affect the stone wing walls in any way. Mr. Moule: That is my understanding. Vice Chair Ida: Those walls, when I look at the photos (they are) pretty incredible. Chair Wichman: Yes, they are. Mr. Moule: Definitely. Vice Chair Ida: Looks to me like typical of plantation construction with all the cut rock but I would very much like to see that survey report. Ms. Summers: And clarification about whether the intentions is that those rock walls are maintained, not touched, not damaged, not moved. Chair Wichman: So, at this point if we can make…oh go ahead Carolyn. Ms. Larson: Isn’t taking the concrete… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Maybe speak in the mic, sorry. I know we’re getting away from our mics. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 58 Ms. Larson: Isn’t taking the concrete part, I am sorry I don’t know the terminology, but the top part that you drive on… Mr. Guerber: The deck. The deck. Ms. Larson: Isn’t taking that off going to destabilize those walls. Ms. Summers: Not necessarily. Ms. Larson: Not necessarily, but possibly. Mr. Guerber: Michael, it looked like there was a beam going across that’s going to stay. Mr. Moule: Let me show you. There’s the image of the elevation view of the down stream and the bridge and you can see the walls with the bridge spanning. You know I think, that these are gravity walls that would stand up on their own, without this beam tied together. I think that – it’s a little bit hard this is also the parapet that goes above the structure as well the old bridge. But, I think that that’s – I don’t think that taking them off would result in the walls just falling down, I think that they do just stand up on their own. And as you can see off the end of the structure the walls are standing on their own. In fact, if you look you can find an image showing a view. There’s more wall off the bridge at least in this corner than there is under the bridge. There’s a free standing ones, so I believe that the entire wall is…would free stand, sorry I guess the wall underneath is here, sorry I had that wrong. The wall is underneath here, the abutment portion of the wall… Ms. Summers: And how much would remain visible. Where is it? Is it widening on the right hand side or the left. Mr. Moule: Yes, the widening is on the, which way is up, I can’t tell. Yes, on the widening, on this side so these two wing walls would be more visible than the ones. These would be mostly covered by the new structure. But these would be more visible without going under the bridge to see them. I can go back to the sheet, find the sheet that shows that best. This is the old structure here, the bridge itself is this parallelogram. These are the wing walls. These two wing walls would be mostly covered by the new structure. These two wing walls would stay in place and be visible pretty similar to where they are now that they’ll be further down from the road structure, the road elevation than they are today because we’re raising the bridge (a) fair amount on top of the old. Ms. Summers: So, that does not look like its showing (that) the wing wall extends, that are shown… Mr. Moule: The wall in the other picture. Ms. Summers: Yes. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 58 Mr. Moule: Yes, that’s a good point. I don’t know if that’s just a drawing error on this part or not. This is from the plans. The other was from the inventory survey. This is from the archaeological inventory survey… Ms. Summers: Yes, they look pretty different. Mr. Moule: So, I don’t know if they didn’t finish this full wall in this image or what, but… Mr. Guerber: Can you go back to the elevation. Mr. Moule: Yes. The picture. Mr. Guerber: There. With the new bridge on top. Mr. Moule: Oh, you mean the design. Mr. Guerber: Right, now. Mr. Moule: Yes, right here. Upstream elevation, downstream. Down there, if I can get to it. There we go. This shows a longer wing wall I think than the last (inaudible). Mr. Guerber: It looks to me like the old bridge is still underneath it and (has) not been removed at all. Mr. Moule: Again, I am not clear on that. You know the design point of view. Mr. Bautista: No, because remember the final design of the bridge has not been completed. We just proof it for them. Mr. Moule: So yes, I don’t know for sure, it maybe – we don’t know for sure if it’s entirely over the top of the structure and the whole thing will stay there or if the deck and the parapets have to go… Mr. Guerber: Oh, I would recommend it stays there. Mr. Moule: The entire thing. Mr. Guerber: Yes. Chair Wichman: Yes, I would like to ask, are these wing walls considered like retaining walls like for erosion. I mean was that their initial purpose or it was not just to hold up the bridge, right. Mr. Guerber: No, it’s for the streambed weed out erosion. The stream goes down so it wouldn’t eat away the side of the bank. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 58 Chair Wichman: Yes, erosion. Mr. Moule: Yes, that’s right. It’s a dual purpose. Supports the abutment. Ms. Larson: There’s indications on the concrete the existing bridge that its had damage from flooding. Mr. Moule: You’re looking at the pictures. Ms. Larson: Yes. Mr. Guerber: Yes, the bottom edge is chipped. Mr. Moule: Here. Mr. Guerber: There. Ms. Larson: Yes. So evidently it floods. Mr. Moule: That could be damage from flooding or could just be spalling that occurs from the concrete being old. Ms. Larson: Okay. Mr. Moule: But, I wouldn’t be surprised if the water does get to this elevation at times. Although, I do know that Konohiki Stream is a much smaller drainage basin travel to it at this point than what’s often called Kainahola Stream that we actually, we’ve been actually called Waikaea Stream. For the other Olohena bridge number one, the project that was recently replaced that gets a lot more water because it catches water from way up higher in the Wailua Homestead Kapaia Homestead general area. This stream is sort of between the Waikaea Stream and Kalama Stream, which is a tributary like Makaha Stream so it’s catching a relatively small, small area so it doesn’t carry as much water at this point then the other stream does. Waikaea Stream does where it crosses Olohena Road a couple miles from here. Chair Whichman: Any more discussion. Ms. Larson: I also have a basic question do we have any sense of what the community feels about the one lane bridge. Is there, do people want it small so that traffic is slower. Do people want it widened so that traffic is faster? Is that any part of this discussion? Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I think that might be a separate process though, not necessarily through 106, but public outreach for the scope of the project. Mr. Moule: Yes, we will do some public outreach for this project on that, at this time. Just based on other projects we get a mixed bag with respect to whether they want bridges to be one lane or two lanes. There are certainly people on both sides. I suspect… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 58 Ms. Larson: I recommend that we… Mr. Moule: That we would see more support for two lanes in this location than otherwise but we will definitely have people saying leave it as one lane. There will be some people probably minority but some people will say that. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Can we cap that sorry and come back to a discussion. Chair Wichman: Any more discussion. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So again, I think at this point what the applicant maybe looking for you know, is any input from this body on any methods or features that you folks feel is important to carry through the project. Whether it’s – sounds like we’re talking about the bridge, so any features that should be carried through on the look of the bridge. Any other archaeological type of issues to take into account. And again, it sounds as if they’re in information gathering phase of the 106 process. Any input that you provide will be folded into the decisions that they have to incorporate in the project itself. Chair Wichman: Yes, Steve. Mr. Long: I believe I made my feelings really clear about the rock wall and exposed new structure and those feelings will also extend to the section profile of the parapet wall. If there was going to be a new parapet wall that that same section profile be carried throughout. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Perhaps yes, that could be incorporate as a motion. Mr. Guerber: So do we craft a motion with recommendations. Chair Wichman: We can. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Mr. Guerber: Would you like to do that? I will do it. I move that we accept this project. We recommend this project with the following recommendations that we keep the walls, the rock walls (and) that you attempt to have the same profile of the sides that were there before… Mr. Moule: The parapets. Mr. Guerber: The parapets. Anything else to add. Mr. Moule: As we said before I don’t really think there would be much of the abutment exposed but if there is much of it exposed if you want to recommend that any exposed abutment of the bridge include a similar rock look I think that would be okay. I think (inaudible) to not be much exposed when done, but there might be a little bit at the top. That design hasn’t been done yet. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 58 Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Would you like to incorporate that sentiment in your motion. Mr. Guerber: Yes, we got to craft the words. So we should add to it that if there’s an opportunity… Ms. Larson: Can I but in? Mr. Guerber: Sure. Ms. Larson: I think it’s more than just…to me carrying on the character of this historic bridge is a little broader than the details that we’re talking about. Carrying the design element of just the parapet rock work into something comparable. The character of the bridge is much more than that because it’s a one lane bridge because it’s minimalistic and going from what we see today to what we see in the proposal particularly with a long stretch of guardrail leading up to a much larger bridge plus the fact that it’s a two lane bridge, so it’ll be faster. I think there’s questions there on what the community wants to see in that neighborhood. I don’t pretend to know how bad the need is to have that be a faster road (and) to have it be a double lane bridge. I don’t pretend to know what the community feels overall if there is one, if they swing one way or the other. Do we want…do we care about this bridge? Do we care that its one lane or do we hate it or love it? But in terms of keeping the historic character of the bridge I think there’s other things that could be done in a new bridge that reflect that character and as I said carrying the stone work into some other element like part of the guardrails instead of just having the guardrails. I see you cringe. Ms. Summers: Yes, sorry, because when I think of the north shore and like what Stephen was saying that kind of Disney Land stone, that’s what I am picturing that would get carried through and to me then its not good, because then you have this absolutely beautiful cut stone work that’s already there. So sometimes when you try to bring that into the new it kind of… Ms. Larson: I understand God is in the details. Yes, so it’s important that we see the phases, and see the details and we have answers to the questions of how much is exposed what could we actually do here. But I think in terms of a motion to move us forward if our motion could be little bit more broad to say that the character of that bridge be more evident in the design of the new bridge. Mr. Guerber: So that would be our recommendation. Ms. Summers: And you mean design as in the details or do you mean design as in the size (or) shape. I guess I am trying to understand what… Ms. Larson: I mean both things, right now. Given I don’t have any other information (on) the size of the bridge. Ms. Summers: Okay, well we have drawings so we can look at that. We can scale them. We can get a pretty good sense of it is, I think. So then the question is are you…is it the historic sense of the size that you’re trying to emulate. I guess I don’t get it. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 58 Ms. Larson: That’s part of it. Ms. Summers: Trying to understand. Ms. Larson: And the character of the bridge is simplistic… Ms. Summers: Very. Ms. Larson: It has a – it’s the guardrail. The effect of the guardrail has on the visual… Ms. Summers: The guardrails on the side of the bridge or the guards to the side of the deck. Ms. Larson: From what I looked at it’s a basic concrete side to the bridge. I don’t know how high that concrete is… Ms. Summers: Forty-two inches per the drawings. Ms. Larson: Forty-two inches is what you can see from the road. From the surface of the road. Ms. Summers: Yes. And that’s a code, that you know, obviously. Ms. Larson: That’s a current code. And what is the top? What is the edging on the top? Mr. Moule: So right now – again we have not (gotten) final design on this bridge but the design… Ms. Larson: Okay so… Mr. Moule: Looks like a typical direct highway bridge… Ms. Larson: It ’s just a… Mr. Moule: But there’s certainly potential for us to use something more decorative. There’s limitations on that because it has to be (a) crash tested designs but if you wanted to recommend that we if possible… Ms. Larson: Well the current bridge just has – it’s just concrete but has a little lip on it. Right. It just goes up. Am I remembering that right? Mr. Moule: (Inaudible talked over Ms. Larson could not decipher) Ms. Summers: And I think that was part of the motion that we were crafting is that it should emulate that particular look. Mr. Guerber: And I think that’s the parapet. The guardrail is the metal pieces on the roadside leading to the bridge. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 58 Ms. Larson: To the bridge. And how long are those. Mr. Moule: Fifty feet. Mr. Guerber: It looks pretty long. Mr. Moule: Right now, the one that has that driveway is shorter. Its unattended anyway we’re probably…we’re going to either relocate that driveway and remove it and put in a 50 foot section there. So 50 feet each corner will be a metal guardrail, visually. Ms. Larson: And the guardrail would go in regardless whether a new bridge is put in or the old bridge stays. Mr. Moule: Well if we choose not to touch the bridge as part of this project, we won’t touch it at all. We’ll just leave it alone and deal with it in another project. Ms. Larson: So you would pave up to a certain point… Mr. Moule: Yes, we would just stop paving at the bridge. Ms. Larson: And no new guardrails for safety. Mr. Moule: Because that would require going through a similar process. Ms. Larson: Got it. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So we do have a motion on the floor. It didn’t carry forward, so it failed. I didn’t hear a second. Mr. Guerber: No seconds. Ms. Summers: I am not clear on the end of the motion, sorry. Ms. Larson: Can you try your motion again. Mr. Guerber: I can try. I move that we…I move to recommend the project with the following restrictions; that we retain the wing walls and the cut stone and as much of the old bridge as possible underneath the new bridge and that the new parapets emulate the parapets on the old bridge as much as possible. That’s it. Chair Wichman: Do I hear a second. Ms. Summers: I second. Chair Wichman: Discussion. Hearing no discussion and come to a vote so, all in favor. (Partial voice vote). Any opposed. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 58 Ms. Larson: Opposed. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Motion carried. Chair Wichman: Motion carries. Thank you. Motion carried 5:1. J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Kaumakani School (Kamehameha Schools) Exterior and interior building renovations include in-kind replacement of existing materials that have been damaged either by wood rot or termite, removal of hazardous materials (i.e. Canec and lead paint), renovation of restrooms to meet ADA compliance, construction of new stairs and landing, construction of a new CMU wall structure, ADA ramp and parking stalls, and grading along with a concrete swale to mitigate for erosion. TMK: (4) 1-7-006:008 a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Commissioners received a 13-page (A01,A02,A03,A04,A05,A07,A08,A09,A10,A12,A13,A14,A15) set of renovation plans/drawings by YFH Architects, Inc. dated 4/30/20. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We do have a representative from the applicant here. Historic Planner Alex Wong: Do I read my directors report? Chair Wichman: Aloha, thank you. Unidentified Speaker: Want to thank Chairperson Wichman and Planning Director Sayegusa for having me here today. I want to thank Alex and Ka‘āina for putting me on the agenda, as I’ve waited for couple of months, actually. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: What was your name, sorry. YFH Architects, Inc. Project Architect Lance Kaneshiro: My name is Lance Kaneshiro. I am with YFH Architects. I am here to present to you our proposal to the renovation at the Kaumakani preschool. I just wanted to go over some historical background about this building and then I’ll continue on to describe what our proposal for this renovation would be. So, this Kaumakani preschool is located at 2301 Kaumakani Road. It sits on about 7.5 acre parcel the building itself, the preschool, is about 12,500 square feet. There’s also a community center on that same parcel as well. This parcel is owned by the Robinson family and it was constructed in 1922. And first started out being Makaweli school and then…this school was generally used for the education of the plantation families until 1986 where – from 1986, to present there’s a various number of agencies that, you know, took over the place and used it for educational February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 58 purposes. But now, it is run by KS (Kamehameha Schools) and it’s a preschool, I mean Kamehameha Schools. This building was designed by John (Keanu) Waiamau, he was born in Honolulu (and) he is a graduate of the first Kamehameha class, school class. He was a drafts person under, lets see, C.B. Ripley and then he went on to Chicago to go to drafting school where he later returned to Līhu‘e (and) became the County Engineer, Deputy Assistant Engineer and he designed this building. The building is…as the existing building right now is of a asphalt shingle roof. The exterior siding is 5-1/4 inch vertical planks with O. G. batten. The battens are like a half inch, quarter half inch round, well the O. G. itself is about an inch wide. The center part of the O. G. is a half round with 2/4 circles on each side and the foundation is of concrete block. It’s a single wall constructed, tongue and groove siding. The roofing is probably the only thing that really changed with being asphalt. I am not sure as to what the original material was before but according to historical records that was the major change to this building. So what we propose is that…the roofing was actually redone several years ago I mean in terms of replacing the roof so,as part of this project we’re not touching that part of it at all. What we’re planning to do is repair all the siding wherever there’s major damage to it by either like wood rot or termite damage. Replace the boards, the siding, the O. G. battens. We will replace some of the structural elements that define the character of the building. They have like two double posted columns where they hold up the lanai and do some exterior work as well, site work as well, and interior work. So can I show you what our proposal is. (Mr. Kaneshiro left speaker table and walked over to map displayed on corkboard) Mr. Kaneshiro: So, exterior work… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Oh sorry, let me pull the mic (microphone). Talk into the mic. Mr. Kaneshiro: For the exterior site work. Right now there’s a big empty field in the back of the building. And what’s happening is that the run off is driving the sediment under the building. So where the dirt is now it’s up and beyond the height of the footings which is touching, you know the major post structure elements as well as the skirting that goes below the floor line and is causing wood rot and damage. So what we’re proposing is to actually, one of the proposals is to actually construct the CMU (Concrete Masonry Units) wall along the whole side of the back so that as the run off continues it doesn’t go under the building, which is what we’re trying to avoid. But we also (are) providing a concrete swell that will swell around the building so that the water doesn’t accumulate…the water doesn’t drive the dirt under the structure. We’re also constructing two surface ADA (American’s with Disability Act) stalls, as well as redoing the ramp right now to meet compliance with ADA. I think that is it for the site work. Right now, the people just park around…there’s no parking lot per say. But, the teachers just park on site. So this is the floor plan. What we’re planning to do is repair wherever there’s damage to the lanai areas (and) replace one and one. The whole project is to replace as much as February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 58 we can, one on one, like in kind. So, if it’s a plank siding, a plank decking, or whatever, we replace it with the same. So, we’re planning to redo some areas in the lanai areas. We will add two restrooms. Right now there’s four classrooms. Two of them have…so right now two of the classrooms have restrooms and what we’re going to do is add…so actually two of the – there’s four classrooms. There’s four classrooms, one, two, three, four. Two of them already have restrooms in them. We’re going to add two restrooms, in the other two, that doesn’t have. That is probably the most biggest thing that we’re adding to this building in terms of infrastructure, and whatever have you. We are replacing all the lightings to LED’s (Light Emitting Diode). We’re upgrading fire alarm systems. We are repainting the whole exterior. We’re replacing some of the doors because some of the doors currently are the five panel doors and some of them are, you know they replaced them with solid core flushed doors. We’re going to replace them to reflect that five, original five panel door. We’re changing the hardware to comply with the ADA, as well as fire exiting for the classrooms. We are removing all of the canec material that is in there, lead paint, and we’re repainting all the interiors, exteriors, and redoing all the lanai work around the – ceiling the lanai’s as well. The biggest thing is that we are, we’re out for bid right now and we’re getting another cost. Our intent is to replace one for one and the drawings, as being permitted is to replace or repair the existing windows, but as we’re getting numbers in and budget might be the driving factor, but we’re thinking about replacing all of the windows. I don’t know what you’re concerned about that, as a board. How do you guys…that’s my question to you guys. Is how do you feel if we replace all of the windows in cladding versus they’re all wood right now. But, the inside would be retained as wood, but the outside would be aluminum cladding. Ms. Summers: And so it still looks… Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes, looks like that has the (inaudible) yes that we’ll paint all the colors to the existing building colors right now. The look is you know just – it’s going to look the same but just the material change. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So perhaps, we can just (go) through the presentation. And I apologize. Typically we’ve been handing it to the staff planner who could give a brief overview of our analysis and evaluation of the project and then we can go back to the applicant for fine tuning and any recommendations. Mr. Kaneshiro: So this is the courtyard elevation. This is looking at it this way. We not changing anything. We’re just replacing all the damaged items which would include even the ceilings, interior and exterior in the lanai areas. Like I said, we’re replacing all these double columns, wherever there’s damage. Just basically repairing whatever is damaged and putting… Mr. Guerber: So you’re restoring it. Mr. Kaneshiro: We’re restoring it, yes. We’re also replacing all the slat areas where there’s been wood or termite damage, as well as the access doors under. Two (access doors) under the building. There’s also exterior seating along the lanai area, wherever there’s damage, we’re replacing, as well. So, basically replacement of one-for-one. So, just some of the pictures that February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 58 depict how worn this building has been. Sorry, the color, I don’t know, it’s not the color, we’re not touching the roof. Mr. Guerber: Is this being used, right now. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes, this is currently in use. Mr. Guerber: And it says it’s just a preschool. Mr. Kaneshiro: Preschool, yes. Mr. Guerber: So, no other classes beside the preschool. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. So, what we’re planning to do is just repaint everything as is one-for-one (with) the color, try to match as best as we can. And replacing all these slat works under the building that – pretty much all around the whole perimeter. There’s damage where the dirt has, you know accumulated where its touching some of the slat work. Mr. Guerber: And you’re going to drag the dirt out from under. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. And so, what we’re planning to do is extend the excavation work under the building to just take the dirt away from the footings, you know the interior footings, as well. So, over here you can see that the dirt, I don’t know if you can see clearly on this picture but what’s happening is the hill behind the dirt is running down and then it’s like accumulating all after the foot print of the building, as well as its running under the slab work. Mr. Guerber: You’re going to replace – you’re going to put a CMU wall on the back. Mr. Kaneshiro: That’s one of the proposals. Mr. Guerber: How tall. Ms. Summers: And how far. Mr. Kaneshiro: Oh no, we’re replacing the footings, yes, and creating the CMU wall under the footprint of the building. Just on this side. Mr. Guerber: That’s like where the footings would be. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Ms. Summers: So the slats would cover the CMU. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Ms. Summers: Okay. So, you wouldn’t even see the CMU. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 58 Mr. Kaneshiro: Maybe a little bit in-between the slats because the slats don’t…because they’re spaced apart a little. Ms. Larson: You’re talking about the CMU wall, right. Mr. Kaneshiro: Oh, yes, sorry. Ms. Larson: The CMU wall would be right up against the wood of the building. Mr. Kaneshiro: No, under the floor line of the building. Mr. Guerber: The CMU wall would replace the footings. Ms. Larson: And then it would be hidden… Mr. Kaneshiro: Behind these slat works. So, behind. Ms. Summers: So, it would be behind those and then they replace all that. Instead of the current footings, they’ll be a wall, a solid wall. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Ms. Summers: And then they’d put the wood back… Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Ms. Summers: So it would… Mr. Kaneshiro: So it still retains the character of the building. Ms. Summers: So you’d still… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sorry, could you folks talk into the mics, (on) any discussion there. Ms. Summers: So, you’d still see the wood. Mr. Kaneshiro: So yes, the slats would still remain so that the character of the building is still in tact throughout the whole exterior. Ms. Summers: And could paint it, black or something. Mr. Kaneshiro: CMU wall, yes. Ms. Summers: Waterproofing or something. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 58 Chair Wichman: I have a question for you. Does this school – was…well not developed until the ‘20’s, but that land is a lot older than that. So do they know what was there before that school was put there. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well, in the 1880’s, according to what I’ve read, there was development (that) started in 1889. And originally I think there was four structures on the building, but this is the only one that’s remaining (of) the original four structures. Chair Wichman: Okay, this school was established in 1889. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well, the development of this I believe (this) area started in 1889, but this school was built in 1922. Chair Wichman: The western development of this school. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Chair Wichman: So it doesn’t mean the Hawaiian – what was going on before the school was there. That’s what I am curious about. Because it’s Makaweli, I mean it’s a really, really important place in Hawaiian history. And Robinson land and it’s just in those days people just built whatever they wanted to and so I am just kind of curious if anybody’s interested or if anybody knows what was there before or if anything was there before. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well I know…I am not sure what was there before. I can find out. Chair Wichman: Well, I just had a question because I’ve come up with a similar situation where we restored a house but we found underneath the house when we pulled up the floor there was an original Hawaiian house site underneath that. Mr. Kaneshiro: Wow. Chair Wichman: So, that’s why I am asking those questions because a lot of things were built on old Hawaiian house sites. So I am curious and you have all these run offs underneath the building but there could very well be a lot of archaeological, a lot of Hawaiian things underneath the building. We don’t know that. Mr. Kaneshiro: That’s true. And we would follow SHPD’s rules. Where if you dig and you encounter whatever have you, artifacts, construction would need to be stopped. Chair Wichman: Of course. But is there a plan for that. Mr. Kaneshiro: We haven’t gone to SHPD yet. I wanted to present this to you folks first. Chair Wichman: Right, right. Okay, thank you. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 58 Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Perhaps it might be a good opportunity to segway to our planners presentation…real briefly summarizing his directors report and any recommendations and then of course we can come back to ask detailed questions with the applicant. Okay, sorry. Perhaps you can sit down and… Mr. Kaneshiro: Oh, okay. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Thank you. Chair Wichman: Thank you Alex. Mr. Wong: Aloha, Alex Wong for the record. Mr. Wong read the Director’s Report for TMK: (4) 1-7-006:008 dated February 20, 2020, for the record. (10 page Document on file) Deviated from the Director’s Report and inserted his comments at Criteria D. page 5. Mr. Wong: Originally, I asserted that this property most likely does not meet National Register Criteria D.; however, as brought up by Chairperson Wichman, there is potential that there might be archaeological finds beneath the existing structure and that has yet to be uncovered in terms of my digging in planning department records. So there is a potential there. But based on the information that I had access to at the time, I did not see any reference to archaeological sites. But, that does not mean that there are not files in Kapolei in SHPD’s office with additional archaeological data. So, that would be in the realm of David Buckley, SHPD archaeologist. But in conclusion, for the criteria, it does meet multiple criteria and like I said before it is ripe for consideration for historic structure. Mr. Wong continued to read the Director’s Report for TMK: (4) 1-7-006:008 dated February 20, 2020, for the record. (10 page Document on file) Mr. Wong: I did have one additional comment that I’d like to pose to the applicant. And that is in addition to the CMU wall meant for mitigating for erosion, soil erosion. I was wondering if you have considered also landscaping and using perhaps vetiver grass or any sort of native shrubbery, or hedge, or plants, to also, mitigate for top soil erosion. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes, for the upside of the exposed areas that is causing the erosion. We’ve considered doing some landscaping. Mr. Wong: Mahalo. That concludes my report for this project. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Are there any questions. Chair Wichman: Any questions. Yes, Stephen. Mr. Long: I have a couple of questions. One, I see that you note that you are cutting slats and repairing slats and there appears to be an existing screening that screens the crawl space. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 32 of 58 Mr. Kaneshiro: Like metal screens. Mr. Long: No. Ms. Summers: The wood stuff. Mr. Long: Yes, the wood stuff vertical wood screen. So does the new CMU wall being constructed behind that existing wood screen, is (it) being repaired. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Mr. Long: Okay, that was one question. The other question had to do with, I understood you said you’re replacing the wood double hung windows. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well that is what we’re – right now as we’re permitting the project, that is what the intent is to repair and or replace certain elements of the existing windows. But that is one question as I stated before that I pose to you, the committee, whether or not placement of the window with clad, aluminum clad windows, wood on the inside (and) aluminum on the outside would be an alternative to replacing it. Because the thought behind that, was that if you replace some of them, we’re not going to retain the whole consistent look throughout the… Ms. Summers: Does that meet the U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards. Alex, replacement of the windows. Mr. Wong: Sorry, one more time. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Could you talk into the mic, sorry. Mr. Wong: Yes, so typically the planning department’s stance in terms of, like for like substitution of original materials, is that as long as the applicant does to their best ability and with their feasible budget that they find something that is the next best option in terms of roofing materials, window materials. Typically planning department does go back and forth with the applicant prior to permit approval or following permit approval (but) before actual construction in terms of okaying and signing off on the proposed materials. So, we will maintain an open communication channel with the applicant during the construction process and permitting process. Mr. Kaneshiro: So our proposal – well as I stated before permitting we’re replacing one-for-one or repairing one-for-one. But on the back end, we’re considering replacing all of the windows so that they maintain a consistent look and then for budgetary and longevity of the window, lower maintenance for those reasons. Chair Wichman: Stephen. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 33 of 58 Mr. Long: Yes, I appreciate the owner’s philosophy on replacing like kind with like kind and particularly in the materials and the detailing. Now, those double hung windows have been there since 1922. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Mr. Long: So they’ve been there for awhile. And I know how sensitive Kamehameha Schools is in furthering the educational experience and the schools that they operate. And that the original double hung windows would be something that they would want to replace in kind with like kind, just as they are the other architectural historical details. Mr. Kaneshiro: To replace like in kind. Mr. Long: And I have one other comment about the concrete swell and a new CMU wall. That’s going to require a new footing, you know probably continuance footing below the building. And picking up on Commissioner Wichman’s and Ida’s concerns and experience. If you’re going to be…my comment is, if you’re going to be disturbing that soil anyway with a swell and a continuance footing for new CMU wall…yes, I understand about exposing any architectural remains and historical elements (that) you would notify the building inspector and stop work immediately. Yet in this instance, and because its Makaweli, is it advised to do an archaeological survey as part of disturbing that land. That’s just a question (or) comment not a proposal. Because I am not the archaeologist. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well that can be done and like I said we haven’t gone to SHPD yet. The proposal that we have with permitting that wall is an extreme case, as its looking like now the budget will probably not support that because that’s quite extensive work to do. So more than likely we (are) not going to attempt to do that and just retain and scrape and put the concrete swell around the backside of the building to mitigate the erosion. You know, control issues. Chair Ida: You know I totally appreciate where you’re going with this. But, besides what the Chairman said about, you know the whole example about the house site being under the building and stuff like that. You know there’s also, what are we talking 80 plus years of that area being used as a school. There might be a lot of historical archaeology in that place. But the thing is too, I know you’re always concerned about costs but because your plans are so detailed already and you know exactly where the stuff is going to go, you know, you might be able to get away with (it). In terms of, you know either monitoring or just digging up areas, (you) know that are going to be disturbed. Mr. Kaneshiro: That is the first thought and intention was to do that…go and do as a monitoring situation. So that has been in the thought process of all this. But, like I said when the numbers are starting to add up it doesn’t seem that the project could support the CMU wall anyway. So going to plan b was just adding in the concrete swell to mitigate the erosion control issue. Chair Ida: And because if what you stated is true, and I not doubting you or anything, if a lot of material is swept under the building, I can imagine what kind of stuff might be in there that dates from the use of the site as a school. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 34 of 58 Mr. Kaneshiro: We will look into that. Thank you. Chair Wichman: Any other questions. Ms. Larson: Yes. Chair Wichman: Yes, Carolyn. Ms. Larson: Did I understand correctly that you’re putting in restrooms to classrooms that currently don’t have them. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. Ms. Larson: And they would be like the restrooms in the other classrooms. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. The same format is being followed. Ms. Larson: And then in addition you’re putting ADA restrooms, as a separate structure. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well, no. The restrooms being added, will be ADA compliant. We’re not renovating the existing restrooms right now. Only there’s a – so these are the kids restrooms and we’re not touching these. We’re adding a restroom here and I think was in this one. The restrooms we’re renovating would be these two, which are for the staff members, which are not ADA compliant right now. So we’re going to renovate to meet that. Ms. Larson: And the Department of Interior Standards deal with upgrading restrooms? Mr. Wong: Yes, it is acceptable under Secretary of Interior Standards to bring things up to modern day code, including ADA accessibility. Including ramps, pathways, restrooms, etcetera. Chair Wichman: Any other questions. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Well similar to the previous discussion we had about 106 this is a project in, I think, a preplanning phase. And so, if there’s any suggestions or recommendations from you folks that the applicant should incorporate in their final designs, I think this is the reason for them being here, before you folks, so yes. Mr. Kaneshiro: Well we have the opportunity to change things because we’re in the permitting process right now. So, you guys can make comments to those things. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes… Mr. Wong: Yes, planning department can make comments but that at this time this is the opportunity for the historic commission to propose any conditions to the permit or specific request for architectural styles that should be addressed. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 35 of 58 Chair Wichman: So, do we have any motions. Mr. Long: I move that we accept the project as presented. I have a question. Will this come before us again? Or, is this the last time it comes before us. Mr. Wong: This would potentially be the last time. Mr. Long: Okay, so I move that we accept this project as presented. With the caveat that we support the replacing kind for like kind architectural elements in the building including the wood double hung windows and that archaeological monitoring be done with any subsoil disturbance. Ms. Summers: I second that. Mr. Guerber: I second that. Chair Wichman: We second. Any discussion. (Hearing none). Okay, all in favor. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed. (Hearing none). Okay, so moved. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you. 2. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-9 to develop a mixed-use commercial/multi-family residential project containing spaces for retail, office, restaurant operations, 62 residential units and associated site improvements on a parcel situated within the Līhu‘e Town core area on the corner of Rice Street and Umi Street, further identified as 3016 Umi Street, Tax Map Key: 3-6-003:010, and containing a total area of 1.5313 acres = RBM UMI, LLC. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Larson: Chair Wichman. Chair Wichman: Yes. Ms. Larson: I have a potential conflict on this item. My husband is working with the owner and has worked on, so I’d like to recuse myself. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I think typically if you…we would ask that you go outside the room, sorry, yes. Chair Wichman: Thank you for disclosing that. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We can come back, I’ll come get you once we’re done. You can have a seat in our office and then we’ll come and get you. Ms. Summers: I hate to ask – can I have a one-minute break or two-minute break? February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 36 of 58 Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Chair Wichman: It’s a 4:49 or 4:59. Mr. Guerber: 4:59. Chair Wichman: We’ll have a short break. Commission Larson recused herself and left the meeting room at 4:59 p.m. Chair Wichman called for a recess at 4:59 p.m. Chair Wichman reconvened the meeting at 5:09 p.m. Commissioner’s received a two page colored rendering of the project, Exhibit “E”. Chair Wichman: Okay, meeting resumed at 5:09 p.m., yikes. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We do have a representative from the applicant here, yes. Belles Graham LLP Attorney Ian Jung: Good afternoon Chair Wichman and members of the commission. This is Ian Jung on behalf of the applicant RBM Umi LLC. Chair Wichman: Do you have a presentation. Mr. Jung: I have a presentation to give right now, but it seems like the report… Chair Wichman: Oh, that’s right, Alex you can go first. Mr. Jung: So I can jump in after that, fill the gaps. Mr. Wong read the Director’s Report for TMK: (4) 3-6-003:010 dated February 20, 2020, for the record. (7 page Document on file) Chair Wichman: Thank you Alex. Mr. Jung: Okay, yes again. Good afternoon, sometimes I have to apologize for being an attorney because we look very closely at what the definitions saying. The only reference I was going to make to the directors report was if you look at HRS 6E-2 the definition of historic property is over 50 years old, so I would trigger that at 51 years and over. So, when I first got this project that’s the first thing I looked at because we have to identify what are we going to do to manage the historical integrity of the building, if we do decide to demo it. So that’s one thing we will take up with SHPD, you know if it gets that far to address whether or not it is historic and if they do require (a) HABS (Historic American Building Survey) study to go through the whole protocol (of) producing the HABS report. But with that said, it is on the fringe of the Civic Center historic district and it is in what the Līhu‘e Town Core Urban Design Plan calls a February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 37 of 58 historic district. So, comments by this body I think are appropriate and we can certainly work through it to get a feel on what you think the project from an appearance stand point would be. Because I think as we all recognize, you know when people build it, people do come. And with the new upgrades to the Līhu‘e Town Core plan and with the increase in density and the encouragement to do mixed use affordable housing, this is an opportune time for a project like this to come in and set the stone as a catalyst project for future projects. So, getting comments as to the design of how it should be set and look, I think is an important facet of getting this project approved. And just to go on that, it is proposed to be a full affordable housing project. We are going to be applying. We acknowledge and thank the planning department in getting this in. But we started this application process in December, which is a relatively fast track process given a scale of this project because we want to try and target in getting an approval by the county so we can get support under the LIHTC (The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) application which is a Federal affordable housing tax credit program. So, if we get support from the planning department and the planning commission then we can use that leverage for our application to qualify this project for affordable funding from the feds (Federal) to get this project up and running. With that said, it is 62 units, as noted by the planner. It’s split with 38 units of one-bedroom and 24 units of two-bedroom set as an apartment based. There’s going to be three floors of these apartment units in that mix of one and two bedroom apartments and then below those three floors of units is the commercial component, which is the strong encouragement for the new Rice Street corridor. The application that is pending is actually only a Class IV Zoning Permit, which is unusual but it is just a Class IV (Zoning Permit) it’s a procedural permit only by the fact that it’s a project of 51 or more units. So, we have to go before the planning commission to get their stamp of approval just for the density count. With regard to the design features…are the owner and let me just layout how its working here. The owner is actually Kaua‘i Development Associates (Inc.). My client RBM Umi LLC is in escrow to purchase the property contingent on securing these permits. If the permits are secured then we’ll move forward with the project. The way its setup in the Līhu‘e Town Core plan is you have a regulating plan outside of the normal context of the CZO so our Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) has its own protocol for design requirements. But we have an extra layer that supersedes the CZO and look at how we’re going to implement specific design guidelines for this Rice Street corridor. And the way I setup the application is because it was on this kind of fast track process is that we would solicit comments from this body and the planning commission and then reserve for the planning department who has the expertise in drafting the Rice Street design guidelines, their final call on the final design. So, the owner, my client, has secured Mason Architects (Inc.) to be the design. They came up with these two iterations. And what I submitted in the original package that you have is actually on the second page of the enlarged sheet. That was the original proposal and from a design standpoint they used sort of a lap siding and they used these columns to break up the massing and it kind of had that front gable roof and the planning department didn’t like that look. It kind of looked, kind of like a hospital or in some words a jail. So, we had Mason Architects do another rendering and that’s on the top sheet. That kind of did the – kind of took into consideration the roof lines recommended in the Līhu‘e Town Core Plan 5.1.4.5 (Roofs) and did the front gable in kind of a February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 38 of 58 split and then did articulating segments of the massing where you have the horizontal siding, then intermixed with sort of a bump out of mortared plastered siding. And so, we tried – the issue was massing and how we’re going to kind of mask the appearance of a structure. I think everyone’s okay with the lower floor, where you have the retail on the bottom with the roof line. And then the setback of the apartment area, setback 15 feet, to kind of give it that setback approach, so it’s not one big mass. But I think what needs work and we’re willing to work with this body, as well as the planning commission and the planning department, (is) on how to make the massing feature work to kind of set the tenor of what the future Rice Street design will be. Now Rice Street is complicated, because you have a miss mash of architectural styles. And I am a lawyer, I am not an architect, but I’ll leave it to the architects in the room to address it. But you have the sort of the classical revival on the old county historic building. Then you have mission revival for the old courthouse building in the back. And then you have kind of a mix along down the street where my building is, you know it’s the Watumull Plaza that’s really unique and modern, and then you have stretching down, the Kress building, beyond the two other buildings, that are more modern. The Kress building and then that stretch kind of like that midcentury modern look. So we’re open to concepts of what type of style and to hide or mask the massing of the building. One comment we received thus far from the community is looking at doing patio’s, which might give a more articulating reference to how it’s going to appear. But, I am happy to answer any questions from a historic standpoint, you know just when we met with Pat Griffin or our consultant Pat Griffin, we kind of get a historical context of it. Apparently, the property was developed in 1927, with a single-family residence with some garage and storing units. On that property lived someone of historic nature was Frank Crawford, who was the postmaster for the Līhu‘e Post Office and then also the First Bank of Hawai‘i. So we discussed with Pat or Ms. Griffin to do some kind of plaque or reference, historical reference on the area to kind of reference who lived there on the property. Following that structure being demo’d (demolished) what we’ve come to realize based on an analysis of maps between 1965 and 1972, that single family residence was taken down and then this structure went up in 1970, or got permitted in 1970, we just don’t know when it was finally set on property to be the quote, unquote historic structure. But, there was another restaurant building, some of you may recall it was on the northern portion of the property that was demo’d sometime in 1988, and used as the restaurant facility. The structure itself as it currently sits, that’s slated to be demo’d, is not conforming to what the Līhu‘e Town Core plan envisioned. We worked with our architects to try and make this area, or this project conform to those guidelines. And it’s not just the building look, it’s also the street scape. So, if you look in your packet, I didn’t distribute this in a large set but on Exhibit E, we have some parking in the front and we’ve had a meeting with Central Pacific Bank to identify how we’re going to accommodate their reentry back in the building once it’s completed. So, we had a requirement in the Rice Street design guideline to do these parking in the front which will be dedicated to the county. So, if you see there on the Umi Street side, we’ll have some additional parking in there. I just was talking with Michael Moule county engineering branch chief and he wants the reverse in parking area similar to what you have up here in front of the county building. So, there’s a lot to this project. It is a great project to bring into the Rice Street corridor (and) to kind of follow through on the improvements that are happening under the February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 39 of 58 TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant and the vision that was set forth in the regional town plan. But, again, you know it is complicated to try and make it match the historical context of the area, given there’s such a mix of architectural styles. So, we’re open to feedback from you folks as to what you think would be good architectural components or motifs to this project that we can make work. So it sets (the) tenor, the next project down the street, if one ever does come. So, with that I’ll answer any questions. If you guys have any questions. Chair Wichman: Questions from the commissioners. Mr. Long: I have a thought. And that is the TIGER grant, Līhu‘e Rice Street is meant to be much more pedestrian experiential (and) inner city development, and so I am wondering if there’s any, you know opportunity for a push and pull with the elevations. So that you have an area upside that people could go to, or a small exterior lanai that they could look out the window and experience the street below. Just a thought. Mr. Jung: Yes, so we got that comment as well, and one of the comments was that along Umi Street side, you know when the Christmas lights, light up on the county building it would be pretty phenomenal to be on that Umi Street side sitting on your porch looking at those, you know during the month of December. So it’s something we will factor in, you know obviously it is an affordable housing project, but so there are costs that are involved but the architect and the owner is willing to look into that. Mr. Long: You know, well I believe that, you know lower income people also like to experience the outside and have lanai’s. I see that there is some kind of core there on the right elevation it looks like it maybe some kind of bridge or a exterior area that you walk between the two columns. And that looks like an opportunity for that to happen there. I am just wondering if there’s an opportunity in each of the individual units for that to also occur. Mr. Jung: Okay. Mr. Long: People just like being on the street. There’s going to be a lot of activity on Rice Street, and you open up your windows and there’s a garden, a railing, you can…it doesn’t have to be that wide. Mr. Jung: Sure. Chair Wichman: Any other comments or questions, Commissioners. Aubrey. Ms. Summers: I am trying to understand where they. Are they trying to pick up, on any particular…I mean it doesn’t feel mid-centry, doesn’t feel like it emulates the courthouse, or the…I mean it feels like its own new thing. Some… Mr. Jung: Yes, well the architect quoted for me the…if you look at it, you know it’s hard…I think what he worked on, this particular architect worked on the county building, the historic county building. So I think, there’s a feature there on the first iteration where you have these February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 40 of 58 columns that kind of look, kind of like that classical revival with a slight art deco, but the massing is hard to breach there, right. So the idea I think, is to create this new model or mode of architecture where you have sort of like a, trying to think of the best word here, but it’s a mix of what you have on Kress building with the concrete and with what the county building is. Ms. Summers: Yes. Mr. Jung: But it doesn’t fit the category, a general historical category, from an architectural style that I’ve seen. And that’s why I think its critical to have this final design review by the planning department so we can have these guys weight in exactly how it’ll look. Because I think this will be our community in setting the tone of what is going to be there (and) I think (that) will help push what other buildings will look like in the future, as you stretch down the road on Rice Street. Because with Council allowing for R40 our highest density zone now in this particular area, people are going to start maximizing the 54 height limitation, right. And then going into a maximum density on whatever lot size they have. So the mixed use component will probably be something of the near future as new projects come in. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, so if there’s any suggestions I think, yes that would be very important for the department ultimately considering a final review, so. Chair Wichman: Commissioner Guerber. Mr. Guerber: There’s a development in Los Angeles that’s called Playa Vista where all the tech (Technology) companies are moving in. And its building kind of like this, except they all have balconies and there’s plants on the balconies. And it really looks much better than this. To me this, even the second iteration just looks way to blocky. It’s not appealing to me. But on the other hand we see in other places that you put a new thing in there that originally doesn’t look so good but it defines the neighborhood, the look. And it becomes that part of it and becomes very attractive. So we all have to change our minds too perhaps. But I do believe, look at the kind of architecture that’s in a place called Playa Vista. Mr. Jung: Okay. That’s in L.A. (Los Angeles, CA) Mr. Guerber: Near Playa Del Ray. Mr. Jung: Playa Del Ray. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Eventually we can get to a point again of a recommendation for the applicant to take back, yes. Chair Wichman: It’s just my personal opinion. I am allowed to say that right. And it just seems really out of place. Like really out of place. You got the county building over here. You got the old police, well the police buildings gone now but just – I understand what you’re trying to do here and in bringing more opportunity for our Rice Street, you know for the revitalization project and for the TIGER grant and all that. It just seems really out of place. It’s just – we have all this old historic, you know buildings and even this building is historic and it’s just, right there. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 41 of 58 It just doesn’t make sense to me. You cross the street (and it) is different buildings that kind of blend in to the old buildings. It’s just my personal opinion and that’s really not our personal opinions aren’t… Mr. Guerber: They’re fine. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Are relevant, yes Chair Wichman: They are? Mr. Guerber: Yes. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Mr. Long: On an architectural basis and I don’t really feel it’s our responsibility to do any design as a commissioner on the commission. But I do know that Mason Architects is a very highly respected Honolulu architectural firm and they do primarily historical renovations restorations architecture. And when I look at this rendering, I am surprised it was done by Mason Architects particularly the first one, because its lacking in what you know Chairman Wichman referred to as architectural historical elements found around the (inaudible). It’s not really as much to say, well the Kress Buildings concrete so we have concrete here. I am you know, the concrete at the Kress Building is actually really gorgeous beautiful. Its been sand blasted, it has a texture to it, much like the historical walls in Mexican and South American villages where the stucco is textured in a certain way. So I guess I was surprised that Mason Architect is responsible for this rendering and I would like to see more architectural historical references, materials, construction methodology and wouldn’t be that difficult to do. Its just not, I don’t know, that’s my comment. Mr. Guerber: So Ian, could you…there’s a deadline involved here, tell me about that. Mr. Jung: Yes, so the deadline that we’re looking at is we have to get a full package, full approval by April so we can get the package up to HHFDC (Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation) which is the Hawai‘i Housing Development Corporation which then facilitates the LIHTC application which is the Low Income Affordable Housing Tax Credit. They allocate a certain number of unit project counts and I forget its called like the allocation plan or something like that. So it goes in the running with other projects in the area and the planning commission just approved another project up near the movie theatre in Kukui Grove. I think that one was a 54 unit affordable housing project. The design was somewhat similar to this, but obviously it’s outside of the historic corridor where Rice Street (is) so it doesn’t have the scrutiny that this project has. But projects like that go into the hopper of when they make a decision to allocate what units get approved for affordable housing. If the LIHTC application is denied, then we’ll reapply for (it) the next year. But if the project gets built then it’ll still be subject to the county’s affordable housing ordinance which is 30% affordable. So, the target is to try and get the approval before the April deadline so the application can go in and we can get in a competitive model for the allocation of units. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 42 of 58 And then, if its approved, we’ve already proffered to the planning department let’s do a design guideline review with the planning department so we can make sure the project, the overall project is compatible with the Rice Street design guideline. And normally if we stayed under 50 units we wouldn’t even need planning commission approval we could just go forward, but just to get that extra 12 unit count provide a little more housing we went through and got the maximized amount that’s allowed under the R40 zoning now. We could even go more now that they’ve passed a R40 with ARU’s which is an additional rental unit. So theoretically, we could go R80 to capitalize on that one additional 800 square foot extra unit, which is accessary to the additional unit to get more inventory there. But the problem we face was the parking, right. So with the building on street frontage on Umi and then on Rice Street we needed to allocate parking on the back so we could have parking for, not only for the commercial users, but also the residential users as part of the overall plan. So (we) couldn’t quite maximize the new bill that just passed which is the additional rental unit. Mr. Guerber: How many parking spaces did you need? Mr. Jung: We figured we needed 129 units, so we have 114 on site and then 15 offsite along the street frontage, which will then be, dedicated back to the county. And then as you know, with the Rice Street improvements through the TIGER grant, there’s about 70 new stalls going in along the street. I think we counted about 10 along the strip there in front of the building. And we also considered doing a design review with the engineering department so we could take a look at how the project is going to unfold based on the new TIGER grant design and Michael Moule’s already talking about removing some bump outs to accommodate more parking so we can have a different entry. So, the entry is aligned more with what’s best for the project. So, with that we’re trying to do a design guideline, not just with planning but also public works to create the street scape that’s envisioned under the TIGER grant. Mr. Guerber: So what style is this? Mr. Jung: Honestly, I can’t tell you. I don’t, I can’t, I don’t know. I’ve asked the architect to give me a little narrative and the idea was it was going to be…there’s no naming convention per say but his approach was to use the articulation on the street facades on the top three floors like extending some of the units. And then changing the materials like you see here with the horizontal siding with the plastered finish. And this would accentuate the residential nature of the upper floor details with the casing of the windows, so they’re inset. So there’s room to move, you know to pull those in a little more and allow for a little patio, maybe like a two or three foot patio. Mr. Guerber: They’re only out like a foot or two. Mr. Jung: They’re inset about a foot. But once you – when you take the inset of the windows and then pull those in a little more and then if you push everything out then you would have about two feet. Mr. Guerber: A little patio. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 43 of 58 Mr. Jung: Yes. Mr. Guerber: How big. Mr. Jung: About two feet, I would say. Mr. Guerber: What patio. Mr. Jung: Two to three foot patio. Mr. Guerber: Are you demolishing the current building. Mr. Jung: That’s the proposal, yes. Mr. Guerber: And that’s the only thing we need…oh I am sorry. Ms. Summers: No, go ahead. Mr. Guerber: And that’s the only thing we can really talk about actually, right. That’s the only, at this point we can comment on. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: The design, yes. Mr. Guerber: The whole thing. Okay. Mr. Jung: And I used to advise this body, so I would say you can provide comments to the architectural design or to the demo of the project because you know you are advisory to the planning commission and the planning department. So then your comments would get incorporated into what the planning commission sees in it and ultimately what we’re asking the planning department to do is to do the final design review due to the fast track nature of this project. So we can get their final recommendation of how that buildings going to look when it ultimately gets through building permit approval time. So you have the zoning layer, which this body and the planning department deals with, then the building permit goes through its separate track, right. So we’re trying to get the design focused on the zoning portion of the project. Ms. Summers: What is the roof material on the retail? Mr. Jung: That is shingling just Arc 80, I believe. Ms. Summers: For me that feels (like) one of the most out of place things, because it feels like it’s an architecture, house residence shingle on top of this retail. I guess I feel like if there was a little more…like I almost want to see even brick or a real concrete on the lowest level and some sort of roof that makes more sense to me above the retail. Or maybe that’s the patio. Maybe the roof of that becomes a space that can be occupied by the… Mr. Jung: If you look at the Līhu‘e Town Core Plan the canopy is required. So… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 44 of 58 Ms. Summers: Right, which is great. Mr. Jung: Right, but it’s the type of material… Ms. Summers: Because it provides a rain cover for people walking down the street. But then does it, can that be – I am just thinking of the building right next door is the health. Is it the health building? Chair Wichman: Yes. Mr. Jung: Yes. Ms. Summers: Very square, you know but it has these deep, like Stephen was saying, places where people are walking by, so its kind of activated by that. Then you have the funny little retail that’s more the kind of it feels more active I guess or more you feel like you see the people coming and going. Where this feels like everyone’s pushed (and) buried far away. Does that make sense? Mr. Jung: Yes, I know it does. Ms. Summers: And then I am looking at, its this weird little bridges that go to everybody’s places. Mr. Jung: Yes, to save on cost, obviously, we thought of pulling the (air) conditioning component and so the breezeway would allow for airflow to pop through each of the units. Ms. Summers: But it doesn’t give them any extra space, because its these tiny bridges. So there’s nowhere for the potted plants and so I don’t know it feels I guess it just feels really devoid of people in that space, I don’t know. So I love the idea that both Jim and Stephen were talking about with I don’t know, if it’s a patio or if it’s just something that – I feel like when I go down that street that I see the people going in and out of the spaces more. And does anyone understand what I am saying. Mr. Guerber: I totally do, absolutely. I think that would be a really wonderful roof top kind of patio with tables and chairs up there, with people. That they could look out on the street and they could see the Christmas lights and all that instead of just a roof. Make it useful. Ms. Summers: And then we’re not seeing that residential shingle… Mr. Guerber: Potted plants up there, you know. We’re talking about making it a more… Ms. Summers: Urban or I don’t even know, yes. Mr. Jung: We pitched the Kaka’ako style project and that got stepped on. Chair Wichman: A little modern. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 45 of 58 Mr. Guerber: Maybe down the street. Mr. Long: I feel that the second rendering is an improvement on the first rendering. And I also believe that Mason Architects could do better than this. A little bit of thought and consideration for architectural features, detailing (and) construction methodology. Mr. Jung: Yes, I had to put a little pressure on Elena Brown who was working on this project, because we were working through Christmas on this to try to get this in by January. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Is there perhaps like a suggestion on the type of building or architectural feature throughout on Rice Street that, you know may suggest that a new design be incorporated. Mr. Long: Mason Architects is a highly respected historical architectural firm on O‘ahu. I mean they know. And your comment, your architecture of bullet points, oh the Kress Building has concrete so we have concrete here. It’s not even concrete. It’s just like a stucco material (and) has nothing to do with that beautiful, beautiful concrete material on Kress Street. So, I just know they could do better. A little bit of thought and consideration, and not my responsibility. Ms. Summers: No, but I think we do have a responsibility to try and pick some of the things that appeal to us along Rice Street or in the core and maybe try to give some direction and I think that you actually already did when you brought up the patio’s. To me that brings up what I see when I am looking at some of those buildings where you actually can see. You can see that the building is actually alive, that there are people, they’re not all hidden away from the street. It’s kind of this life and activity and I think that’s what we really… Mr. Guerber: It’s more organic. Ms. Summers: Yes. Mr. Guerber: Rather than concrete. Ms. Summers: Well, yes, just more life I guess. And I feel like even if we just, well I do feel like that residential shingle is odd for a roof there and if that was maybe activated than that kind of gives that sense of life that feels like it’s kind of missing there. Mr. Guerber: So this brings up another point for the rest of us. We are in the midst of beginning to develop Rice Street, there are places that have architectural guidelines for areas and we don’t have that on the Rice Street district. Maybe we should be doing that. Or do we have that. Mr. Jung: You have it in a very broad context. I mean you have three illustrations in the Līhu‘e Town Core Plan as the roof design and the, If you want I can pass this around. Some of the sections are highlighted but it doesn’t give details and I think that’s where we were all lost in trying to fine tune and approach this. And so it has the color palette rule set, so we know what color it has to be all right. We know it can’t have reflective glass, we have three types of roofs we can play with, but for the building design from a massing standpoint there’s not a lot of guidance. And I think that’s where we’re stuck. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 46 of 58 Ms. Summers: But even these canopy types like if we did a raised supportive type with…and you did seating or something, I don’t know it feels like they could even take some of these suggestions. They’re showing balconettes and what else, that’s kind of it. Mr. Jung: So one of the suggestions I could proffer to this body is that we are going for the planning commission next Tuesday and again it’s just for the density component and obviously they’re going to chime in the design component, as well. The planning director has committed to saying we can allow for the design review and so we could coordinate if it’s approved and get our application in on time and we could coordinate having our initial design review with the department and then bring it back to this body for additional comments and I think… Mr. Guerber: Please. Ms. Summers: Yes. Mr. Jung: We could circulate it that way and at that point we could have a more refined iteration that might be a little more palatable. So it’s a little unusual from a procedure standpoint, but I think it will work because we do have a requirement in the Līhu‘e Town Core plan to have final design review and if we incorporate that to a condition then we’ll have to do it by way of condition of the commission. Mr. Guerber: Should we do a motion. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Chair Wichman: Ready to receive a motion. Mr. Guerber: I move that we have the applicant come back to us for a design review once you finish with the planning commission, before you get…before building permit. Mr. Jung: Correct. Mr. Guerber: Before building permit. Chair Wichman: Do I hear a second. Mr. Long: I’ll second. Chair Wichman: Any discussion. Mr. Guerber: Is that enough of a thing for this whole matter. Ms. Summers: I think so. Does feel like it’s enough. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 47 of 58 Mr. Jung: I mean I’ll comment to that. Our responsibility now is to take feedback from you guys and bring it back to the architectural team (and) say this is what the historic commission is looking at. We’re going to have additional comments from the planning commission, and we can combine and compile those comments and tell the planning department all right this is what we heard from your team and get their feedback from the planning department as well. And then we could come up with a final plan to bring back to you folks for additional comment. Mr. Guerber: Come back to us. Chair Wichman: Alex has a comment. Mr. Wong: I’d also like to remind the commission that we should also consider a motion regarding the demolition of the existing structure because that will also be under the permit that is being sought for approval next Tuesday. So… Chair Wichman: That’s true. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So we already have a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Long: And discussion of that motion. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sure Mr. Long: May I ask you Ian. Do you feel that you’ve gotten enough specific input from us on a historic basis to go back to your architect with. Mr. Jung: I think so. Yes. Chair Wichman: Are we ready for a vote. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. There’s a motion and a second. Chair Wichman: We have two. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: No. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Any ayes. (Unanimous voice vote). Any nays. (Hearing none). Nope, okay, it passes. Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Long: And now we address the demolition. Chair Wichman: Yes. Ms. Summers: So, what were you saying about HABS and SHPD. Mr. Jung: Well it’s obviously my legal opinion that it’s not over 51… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 48 of 58 Ms. Summers: Oh, no I don’t care about that part. Does SHPD require HABS. Mr. Jung: Normally a HABS study would be done for an actual historic property where you’re going to do mitigation plans on to document the historical nature of the building that’s getting demo’d. We could do – I worked with Mason Architects on another registered property where we did a HABS study and you know it can be done. But it just comes at an additional costs factored into that. I would suggest, and we could obviously, we’re still going to have to go through the SHPD protocol on this to verify whether or not its 50 or 51 years. But what we could do is we could do a 6E form based on the context of the historic district and then get their feedback on that. But as all of you know, it’s hard getting a response from SHPD these days, so I am not sure if they would comment back on it, but yes. Mr. Guerber: So from what I understand, for demolition, no matter what we say you can still demolish the building. Mr. Jung: That’s correct and legally even if it’s on the register you could go through the whole process and then if the State says no then the State would have to go and condemn the property from the owner. With a permit you could mitigate the impact and require mitigation to document and take historical notes of what exist and we’re happy to do that. And one of the things we discussed with Ms. Griffin was doing, you know a plaque to commemorate one of the first… Mr. Guerber: Residents. Mr. Jung: Residents of that particular lot, not necessarily the building. The building from what I’ve heard in the community it doesn’t have like significant architectural value but that’s a personal preference. Ms. Summers: But it represents the time-period… Mr. Jung: Right, I mean… Ms. Summers: Very well and it’s a building that I think is attractive. Ms. Larson: I don’t its kind of crazy. Chair Wichman: Stephen. Mr. Long: With regards to the demolition of the building and mitigating measures and recommendations I believe we have done that and requesting you come back before us with a design and review process and I think that we’ve come up with probably a half dozen specific mitigating design features. Mr. Jung: And we could do a HABS type review where we do archival photos of the structure and then get a little more research on who constructed and all that and create a report. Not to the February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 49 of 58 level of what HABS (would) normally require details and where you got to get (the) Secretary of Interior to bless it. Ms. Summers: Well, and every little detail drawn to the… Mr. Jung: Right, because I went through that process and it’s… Ms. Summers: It’s difficult. Mr. Jung: It takes a year, you know, it’s quite a long process. Ms. Summers: Can we ask for what you just said like a HABS. Mr. Guerber: So I move that if you do a demolish this building that you take photographs and document what the building was before it comes down and do a job like the HABS would be not quite as much but document what was there before. That’s good enough right. Ms. Summers: I like that. Chair Wichman: That was a motion, yes. Ms. Summers: I second that motion. Mr. Long: Any discussion. Chair Wichman: Discussion. Mr. Long: Within a placement of a plaque and some of the other mitigating factors in my recommendation be a part of that motion. Mr. Guerber: Yes. Chair Wichman: Do we need to redo the motion, since we had a second. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, I mean you could be a friendly amendment to your initial motion. Mr. Guerber: Someone could second the motion as revised. Ms. Summers: I second that motion, as revised. Mr. Guerber: Right. Chair Wichman: And you have all that. Yes. Okay. All righty. So discussion. One thing I am kind of curious about if there’s a plaque and there were former people that lived there can we maybe have photographs if there are any such photographs of anything. Even of the Central February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 50 of 58 Pacific Bank, I mean it’s something. You know, a hundred years down the line it’s going to mean something right. Mr. Jung: Yes, we actually undertook a phase one of a sight assessment project just to evaluate any environmental issues that may have been on the property, maybe because the area has been disturbed quite a bit. And there was from what I recall a storage unit a laundry facility, so we wanted to evaluate whether or not there was any contaminants there. So, as part of the phase one it goes back tax overlooks those old maps and we have maps from 1927, to present which show status of structures. So we kind of already have a base line of what existed as a history of the property. Chair Wichman: So you could have like a little historic wall or something like that about the area. Mr. Jung: Yes. That’s definitely something we could look at doing because apparently the county is going to be doing some things on Rice Street from what I understand, plaques… Chair Wichman: It ’s still good to… Mr. Jung: Chickens. There’s chicken monuments going up and some kind of ice cream cone monument, from what I understand. So. Mr. Guerber: This is the middle of Līhu‘e, it’s probably the center of what is Līhu‘e. I am thinking prehistory. What was here before contact? If you demolish you’re going to expose a bunch of soil that may never have been…no archaeology has ever been done on it. Chair Wichman: That’s true. Mr. Guerber: You probably should say something about that. Mr. Jung: There actually was…there was a study in the area, we don’t have the full – before they were called archaeological inventory surveys or archaeological inspections, I think is what they called them. But there was something done on the property and if you walk down Rice Street you can see how the properties leveled off and then drops down before the Watumull Plaza. So there was a ton of fill that was brought in, in that area after the single-family residence was done. So from my context, I don’t think we need to do a full archaeological inventory survey, let alone archaeological monitoring because it’s already fully disturbed. I worked on the Kaua‘i Museum Project and they recorded archaeological inventory survey for new post that were going in, which I was very surprised on after I came onto the project. But I think at that point its overkill but that’s my own opinion on it. Because there was a lot of fill if you do walk by the property you’ll how its leveled for the parking lot area and then drops down. And even as you walk up to Rice Street it kind of tapers off. Mr. Guerber: What’s the impact to that place that was just built or being built right now. What is that in the middle of this U shape building you’re… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 51 of 58 Mr. Jung: Yes, so we…I’ve met with Lesther Calipjo is the owner of that particular property and we met and one of things we worked out is maybe doing a shared entry so we have a single entry…I am sorry it’ll be a shared exit for us shared entry for him. But our and that building is kind of a unique design as well. There’s a lot of comments in the community about that but that particular – our building would have our parking as the buffer so would be structure to structure there’d be a buffer between the parking lot. We’d have some vegetative arrangements to kind of block off our parking lot from those four residential units back there. Chair Wichman: I have a question about when you talk about fill. As an archaeologist I know that we dig through a lot of fill and we still find things. So it depends on how much fill there is, I mean, how deep the building or the settings are going you know, whether you’re going to disturb that or not, you know. But we have found that under fill, so… Mr. Jung: Yes, we had a Geotech (Geotechnical Engineering) team out there so we can – I’ll get that report and bring it back to this body… Chair Wichman: Thanks. Mr. Jung: See how when they did the borings how much fill was there… Chair Wichman: Great. Thank you, Ian. Thank you. That would help. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So, I think there’s a motion and second on the floor. Chair Wichman: Okay. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Just need a vote. Chair Wichman: A vote, okay. All those in favor. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed. (Hearing none). Nope, so passed. Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Jung: Thank you commissioners and we’ll be back to hear your comments. Chair Wichman: And we can get Carolyn back in here. 3. Discussion regarding a possible amendment to the Kaua‘i Historical Preservation Review Commission Rules and Regulations regarding the minimum requirements for project presentations before the Kaua‘i Historical Preservation Review Commission. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So, I believe this item was related to commissioner Long’s request that there be like guidelines, or criteria, or checklist be provided to applicants to guide what is minimally required for any proposals before you folks. So, in your materials there’s just a really rough draft form of a checklist on items that are required. The very last page of the packet. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 52 of 58 Carolyn Larson returned to the meeting. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: So, you know I think it’s an opportunity I think going forward. A couple years ago with the Open Space Commission, Ka‘āina Hull, the Deputy Director at the time, now Director, and I as my other hat as an attorney, we helped to draft rules, amendments to the open space rules to sort of guide analysis. One the procedures and analysis for any proposals that go before the open space commission. I think similarly we have an opportunity to maybe consider going forward, creating amendments to our rules. That would help guide how you folks would analyze proposals, be it private projects, and these analysis would then be folded into or forwarded to the planning commission for those higher level permits, Class III’s, Class IV’s and then to the department for Class I & II permits. For us to consider incorporating into conditions of approval or if its State projects or it’s a 106 review where really we’re creating recommendations for Federal highways or the State to incorporate into the project. So, I think it’s an opportunity something to just consider going forward. Again what you were provided with is just really a rough draft of, you know, basic information that you folks will need for proposals, so. Chair Wichman: I have a question. Since this is just the start of the checklist can we take this home… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Chair Wichman: Think about it and write our comments on it and… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes Chair Wichman: Bring it back to the next meeting. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: That sounds great. Chair Wichman: Thank you. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, we can do that and put this item back on the agenda in March. Mr. Guerber: Let’s keep it on the agenda for awhile. That’s fine. Chair Wichman: I think this is going to take some discussion. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sure, okay, sounds good. Mr. Guerber: Because I would certainly like to see pictures of what’s there currently. Ms. Summers: I think that would be helpful. Chair Wichman: Would be very helpful, yes. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 53 of 58 Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Ms. Summers: And if there’s a survey already done, that they give it to us before they come. Mr. Guerber: Yes, so what does it look like now. What is the proposed look from it. Give us an idea of what we are judging. Chair Wichman: Then we can tone down on the deferments. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Mr. Guerber: Yes. Mr. Long: I just have a couple of comments. The first is thank you very much to the planning department for expanding… Chair Wichman: Absolutely. Mr. Long: What I suggested or minimum requirements. Thank you Alex, really Jodi, great job. On the last item, you know for just all projects applicants. I’d like to see the word “existing” and “proposed”. So existing site plan, existing floor plans, plural… Ms. Summers: Good idea. Mr. Long: For existing elevations, scope of work to include description of proposed materials and finishes. It’s materials and finishes. And then that was with photographs also of the existing. And then the proposed would be all of that but no photographs. Rendering if can, but it’s not a requirement. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Okay, great. Mr. Guerber: Great. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sounds good. Okay, we’ll put this matter back on the agenda for the next time. Mr. Guerber: Should we make a motion do it… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, I mean that might help wrap it up… Mr. Guerber: And act next time. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sure, you can defer this matter ‘till the next meeting agenda. Chair Wichman: It is under new business, so maybe we should do that. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 54 of 58 Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Mr. Guerber: Yes, but I am thinking if matters are coming to us next month would be nice to have this be published to those people so they know what they’re going to have to bring to us. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I think we can work with the applicants directly knowing that this is the direction and so Alex, as a planner can help steer applicants to provide these things. And then going forward we can solidify that as an actual rule. Yes. Mr. Guerber: Okay. Mr. Long: Thank you and the reason that I brought it up because when I went to a counter as a person from the public… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Mr. Long: You know I really kind of wanted to be handed an 8-1/2 by 11 sheet saying you’re going in front of KHPRC here do this, so thank you. And thank you for doing that in the interim. Because we may have items that come up you know before our next meeting and lets just take care of this before it becomes memorialized. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Sounds good. Okay. So perhaps a motion to defer this matter. Ms. Summers: I motion that we defer this until the next meeting. Chair Wichman: We have a motion. Mr. Guerber: I second that. Chair Wichman: Jim second. Any discussion. Ms. Summers: The only discussion I have is I really feel like I want to understand more the archaeological and historical aspects of what we’re looking at, so I can put it on you guys to help me understand that better. I would really appreciate that. Maybe some points to be added to this that are more kind of where you’re coming from. Ms. Larson: This is a proposed checklist of what people should bring, presenters should bring. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, and if there’s anything missing from the perspective of anything required to reflect any archaeological items then, yes… Ms. Summers: Or even just history. I liked your…I think I understood what you were talking about with the bridge, but I feel it’s making me think in a different way and I really appreciate that. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Motion, second and I… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 55 of 58 Chair Wichman: Motion, second and all in favor. (Unanimous voice vote). Any nays. (Hearing none). So passed, its deferred. Motion passed 6:0. K. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We have no items under this agenda item. Chair Wichman: May I mention something under this. We’ve never had an education committee. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I think… Chair Wichman: We did at one time. Kuulei Santos was the head of it and I was on it as well. But, we didn’t do anything. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Oh. Okay. Chair Wichman: She went to a conference in San Diego and came back with all these great ideas and then nothing happened. So, I am not sure if we want to restart this… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Chair Wichman: And what it would entail. So I am just throwing it out there. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: You know what we’ll do actually for (items) K., L. and M. perhaps we can just research the formation of these, whether it’s a PIG, the permitted interaction group and what the scope was. And then we kind of give an update on where each of these committees are and whether they should be…new members should be assigned to these to complete the initial underlying scope or whether is should be disbanded. So, maybe we put that on for the next time. Mr. Guerber: Lets erase it. Chair Wichman: Except for L. and M. we do have…or L. especially… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Chair Wichman: We do have something to say about that… Mr. Guerber: We have another PIG starting again, right. Chair Wichman: Pardon. Mr. Guerber: We having a PIG that’s starting again. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 56 of 58 Chair Wichman: Well we…these are all PIG’s already, right. So L., Jodi you weren’t at the last meeting… Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Right. Chair Wichman: Right. So L. we did talk about. Remember Stephen. It’s the inventory. Mr. Long: Oh, I thought about that. And our PIG should schedule our first meeting maybe with the support of planning department staff and lay out a game plan and who’s going to do what and how we’re going to do it. You know sort of a first introductory meeting. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Ms. Larson: Who is on that PIG. Chair Wichman: Stephen Long, Alex Wong, Jim Guerber and myself. Ms. Summers: And isn’t Gerald on it. Chair Wichman: And Gerald, I am sorry. That’s right. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. Yes and we can coordinate with the members on scheduling a site visit or meeting. Yes. Mr. Long: Do we want to set a time now or want to do this, do that in-house. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, I would think we could probably, especially yes, perhaps Alex can take the lead and schedule that off and coordinate our schedules amongst you folks. Mr. Guerber: Like think about just before the next meeting, like an hour before. Mr. Long: That sounds good to me. Mr. Guerber: That’s convenient for everybody. Chair Wichman: Yes, it is. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. L. KAUA'I HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE M. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: This one again I might… February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 57 of 58 Mr. Guerber: We’ve never done it. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes, so we’ll research the history of it and see… Chair Wichman: Yes, we talked about it one time and I don’t think anything became of it. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay. N. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: We are in a series…well I think Shan may have reached out to you folks to try to schedule one-on-ones. The West Kaua‘i Community Plan update is at the point where the draft, department draft, is being discussed at the planning commission. And within the plan itself there’s several sections that would probably have interest with you folks. Most particularl y the shared spaces and the heritage resources sections where the department did a whole bunch of outreach and to identify important shared spaces and also heritage resources. So, if you folks have any suggestions or comments, I think please let us know. I think the West Kaua‘i Community Plan as a whole is going to be discussed before the planning commission for a couple months, I’d say. And then we also…there is a form based code measure that’s also being proposed. I am not sure if I can do it justice but it is I guess a method to implement some of the policies, recommended in the plan and it relates to the form and character to the towns. So there’s one in Kekaha proposed…it’ll work – I mean I don’t want to get too detailed it’s more so just an announcement. We can go over it a little more when we’re meeting one-on-one, but okay. But so again just wanted to announce this is a process that is being discussed right now. We are seeking public comments, as well as your folks comments and yes, we’ll talk again. And we’ll also schedule a formal briefing at the next meeting in March. Chair Wichman: Thank you. O. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (3/19/2020) Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: The next meeting is March 19, 2020. We have a number of things that are going to be, carried over. I am sorry. The rules and the West Kaua‘i Community Plan and I think we have a couple applications that will be in the pipeline for that day also. Mr. Guerber: Oh, can I ask something. I just got this in the mail yesterday. I really would appreciate it if we could get it sooner so…and it really helps if we have enough time to go out to the site and see it in person, if we can find the time to do it. It would be great if I knew a couple weeks ahead of time what was going to come up. I didn’t need to see the whole thing, I don’t need to see Alex’s report I just need to go out there and familiarize myself with, what’s the street like, what’s the building like now, you know. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Okay, yes. We can work on that for sure. Okay, any other. February 20, 2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 58 of 58 Chair Wichman: Any other. P. ADJOURNMENT Ms Summers: I motion to adjourn the meeting. Chair Wichman: Motion to adjourn. Second. Ms. Larons: Second. Chair Wichman: Second by Carolyn. All right, motion adjourned. Thank you. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Wichman adjourned the meeting at 6:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. DAVID Y.IGE GOVERNOR COUNTYOFKAUAI 11 A83I DEPT. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION KAUAI DISTRICT 1720 HALEUKANA STREET LIHUE,HAWAII 96766 December3,2020 JADET.BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Directors LYNN A.S.ARAKI-REGAN DEREKJ.CHOW ROSSM.HIGASHI EDWIN H.SNIFFEN INREPLYREFERTO: HWY-K 4.200270 Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission c/o County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue.HI 96766 Dear Sir/Madam: Subject:CHAPTER 343,HAWAII REVISED STATUTES CONSULTATION FOR KUHIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, VICn^ITY OF HANALEI BRIDGE PROJECT N0.560A-01-20 TAX MAP KEY:(4)5-4-04 In accordance with State guidelines for preparing environmental review documents,the State ofHawaii, Department of Transportation (HDOT),Highways Division is consulting with agencies having jurisdiction and expertise as to the propriety of the exemption for the subject action,and HDOT has identified the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)as a consulting party. The action involves installation of new traffic signal,traffic signs,pavement markings and metal guardrail.All work will be done within the previously disturbed State Highways rights-of- way (ROW).This is a State-funded project.The KHPRC has been identified as an agency having jurisdiction and expertise for the subject project.Enclosed is a location map showing the project area. Ifwe do not receive comments within 30 calendar days from the date ofthis letter,we will take this as a response ofno comment.Should you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact Mr.Eric Fujikawa,PE,PLS,Project Manager at eric.i.fiiiikawa(2!havvaii.gov or via Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission HWY-K 4.200270 December 3,2020 Page2 phone at 808-245-3015 or Mr.Bernie Vargas,Project Engineer at bernie.p.vargas@hawaii.gov or via phone at 808-241-3027 and reference letter no.HWY-K 4.200270 as noted above. Very truly yours, Lawrence J.Dill,P.E. District Engineer Encls. PROJECT •To Kilauea Hanalei Bridge LIMITS OF PROJECT LOCATION PLAN STAT6 OF MAWA11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HISHWAYS DIV1SION MHIO HKMKt riwnc sim IUIWEUEIIIS miwjr OF iww SIOGE District of Hanalei Island of Kauai DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THE COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR KA'AINA S.HULL DIRECTOR JOD1 A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA DEPUTY'DIRECTOR January 8,2021 State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation Highways Division Kaua'i District Attn:Mr.Larry Dill 1720 Haleukana Street LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 -V-ia-email-to:Lawrence.i.dil[(5ihawaii.aov:-eric.i.fuiikawa(a!hawaii.aov; bernie.D.varaasfai.hawaii.aov; RE:Chapter 343,Hawai'i Revised Statues Consultation for Kuhio Highway Traffic Signal Improvements, Vicinity of Hanalei Bridge ProjectNo.560A-01-20 Tax Map Key:(4)5-4-04 Aloha Mr.Dill, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments pursuant to Chapter 343 of the Hawai'i Revised Statues for the above-mentioned project.The Department received your letter dated December 3,2020 (see attached Exhibit A)by mail on December 1 1, 2020 to request comments for the proposed scope of work. In response to the ongoing COVID-19 Emergency,the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)has postponed all meetings until further notice.In lieu of the KHPRC's review,the Department has been reviewing applications until the KHPRC meetings resume. A.Undertakina As represented in your letter,the proposed project involves traffic improvements for Hanalei Bridge that will be conducted within previously disturbed State Highways rights- of-way (ROW).The proposed improvements,including the installation ofseveral traffic signals,traffic signs,pavement markings,and a metal guardrail,are intended to facilitate traffic congestion in the area. B.Identification of Historic Properties www.kauai.gov 4444 RIce Street Suite A473 •Lihu'e,Hawal'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b)•(808)241-6699 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ch.343-HDOT Hanalei Bridge Traffic Improvements TMK:(4)5-4-04 Page2 Based on the Department's records,the Department offers the following information about the historic significance ofthe hlanalei Bridge:_._ •In the National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form (1976),the Hanalei Bridge isdescribed as follows: "The l-lanalei Bridgeisa106-foot,single span,steel through-truss (Pratt Truss)bridge built on reinforced concrete abutments,with a 17-foot roadway deck made of timber planks.The bridge was constructed by the Territory of Hawai'i in1912,built by Hamilton &Chambers of New York. The Bridge has been continuously used and maintained since 1912,with repairs in 1934 that strengthened the superstructure." The 1912 Hanalei Bridge is one ofthe first examples ofthe progressive American highway system at work in Hawai'i,on Kaua'i's North Shore.It is also one of the last remaining examples of the first use of formal engineering expertise and industrial-technological experience in American bridge making by the new Territorial Government,in the first decade following United States annexation of Hawai'i. The construction of improved,modern vehicular roads on Kaua'i in 1911- 1912,especially the up-to-date replacement of older,weak,timber bridges by steel truss and reinforced concrete spans,remedied unsatisfactory road and transportation conditions,improved communications,and helped stimulate the economic and social growth of the then relatively isolated North Shore ofthe island." In 1978,the Secretary of the Interior determined that the Hanalei Bridge was eligible to be listed on the historic register under Criteria A,C,and D.The Secretary ofthe Interior also noted the following: "This structure is the oldest surviving American metal truss bridge in the State of Hawai'i,containing much of its original design and visual integrity. It is a rare surviving bridge fabricated by Hamilton and Chambers Co.of New York.It is also considered to be one of the gateways to the Hanalei Valley and an integral part of the historic transportation system of Kaua'i." The Hanalei Bridge is a double bridge design—consistingofa Warren truss that is wrapped around a Pratt truss.In 1912,the Pratt truss (top bridge)was the original component of the bridge before the Warren truss (lower bridge)was Ch.343-HDOT Hanalei Bridge Traffic Improvements TMK:(4)5-4-04 Page3 added in the 1960s to increase vehicle load capacity (The Honolulu Advertiser, TenBruggencate,1986). *Hanalei Bridge is part ofthe Kaua'i Historic Belt Road,which is listed on the HistoricRegister. •According to the Department's recorcls7fh^-bridge wascOnstructed by Joseph Morange,the first county engineer in the territory of Hawai'i. C.Determination of Effect In reviewing the proposed scope ofwork,the Department believes that the Hanalei Bridge and the Kaua'i Historic Belt Road are important historic resources on the North Shore ofKaua'i. Based on the preliminary information provided in the consultation letter,the Department is not able to provide more comments on the project until more detailed information about the proposed scope of work becomes available.The Department would recommend photo simulations to help depict the proposed design,location,and the total number oftraffic signals and signs to be located on the bridge.In addition,the Department would request follow up information to clarify how the proposed improvements will affect the historic bridge and the overall rural character ofthe surrounding area. Should you have questions,please do not hesitate to contact staff planner Marisa Valenciano at mvalencianoO.kauai.aov. Mahalo! 5<i JODI HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA Deputy Director of Planning Attachments:Exhibit A-Chapter 343 Consultation Letter EXHIBIT"A" (Consultation Letter) DAVID Y.IGE GOVERNOR COUNTYOFKAUAI 11 A83I DEPT. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION KAUAI DISTRICT 1720 HALEUKANA STREET LIHUE,HAWAII 96766 December3,2020 JADET.BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Directors LYNN A.S.ARAKI-REGAN DEREKJ.CHOW ROSSM.HIGASHI EDWIN H.SNIFFEN INREPLYREFERTO: HWY-K 4.200270 Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission c/o County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue.HI 96766 Dear Sir/Madam: Subject:CHAPTER 343,HAWAII REVISED STATUTES CONSULTATION FOR KUHIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, VICn^ITY OF HANALEI BRIDGE PROJECT N0.560A-01-20 TAX MAP KEY:(4)5-4-04 In accordance with State guidelines for preparing environmental review documents,the State ofHawaii, Department of Transportation (HDOT),Highways Division is consulting with agencies having jurisdiction and expertise as to the propriety of the exemption for the subject action,and HDOT has identified the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)as a consulting party. The action involves installation of new traffic signal,traffic signs,pavement markings and metal guardrail.All work will be done within the previously disturbed State Highways rights-of- way (ROW).This is a State-funded project.The KHPRC has been identified as an agency having jurisdiction and expertise for the subject project.Enclosed is a location map showing the project area. Ifwe do not receive comments within 30 calendar days from the date ofthis letter,we will take this as a response ofno comment.Should you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact Mr.Eric Fujikawa,PE,PLS,Project Manager at eric.i.fiiiikawa(2!havvaii.gov or via Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission HWY-K 4.200270 December 3,2020 Page2 phone at 808-245-3015 or Mr.Bernie Vargas,Project Engineer at bernie.p.vargas@hawaii.gov or via phone at 808-241-3027 and reference letter no.HWY-K 4.200270 as noted above. Very truly yours, Lawrence J.Dill,P.E. District Engineer Encls. PROJECT •To Kilauea Hanalei Bridge LIMITS OF PROJECT LOCATION PLAN STAT6 OF MAWA11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HISHWAYS DIV1SION MHIO HKMKt riwnc sim IUIWEUEIIIS miwjr OF iww SIOGE District of Hanalei Island of Kauai ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K.TANIGAWA ACTINGCOUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY OF KALI^M •20 NOV 20 P 1 52 MICHAEL H.TRESLER DKPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER November 12,202QANH1NG DEPT; Ms.Victoria Wichman Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission c/o County of Kaua'i Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 '• LThu'e,Hl 96766 Subject:National Historic Preservation Act Section 106:Consultation with Native hlawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Party,Historic Property Information and Area of Potential Effect Comment Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project Island of Kaua'i,District of Kona,Ahupua'a of Hanapepe Federal-Aid Project No.BR-0545(1) Tax Map Key(s):(4)1-9-007-013;(4)1-9-011:012;(4)1-9-011:999 (ROW) Dear Ms.Wichman, On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),the County of Kaua'i Department of Public Works ("County")invites you to participate in consultation under Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (NhlPA)of 1966,as amended (2006),forthe proposed bridge rehabilitation project.These improvements are proposed for Hanapepe Bridge,which carries Hanapepe Road overthe Hanapepe River in the Ahupua'a of Hanapepe. This proposed federally funded County project is considered a federal action and undertaking,as defined in Title 36 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.16(y).Effective May 1,2016,FHWA issued a Programmatic Delegation ofAuthority authorizing the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT)and local public agencies (LPA)such as the County to conduct NHPA Section 1 06 consultations with the State Historic Presen/ation Officer,Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs),and other consulting parties per 36 CFR 800.2 (c)(4).FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Overview ofthe Undertaking Hanapepe Bridge (Structure Number:007190071119004)is located in Hanapepe on the island of Kaua'i.The bridge carries Hanapepe Road,a County roadway,over the Hanapepe River.(See Figure 1)The bridge was built in 1911.While not listed on the National or Hawaii Register,the bridge is included in the Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation (2013)and is considered to have high preservation value. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Strcel Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer (808)241-6609(fl tn- <;. i^. Ms.Victoria Wichman November 12,2020 Page 2 of 5 Hanapepe Bridge is 24 feet wide and 200 feet long and consists of a four-span concrete superstructure supported by reinforced concrete abutments and reinforced concrete pier walls.The surface of the bridge deck is covered with asphalt concrete (AC)over aggregate base course.Along the upstream side ofthe bridge deck,there is a 6-inch waterline mostly enclosed in the AC.There is a reinforced,elevated concrete walkway (which is mounted on top of the parapet)at the downstream face of the bridge but fencing at both ends of the walkway structure prevents public access and use,due to the poor condition of the walkway.The elevated walkway was added in 1927 and has metal railings on both sides.At some time in the past,the railing wires along the bottom rung were removed and a steel pipe was installed in their place.A portion ofthe roadway adjacent to the elevated walkway is separated from the vehicular trave]lane on the bridge with a row of tubular plastic delineators to accommodate pedestrian traffic over the bridge (referred to as the sidewalk).There is a concrete bridge railing on the upstream side of the bridge.The channel beneath the bridge is part of a channelized levee system,and the streambed is unlined. Hanapepe Bridge is in poor condition as determined by the September 2018 Bridge Inspection Report prepared for the County's Department of Public Works.The project will repair spalled and delaminated areas of exposed reinforcing in the deck,girders, floor beams,abutments,pierwalls,and railings.The proposed maintenance and structural repair work will consist of chipping or sawing out the old concrete,installing reinforcement,patching with epoxy grout,patching mortar or concrete,and applying sealant.The existing AC and base course will be removed,and a new concrete deck will be placed on top ofthe original deck along with an asphalt overlay. In addition,the elevated walkway on the makai side of the bridge will be restored to operational condition by placing new,preformed concrete slabs for the walkway surface and sides.The metal railings are in poor condition and will be removed and replaced with a design similarto the original 1927 design and matching the existing color. Additional horizontal members will be added to the railing to meet existing building codes due to the large openings in the existing railing design.Metal wires (similar to the original design)will be added to the bottom 27 inches (each 4 inches apart)and horizontal pipe members and fittings will be added to the upper 15 inches so that an 8 inch diameter sphere will not pass through the opening.The proposed work is not anticipated to result in visual changes to the appearance ofthe bridge,with the exception ofthe modification to the railing design.A representative photo ofthe existing bridge is provided in Figure 2.A visual rendering ofthe rehabilitated bridge with the proposed new metal railing is shown in Figure 3. In addition to the restored elevated walkway accessed by stairs,an Americans with Disabilities Act compliant pedestrian sidewalk will be provided on the rehabilitated bridge by using tubular reflective delineators,similar to the existing situation. The project requires two laydown areas:a 0.13-acre area located between the river and lona Road and a 0.15-acre area nearAwawa Road forwater access,as shown on Figure 4. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (0 An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November12,2020 Page 3 of 5 Consultations Entitled consulting parties during the Section 106 process include the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation,State Historic Preservation Officers,NHOs,local governments, and applicants for federal assistance,permits,licenses,and other approvals. NHO and/or Hawaiian Descendants NHO and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral,lineal,or cultural ties to,cultural and historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed APE are asked to provide a response to this letter within 30 days of notification. Public Information Meetina The County intends to hold a virtual public information meeting about this project,during which the County also welcomes Section 106 comments about this undertaking.This public meeting will be held on-line on Wednesday,December 2,2020,at 6:00 pm. To participate in this public meeting,please pre-register at the following URL: httDS://attendee.aotowebinar.com/reaister/4544703081040665104 orscan the QR code below with your mobile device to be taken to the registration page. After registering,you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar online or by calling in using a cell phone or landline.Please register at least 2 days prior to the event (by Monday,November 30,2020). If you are unable to attend the virtual meeting,or for special requirements or handicap access needs,please contact Donald Fujimoto at 808-241-4882 or dfuiimoto@kauai.gov for alternative accommodations. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November 12,2020 Page 4 of 5 Provide Comment on the Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE)comprises the bridge,the transition onto Hanapepe Road,and the laydown areas shown on Figure 4.The SHPO concurred with this APE in a letter to DPW dated October 7,2020. The total APE is approximately 0.5 acres.The portion ofthe APE covering the bridge amounts to 0.21 acres and consists of the existing roadway,bridge footprint with access from below the bridge,and bridge approach.There is no roadway right-of-way (ROW) designated in this area,but the work would be conducted within the existing operational roadway,with the exception of two temporary construction laydown areas.The portion of the APE for a laydown area on the east side of Hanapepe River is 0.13 acres.The riveraccess area on the upstream west bank is 0.15 acres.No work in any ofthese areaswill extend belowthe ground surface,with the exception ofthe removal and replacement of the AC overlay on the bridge deck,which is not likely to affect the bridge approaches.However,depending on the actual tie-in at the approaches,there may be some work needed which will not exceed a depth of 6 inches from the existing pavement surface. Identification of Historic Properties within the APE We welcome any information you may have on historical and cultural sites that have been recorded in orwhich you may have knowledge ofwithin the APE.In addition,if you are acquainted with any persons or organizations that are knowledgeable about the APE,or any descendants with ancestral,lineal,or cultural ties to,or cultural and/or historical properties knowledge of or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the project area,we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information within 30 days of notice. On behalf of FHWA,the County of Kaua'i,by way of this letter is notifying you of the proposed Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project.Should you want to participate in the Section 106 process,we request your written intent.Please also provide your comments on the APE,any information you may have on cultural and/or historical sites that have been recorded within the APE,as well as,the names and contact information of people/organizations who may have cultural affiliations and historical properties information in the vicinity of the APE. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Michael Moule at DublicworksfSkau^floy,or by U.S.Postal Service to County of Kaua'i, Department of Public Works,Engineering Division,4444 Rice Street,Suite 275,LThu'e, Hl 96766-1340.You may also contact Mr.Donald Fujimoto,Project Manager at(808) 241 -4882 or dfuiimoto@kauai.gov with questions regarding this letter or the public information meeting on December 2,2020. 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 www.kauai.gov Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (0 An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November12,2020 Page 5 of 5 We look forward to working with you on this needed maintenance project. Sincerely, MICHAEL MOULE,P.E. Chief,Engineering Division Enclosures: Figure 1:Location Map Figure 2:Photo of Hanapepe Bridge Figure 3:Visual Rendering of Hanapepe Bridge Figure 4:Area of Potential Effects c:(digital copies only) Meesa Otani,FHWA Emma Kawamoto,HDOT HWY-D Misako Mimura,HDOT HWY-DE Ikaika Kincaid,Consor Nami Ohtomo,WSP www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Slreet Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer (808)241-6609(0 poipu-^v-MapArea .^>.KUKAMAHU'°^GUf.CH ^.s^/./ NOTTOSCALE a Q; Q, 0| =3| Q-, .-<^- .^HANApepE RIVER SRIDGE n HANAPEPE STADIUM HANAPEPS BAY a- ^ .•% HANAP£P£ SWSNGING BRIDGE ^J^£R^ -^ HANAPEPEBRIDGE \ •»—--• 1"\ //'"/i. ^^ Figure 1 Hanapepe Bridge Location Map Hanapepe Bridge RehabiSitation Project Figure 2 Photo of Hanapepe Bridge Hanapepe Bridge Refiabilitalion Projecl ••?.?< BEGIN WORK LAYDOWNYARDffi (FORWATERACCESS) 0.15ACRES ,••<??^'-» ENDWORK ^>« y/ .^.'<<>'v WORKAREALIMIT 0.21 ACRES »?»' y/ w ^°^>?. ^^ '^-•i/t fv ^- .<^- % >^ ,.'-«•'~s»r-v LAYDOWN YARD »1 0.13ACRES ^ ^<'* w •y<- <«;w //.<^. % ./ /'a> ^ ^^:4 /<•»f/f Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project. Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Community Meeting County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works, Engineering Division Federal-Aid Project No. BR-0545(1) Wednesday, December 2, 2020 CONSOR Engineers, LLC Welcome! Michael Moule, Chief of Engineering, DPW County of Kaua‘i Ikaika Kincaid, Meeting Facilitator CONSOR Engineers, LLC 2 Go To Webinar –House Keeping •Audience members will be muted until the end of the presentation. •Questions can be asked in the “questions” chat box during the presentation for online users. •Phone callers are asked to note questions, comments, and concerns and wait until the end when audience members are unmuted. •Phone callers will need to use the following numbers: –Dial In Number is 415-655-0052 –Access code is 662-249-615 –Pin 80377 3 Presentation Agenda •Introduction •Purpose of this Meeting •Objective of this Project •Brief History of Hanapepe Bridge •Project Site and Location –Laydown and Staging Area –River Access Area •Proposed Repair Project Scope of Work –Repairs –New Structural Improvements –Elevated Walkway •Best Management Practices •Project funding source and Construction Costs •Project Schedule •Questions and Comments 4 Introduction •County Department of Public Works Project (DPW) •Federally-funded project using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. •Design and Permitting Consultants: CONSOR Engineers, LLC (CONSOR) and Subconsultant WSP USA, are working with the County of Kaua‘i to provide design services for the rehabilitation of the Bridge. 5 Purpose of this Meeting •Inform the community about the work proposed by this project. •Clarify the history of prior work at Hanapepe Bridge. •Solicit comments and answer questions. 6 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation Process •Federally funded projects must conduct NHPA Section 106 Consultation with those knowledgeable about historic properties in the area to identify and assess potential effects. •If historic properties are present, FHWA and DPW will determine how historic properties may be affected by the project. •If there may be an “adverse effect” on a historic property, FHWA and DPW will work with Consulting Parties to avoid/minimize/mitigate the adverse effect. Anyone with information on potential historic properties in the area, or formally requesting 106 Consulting Party status, is requested to contact DPW by December 18, 2020. 7 Brief History •Bridge Originally Built in 1911. •Pedestrian Walkway was added in 1927. –Additional support brackets and the bottom horizontal railing were added later. •Rehab attempt in 2010s. •DOW’s waterline installation and proposed raised sidewalk. •US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hanapepe River Flood Control Project (levee). 8 Objective of the Project •Repair Hanapepe Bridge –Spalls, delamination, general deterioration •Repair Elevated Walkway –Closed due to extreme deterioration making it unsafe •Restore Load Capacity (~20-tons) –Currently at 10-ton load limit 9 Project Site 10 Site Details 11 Hanapepe Bridge 12 Proposed Scope of Work •Repair of defects; spall and crack repair with color matching. –Inside of the parapets will be painted to match current color. •Install drainpipes to keep water away from the structure. •New Structural Improvements. –Remove existing AC roadway and fill material. –Replace with reinforced concrete with an AC overlay. •Restore the original function of the elevated walkway. –Installation of precast deck planks. –Install new railings that meet current safety standards and resemble the original design. •Restore ADA compliant sidewalk on the roadway surface on the Makai side. •Temporary construction laydown areas will not require grading or earthwork. Work at bridge approaches will not exceed 6 inches from existing pavement surface 13 14 Proposed Scope of Work Proposed Scope of Work 15 Bridge Defects 16 Conceptual –North Elevation 17 Conceptual –North Fascia 18 Conceptual –South Elevation 19 Conceptual –South Side, East Bank 20 Conceptual –Pier Wall 1 21 Conceptual –Pier Wall 2 22 Conceptual –East Approach 23 Conceptual –West Approach 24 Conceptual –North Parapet 25 Conceptual –Elevated Walkway 26 Conceptual –Walkway West Stairs 27 Conceptual –Walkway West Side 28 Conceptual –Elevated Walkway Brackets 29 Elevated Walkway Pedestrian Railings •International Building Code (IBC) Section 1013 –“Guards shall be located along… stairs, platforms and landings which are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below.” –“Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high…” –“Required guards… shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) or more in diameter below 27 inches, above 27 inches it is an 8 inch sphere”. 30 Walkway Railing 31 Existing Original Design Draft Design Best Management Practices •Scaffolding or falsework will be installed to catch construction debris from entering the river. •Checklist and precautions to prevent impact to protected species and water quality. •The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee will not be modified during this project –Coordination will be maintained with USACE in the event of a flood condition arises –Levee protection will not be compromised and will remain functional at all times 32 Construction Traffic Control Plan 33 Project Funding •State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) –80% Federal Highway Administration –20% County Funds •$1.2 million Estimated Construction Cost 34 Estimated Project Schedule •2021 –Complete Planning, Permitting and Design •2022–Construction Start –Dependent on completion of State Hanapepe Bridge –Tentative August 2021 •2023 –Construction Completion 35 Questions and Comments •Contact or comments: –DPW Project Manager Donald Fujimoto •dfujimoto@Kauai.gov •(808) 241-4882 •Section 106 comments requested by – December 18, 2020 36 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THE COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHI1IG,MANAGING DIRECTOR KA'AINA S.HULL DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAVIGUSA DEPUTt'DmECTOR December 2,2020 CountyofKaua'i Public Works Engineering Division Attn:Mr.Michael Moule , 4444 Rice Street,Suite 275 LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 Email:Dublicworksiaskauai.aov;mmouleiSikauai.aov:dfuiimoto@.kauai.aov RE:National Historic Preservation Act Section 106:Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Party,Historic Property Information and Area of Potential Effect Comment Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project Island of Kaua'i,District of Kona,Ahupua'a of Hanapepe Federal-Aid Project No.BR-0545 (1) Tax Map Key(s): (4)1-9-007:013 (4)1-9-011:012 (4)1-9-011:999(ROW) Aloha Mr.Moule, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Section 106 consultation for the proposed 1911 Hanapepe Bridge rehabilitation project.In response to the ongoing COVID-19 Emergency,the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) has not been meeting since March 2020. The Department is currently working to resume KHPRC meetings in a virtual setting starting in January or February 2021.Therefore,the Department would like to request our intent to participate in the Section 106 process and to reserve the opportunity to comment on this project when KHPRC meetings resume. In addition,the Department would like to request a presentation before the KHPRC to provide an overview ofthe project and to summarize comments and concerns discussed during the December 2,2020 Virtual Public Meeting.The Department will provide more details regarding the status ofthe 2021 KHPRC meetings as more information becomes available. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite A473 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b)•(808)241-6699 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Sec.106-COK Public Works-Engineering Division 1911 Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project Multiple TMKS Page2 Should you have questions,please do not hesitate to contact staff planner Marisa Valenciano at mvalenciano@kauai.gov. Mahalol SiZttS^t^ia' JODI HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA Deputy Director of Planning Attachments:ExhibitA-Original Sec.106 Letter EXHIBIT'W (ConsultationLetter) ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA'I DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K.TANIGAWA ACTING COUN^ENGINEER El T UF r^MUA^TINGDEPUTYCOUNTYENGII •20 NOV 20 P 1 '52 November 12,2CPQANNING UtH i. Ms.Victoria Wichman Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission c/o County of Kaua'i Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 LThu'e,Hl 96766 Subject:National Historic Preservation Act Section 106:Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Party,Historic Property Information and Area of Potential Effect Comment Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project Island of Kaua'i,District of Kona,Ahupua'a of Hanapepe Federal-Aid Project No.BR-0545(1) Tax Map Key(s):(4)1-9-007-013;(4)1-9-011:012;(4)1-9-011:999 (ROW) Dear Ms.Wichman, On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),the County of Kaua'i Department of Public Works ("County")invites you to participate in consultation under Section 106 ofthe National hlistoric Preservation Act (NHPA)of 1966,as amended (2006),for the proposed bridge rehabilitation project.These improvements are proposed for Hanapepe Bridge,which carries Hanapepe Road over the Hanapepe River in the Ahupua'a of Hanapepe. This proposed federally funded County project is considered a federal action and undertaking,as defined in Title 36 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.16(y).Effective May 1,2016,FHWA issued a Programmatic Delegation ofAuthority authorizing the hlawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT)and local public agencies (LPA)such as the County to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with the State Historic Preservation Officer,Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs),and other consulting parties per 36 CFR 800.2 (c)(4).FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Overview of the Undertaking Hanapepe Bridge (Structure Number:007190071119004)is located in Hanapepe on the island of Kaua'i.The bridge carries Hanapepe Road,a County roadway,over the Hanapepe River.(See Figure 1)The bridge was built in 1911.White not listed on the National or Hawaii Register,the bridge is included in the Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation (2013)and is considered to have high preservation value. 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 www.kauai.gov Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November12,2020 Page 2 of 5 Hanapepe Bridge is 24 feet wide and 200 feet long and consists of a four-span concrete superstructure supported by reinforced concrete abutments and reinforced concrete pier walls.The surface ofthe bridge deck is covered with asphalt concrete (AC)over aggregate base course.Along the upstream side of the bridge deck,there is a 6-inch waterline mostly enclosed in the AC.There is a reinforced,elevated concrete walkway (which is mounted on top of the parapet)at the downstream face of the bridge but fencing at both ends of the walkway structure prevents public access and use,due to the poor condition of the walkway.The elevated walkway was added in 1927 and has metal railings on both sides.At some time in the past,the railing wires along the bottom rung were removed and a steel pipe was installed in their place.A portion ofthe roadway adjacent to the elevated walkway is separated from the vehicular travel lane on the bridge with a row of tubular plastic delineators to accommodate pedestrian traffic over the bridge (referred to as the sidewalk).There is a concrete bridge railing on the upstream side of the bridge.The channel beneath the bridge is part of a channelized levee system,and the streambed is unlined. Hanapepe Bridge is in poor condition as determined by the September 2018 Bridge Inspection Report prepared for the County's Department of Public Works.The project will repair spalled and delaminated areas of exposed reinforcing in the deck,girders, floor beams,abutments,pier walls,and railings.The proposed maintenance and structural repair work will consist of chipping or sawing out the old concrete,installing reinforcement,patching with epoxy grout,patching mortar or concrete,and applying sealant.The existing AC and base course will be removed,and a new concrete deck will be placed on top ofthe original deck along with an asphalt overlay. In addition,the elevated walkway on the makai side of the bridge will be restored to operational condition by placing new,preformed concrete slabs for the walkway surface and sides.The metal railings are in poor condition and will be removed and replaced with a design similarto the original 1927 design and matching the existing color. Additional horizontal members will be added to the railing to meet existing building codes due to the large openings in the existing railing design.Metal wires (similar to the original design)will be added to the bottom 27 inches (each 4 inches apart)and horizontal pipe members and fittings will be added to the upper 15 inches so that an 8 inch diameter sphere will not pass through the opening.The proposed work is not anticipated to result in visual changes to the appearance of the bridge,with the exception ofthe modification to the railing design.A representative photo ofthe existing bridge is provided in Figure 2.A visual rendering of the rehabilitated bridge with the proposed new metal railing is shown in Figure 3. In addition to the restored elevated walkway accessed by stairs,an Americans with Disabilities Act compliant pedestrian sidewalk will be provided on the rehabilitated bridge by using tubular reflective delineators,similar to the existing situation. The project requires two laydown areas:a 0.13-acre area located between the river and lona Road and a 0.15-acre area nearAwawa Road forwater access,as shown on Figure 4. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November12,2020 Page 3 of 5 Consultations Entitled consulting parties during the Section 106 process include the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation,State Historic Preservation Officers,NHOs,local governments, and applicants for federal assistance,permits,licenses,and other approvals. NHO_and/or Hawaiian Descendants NHO and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral,lineal,or cultural ties to,cultural and historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed APE are asked to provide a response to this letter within 30 days of notification. Public Information Meeting The County intends to hold a virtual public information meeting about this project,during which the County also welcomes Section 106 comments about this undertaking.This public meeting will be held on-line on Wednesday,December 2,2020,at 6:00 pm. To participate in this public meeting,please pre-register at the following URL: httDS://attendee.aotowebinar.com/reaister/4544703081040665104 or scan the QR code below with your mobile device to be taken to the registration page. After registering,you will receive a confirmation email containing information about Joining the webinar online or by calling in using a cell phone or landline.Please register at least 2 days prior to the event (by Monday,November 30,2020). If you are unable to attend the virtual meeting,or for special requirements or handicap access needs,please contact Donald Fujimoto at 808-241-4882 or dfuiimoto@kauai.gov for alternative accommodations. www.kauai.gov 4444 Eice Street Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer (808)241-6609 (f) Ms.Victoria Wichman November12,2020 Page 4 of 5 Provide Comment on the Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE)comprises the bridge,the transition onto Hanapepe Road,and the laydown areas shown on Figure 4.The SHPO concurred with this APE in a letter to DPW dated October 7,2020. The total APE is approximately 0.5 acres.The portion of the APE covering the bridge amounts to 0.21 acres and consists of the existing roadway,bridge footprint with access from below the bridge,and bridge approach.There is no roadway right-of-way (ROW) designated in this area,but the work would be conducted within the existing operational roadway,with the exception of two temporary construction laydown areas.The portion oftheAPE fora [aydown area on the east side ofHanapepe Riveris 0.13 acres.The river access area on the upstream west bank is 0.15 acres.No work in any ofthese areas will extend below the ground surface,with the exception of the removal and replacement of the AC overlay on the bridge deck,which is not likely to affect the bridge approaches.However,depending on the actual tie-in at the approaches,there may be some work needed which will not exceed a depth of 6 inches from the existing pavement surface. Identification of Historic Properties within the APE We welcome any information you may have on historical and cultural sites that have been recorded in orwhich you may have knowledge ofwithin the APE.In addition,if you are acquainted with any persons or organizations that are knowledgeable about the APE,or any descendants with ancestral,lineal,or cultural ties to,or cultural and/or historical properties knowledge of or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the project area,we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information within 30 days of notice. On behalf of FHWA,the County of Kaua'i,by way of this letter is notifying you of the proposed Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitation Project.Should you want to participate in the Section 106 process,we request yourwritten intent.Please also provide your comments on the APE,any information you may have on cultural and/or historical sites that have been recorded within the APE,as well as,the names and contact information of people/organizations who may have cultural affiliations and historical properties information in the vicinity of the APE. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Michael Moule at Dublicworks@.kauai.aov,or by U.S.Postal Service to County of Kaua'i, Department of Public Works,Engineering Division,4444 Rice Street,Suite 275,LThu'e, Hl 96766-1340.You may also contact Mr.Donald Fujimoto,Project Manager at (808) 241-4882 ordfuiimoto(5).kauai.aovwith questions regarding this letterorthe public information meeting on December2,2020. www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms.Victoria Wichman November 12,2020 Page 5 of 5 We look forward to working with you on this needed maintenance project. Sincerely, MICHAEL MOULE,P.E. Chief,Engineering Division Enclosures: Figure 1:Location Map Figure 2:Photo of Hanapepe Bridge Figure 3:Visual Rendering of Hanapepe Bridge Figure 4:Area of Potential Effects c:(digital copies only) Meesa Otani,FHWA Emma Kawamoto,HDOT HWY-D Misako Mimura,HDOT HWY-DE Ikaika Kincaid,Consor Nami Ohtomo,WSP 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 www.kauai.gov Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ^^KUKAMAHU ;°'fe,GULCH ..^HANAPEPE RIVER NOTTOSCALE Figure 1 Hanapepe Bridge Location Map Hanapepe Bridge Rehabilitalion Pmject ''nProject BEGINWORK ^LAYDOWNYARDffi (FQRWATERACCESS) .0.15ACRES <f« ENDWORK Si/WORKAREAtlMIT 0.21ACRES ^ ^l'•«^.rtf ^ LAYDOWNYARD»1 .13ACRES %:'Ai /i. /M. I. ^ ft iDh*-* t'-^' ^ »'»' y /A» ^ «,» ^ ?1<<&y .•>,» .'^t&. % ,•><•* /"Figure 4 Area o' "'sntial Effects Hanapepe Bridge Rt .iitation Projeqt LIBRARY ALA KALANIKAUMAKASTPOIPU RDW A IKO M O R D K O L O A R D PUAAKALA P L B LAKES L N PAANAU R D M A L I N O RD HIK INA RD KOLOA ELEMENTARY Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE1.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 POʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. USDA NRCS NGCE, 2014. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis.SHEET 1 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary ALAALANIKAUMAKASTKIAHUNAGOLFCLUB L O PAKAPAIPA BLVD POIPU RDP U A ALA N IPLPOIPU RD LAUAEPLPUA A K ALAPLPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE2.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 2 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres ALAKALANI KAUMAKASTHANAKAAPE BAYLAWAI RDP OIP U R D KAPILI RDHOONANI RDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE3.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 3 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres KIAHUNA GOLF CLUB SHERATON KAUAI RESORT KIAHUNA BEACH KIAHUNA PLANTATION & THE BEACH BUNGALOWSKIAHUNAPLANTATIONDRPOIPURD HOONANI RD HAPA RDKAPILI RDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE4.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary APE IS 40 FEET BEYOND THE ROADWAY RIGHT OF WAY AT THIS SECTION. Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 4 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres MARRIOTT'S WAIOHAI BEACH CLUB KANEIOLOUMA HEIAU POIPU BEACH PARK IPUKA ST WELELAU PL HOONE RD MUKU PL KIPUKA STNALO RD POIP U R DHAPARD KUAI RDPANE RDHOOWILIRDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE5.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 5 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres ALAKI NOI KI RDPOIPU RD I UKI K A P L L O K E R D HOOHU RDK E L E K A R D WALE LIA PL MAKANUIRDLINAKA STPE E R D K E O N ILOA PL KELAU K I A S T PE E R D NALO RD POʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE6.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 6 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres AUSTIN, TSUTSUMI & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF KAUA`I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS HONOLULU, WAILUKU, HILO, HAWAI‘I FEDERAL - AID PROJECT NO. STP 0520(004) PUHI, LIHU`E, ISLAND OF KAUKA`I, HAWAI`I POIPU ROAD MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS NOT TO SCALENORTHLOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALENORTH VICINITY MAP ISLAND OF KAUA`I CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR DATEDIRECTOR, PLANNING DEPARTMENTCOUNTY OF KAUA`I COUNTY ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLUC WORKS DATE DATEMANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER COUNTY OF KAUA`I COUNTY OF KAUA`I APPROVED , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX · , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX · , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX , U N T EN.KWEHTTAM U .S .A.IIAW A H LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 13463-C FED. ROAD DIST. NO.STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. FISCAL YEAR SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS KAUAI HAW.STP-5010(002)2018 XX Austin Tsutsumi & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .Engi neer s & Sur veyor s XX LIBRARY ALA KALANIKAUMAKASTPOIPU RDW A IKO M O R D K O L O A R D PUAAKALA P L B LAKES L N PAANAU R D M A L I N O RD HIK INA RD KOLOA ELEMENTARY Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE1.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 POʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. USDA NRCS NGCE, 2014. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis.SHEET 1 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary ALAALANIKAUMAKASTKIAHUNAGOLFCLUB L O PAKAPAIPA BLVD POIPU RDP U A ALA N IPLPOIPU RD LAUAEPLPUA A K ALAPLPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE2.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 2 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres ALAKALANI KAUMAKASTHANAKAAPE BAYLAWAI RDP OIP U R D KAPILI RDHOONANI RDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE3.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 3 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres KIAHUNA GOLF CLUB SHERATON KAUAI RESORT KIAHUNA BEACH KIAHUNA PLANTATION & THE BEACH BUNGALOWSKIAHUNAPLANTATIONDRPOIPURD HOONANI RD HAPA RDKAPILI RDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE4.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary APE IS 40 FEET BEYOND THE ROADWAY RIGHT OF WAY AT THIS SECTION. Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 4 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres MARRIOTT'S WAIOHAI BEACH CLUB KANEIOLOUMA HEIAU POIPU BEACH PARK IPUKA ST WELELAU PL HOONE RD MUKU PL KIPUKA STNALO RD POIP U R DHAPARD KUAI RDPANE RDHOOWILIRDPOʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE5.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 5 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres ALAKI NOI KI RDPOIPU RD I UKI K A P L L O K E R D HOOHU RDK E L E K A R D WALE LIA PL MAKANUIRDLINAKA STPE E R D K E O N ILOA PL KELAU K I A S T PE E R D NALO RD POʻIPŪ ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS County of Kauaʻi Island of Kauaʻi North Linear Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400Path: Q:\Kauai\Poipu Road Multimodal Improvements\GIS\Project\APE6.mxdDATE: 1/11/2019 Source: Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc, 2018. ESRI Online Basemaps, 2016. Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis. LEGEND Area of Potential Effect (APE) 5 feet beyond both sides of the roadway right of way Property Boundary Figure 1Area of Potential Effect (APE) SHEET 6 OF 6 Total APE Area = ± 41.72 Acres kj kj kj Sueoka Market Koloa Lava Tubes 3075 Old Suger Mill of Koloa LEGEND kj State and National Registered Sites Area of Potential Effect (APE)POIPU ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS Kaua‘iNorth Linear Scale (feet)0 300 600 1,200 County of Kaua‘i - Dep artm ent of Public Works Historic Sites Sourc e: ESRI Online Basem ap . South Kauai Com m unity Plan (2015).Disc laim er: This grap hic has been p rep ared for general p lanning p urp oses only and should not be used for boundary interp retations or other sp atial analysis. kj Sueoka Market LEGEND B Exceptional Trees Area of Potential Effect (APE)POIPU ROADMULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS Kaua‘iNorth Linear Scale (feet)0 100 200 400 County of Kaua‘i - Departm ent of Public Works Exceptional Trees Located Ad jacent to the Right-Of-Way Source: ESRI Online Basem ap. South Kauai Com m unity Plan (2015). Google Map Im ages (accessed 2020).Disclaim er: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only and should not be used for bound ary interpretations or other spatial analysis. K-8 K-20 3168 Poipu Road, Koloa, HI 96756 5356 Koloa Road, Koloa, HI 96756 DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD., STE 555 KAPOLEI, HI 96707 SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY M. KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS February 1, 2021 IN REPLY REFER TO: Michael Moule, P.E. Project No.: 2020PR35121 Chief, Engineering Division Submission No.: 2020PR35121.001 County of Kaua‘i Doc No.: 2102SH01 Department of Public Works Archaeology 4444 Rice Street, Suite 255 Lihue, HI 96766 Email:mmoule@kauai.gov Dear Michael Moule: SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Review – Request for Information and Concurrence with the Revised Area of Potential Effects Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Federal Aid Project No. STP-0520(004) Kōloa and Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i TMK: (4) 2-6-004:041; (4) 2-6-008:013; (4) 2-6-008:018; (4) 2-6-008:021; (4) 2-6-008:022; (4) 2-8-014:008; (4) 2-8-014:019; (4) 2-8-014:021; (4) 2-8-014:026; (4) 2-8-014:029; (4) 2-8-014:018; (4) 2-6-015:006; (4) 2-6-015:026; (4) 2-8-015:082; (4) 2-8-022:004; (4) 2-8-022:016 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) received a letter dated November 25, 2020 from the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works (Kaua‘i County) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to request information and the State Historic Preservatio n Officer’s (SHPO’s) concurrence on the revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements project on the island of Kaua‘i. The SHPD received this submittal on December 31, 2020. This letter also addresses the HDOT consultation letter dated July 23, 2020 and received by SHPD on July 27, 2020 (SHPD Log No. 2020.01715). The proposed Kaua‘i County project, in coo rdination with the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT), will receive funding from the FHWA and has been determined a federal undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y). The proposed project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and historic preservation review under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-8. Pursuant to the Programmatic Delegation of Authority (May 2016), the FHWA has delegated Section 106 consultation to Kaua‘i County and the HDOT. The SHPD reviewed the APE as described in a letter from Kaua‘i County dated April 13, 2020 and in a response letter dated May 12, 2020 (SHPD Log No. 2020.00826, Doc. No. 2005SH09) stated no objections to the APE as it was described. The APE is within the existing operational Po‘ipū Road right -of-way, between Kōloa Road and approximately 275 feet east of Keleka Road. There are some areas where work will occur on parcels adjacent to the right-of-way, including minor grading work and intersection improvements at select locations. The revised APE includes an additional approximately 3.94 acres which brings the total APE acreage to approximately 45.64 acres. According to the County of Kaua‘i’s letter, the construction staging areas will be located on the shoulder of Po‘ipū Road from the edge of pavement to the right-of-way boundary. These areas are within both the APE and the road right-of-way and are further described as follows: on the mauka side of Po‘ipū Road between Kiahuna Plantation Drive and Kīpuka Street, adjacent to TMK: (4) 2-8-014:029; (4) 2-8-014:026; (4) 2-8-014:021; (4) 2-8-014:019, on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Pa‘anau Road, adjacent to TMK: (4) 2-6-008:013; (4) 2-6-008:018; (4) 2- Michael Moule, P.E. February 1, 2021 Page 2 6-08 :021; and (4) 2-6-008:022 and on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Lopaka Paipa Boulevard adjacent to TMK: (4) 2-6-015:006 and (4) 2-6-015:026. The revised APE is further described in Table 1 of the County of Kaua‘i’s letter. Based on the informati on received, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has no objections to the revised APE as it is defined. The County of Kaua‘i has requested SHPD provide information on all eligible historic properties or cultural sites listed on the state inventory that are within the boundaries of the APE and that SHPD include the dimension of each site (length, width, and depth). SHPD notes it is the responsibility of the lead federal agency to conduct the efforts to identify historic properties, however SHPD staff conducted a search for historic properties recorded within the SHPD GIS database and has provided our findings below. Based on a modest review of the SHPD GIS database the following sites and features were recorded and designated State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers either within or near the APE: • The Koloa Habitation and Agricultural Complex appears to have been assigned three SIHP numbers and two span across two TMKs. This includes SIHP 50-30-10-01934 within TMK: (4) 2-6-004:034 and SIHP 50-30-10-01949 and SIHP 50-30-10-01950 within TMK: (4) 2-6-015:009; • SIHP 50-30-10-01906, recorded as Koloa Habitation with Associated Agricultural Features is within TMK: (4) 2-6-014:007; • SIHP 50-30-10-01908, recorded as Koloa Historic [Historical] Habitation, is within TMK: (4) 2-6-014:005; • SIHP 50-30-10-01911, recorded to be a Historical House Remnant likely associated with SIHP 50 -30-10- 01908-01910 within TMK: (4) 2-6-014:003; • Directly adjacent to, or within, the right-of-way at the junction of Poi‘pu Road and Koloa Road is SIHP 50 - 30-10-09302, described in the SHPD GIS database as a “massive square foundation at the 1841 sugar mill. chimney built by Ladd and Co.” and associated with the Old Koloa Sugar Mill within TMK: (4) 2 -8- 007:999; • Directly south of the Kōloa Road right-of-way near Kahuna Plantation drive is SIHP 50-30-10-03086, a shelter site and rock mound(s) within TMK: (4) 2-8-014:018 and (4) 2-8-014:999; and • SIHP 50-30-10-03195, the Weliweli Wall, recorded as a 1.4 meter wide wall, 1.0 meters high with an indeterminate length according to the SHPD GIS database, within TMK: (4) 2-8-027:018. Please note the boundaries of these sites may not be known or accurately defined within the SHPD database. This may be for a number of different reasons which are not limited to the following: because additional research is needed to identify feature or site boundaries, because the data was gathered inaccurately or using antiquated methods, or because what is recorded in the GIS database is often displayed as only as a point on the landscape and therefore does not accurately reflect the known boundaries. Due to these reasons, further research is needed to identify features and sites within, or adjacent to, the APE. Additionally, the SHPD GIS database is not comprehensive and does not reflect all SIHP sites that have been recorded in Hawai‘i. To identify historic properties within the APE, SHPD recommends the County of Kaua‘i and FHWA seek information from the public and consulting parties, which may include person(s) affiliated with Native Hawaii an Organizations, historic preservation groups, and civic clubs. Additionally, SHPD recommends the County of Kaua‘i and FHWA conduct research by consulting the SHPD reports library in the HDOT office on Kaua‘i, archival records, and the State and National Register of Historic Places. The County of Kaua‘i has also requested SHPD communicate any potential concerns relating to the project's potential effect(s) on historic properties. In order for the SHPD to respond to this request, the County of Kaua‘i /FHWA will first need to have identified historic properties within the APE, determine if they are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and provide a description of the historic property’s characteristics that qualify it for listing, as well as how the proposed project will, or will not, impact the historic property. Upon receipt of this information the SHPO can provide a response to HDOT’s inquiry. SHPD recommends expanding research efforts to nearby areas because sites, features, and historic properties that have been identified nearby, or adjacent to the ROW, may speak to the likelihood that subsurface archaeological historic properties would be present within the APE. Based on SHPD’s preliminary findings, it appears the A PE is within an area rich with cultural resources dating Michael Moule, P.E. February 1, 2021 Page 3 to the pre-contact era and up to the historical era; therefore SHPD notes concern that there may be high potential for historic properties, some not yet identified and documented, to be located within or directly adjacent to the APE. If adequate records of previous efforts to identify and document architectural and/or archaeological historic properties within or closely nearby the APE do not exist, then additional efforts to identify historic properties may be needed. The SHPD highly recommends consulting with our office prior to conducting any efforts to identify historic properties by means of a field survey or subsurface testing to ensure efforts are agreed to be adequate. Upon identification of cultural, archaeological, and/or architectural resources it may be necessary for a person or persons qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in a field relevant to the resource to assess the resource for integrity and significance. The SHPD looks forward to continuing the Section 106 process for the proposed project. The County of Kaua‘i, HDOT, and the FHWA are the offices of record for this undertaking. Please maintain a copy of this letter with your environmental review record for this undertaking. Please contact Stephanie Hacker, Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV, at Stephanie.Hacker@hawaii.gov or at (808) 692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, Alan Downer Alan S. Downer, PhD Administrator, State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc: Meesa Otani, FHWA (meesa.otani@dot.gov) Troy Tanigawa, County of Kaua‘i (publicwor ks@kauai.gov) Christie Bagley, County of Kaua‘i (cbagley@kauai.gov) Justin Rush, HDOT (justin.se.rush@hawaii.gov) www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 175 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DIVISION D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S T H E C O U N T Y O F K A U A ‘ I DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K. TANIGAWA ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER MICHAEL H. TRESLER ACTING DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER April 13, 2020 Ms. Suzanne Case Chairperson and State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 Attention: Dr. Alan Downer, Ph.D., Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Officer Subject: National Historic Preservation Act: Initiation of Section 106, Request for Contact Information and Area of Potential Effect Concurrence Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Kōloa & Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island Of Kaua‘i, State of Hawaiʻi Federal-Aid Project No. STP-0520(004) Multiple Tax Map Keys Dear Ms. Case: On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works (Kaua‘i County) is initiating consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (2006), for the subject multimodal project. In addition, Kaua‘i County seeks information the SHPO may have on the Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) and potential consulting parties. Lastly, Kaua`i County requests the SHPO’s concurrence on the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE), pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part §800.4(a)(1). The proposed federally funded project is considered a federal action and undertaking as defined in 36 CFR, Part §800.16(y). Effective May 1, 2016, FHWA issued a Programmatic Delegation of Authority allowing local public agencies to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with the SHPO, Native Hawaiian organizations (NHO), and qualified consulting parties per 36 CFR, Part §800.2(c)(4). The FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Suzanne Case April 13, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Consultations In addition to consulting with the SHPO, consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations currently listed on the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Native Hawaiian Relations, Native Hawaiian Organizations List will be undertaken. Initial contact will be by formal letters. Section 106 notice/advertisement will also be included in the Garden Island Newspaper. NHO and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to, cultural and historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed APE will be asked to provide a response within 30 days of notification. In addition, other individuals and organizations with demonstrated legal, economic or historic preservation interest will also be asked to respond to the Section 106 notice/advertisement. Request for Information Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.3(f) in consultation with SHPO, we are interested if your agency is acquainted with any NHO (in addition to the names listed above) or Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to or cultural and/or historic property knowledge of or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed project area, we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information within the 30 days of notification. Per 36 CFR Part 800.2(a)(4)(c)(5), we also request the names of individuals and organizations who have demonstrated their legal, economic, historic preservation interest to SHPD on the proposed undertaking. As the office of record for this undertaking, we also request the SHPO provide us with a copy of the correspondence initiated by interested parties who have approached SHPO to request consulting party status for this undertaking. Area of Potential Effect The proposed project is located in Kōloa, HI, Kaua‘i Island, Hawaiʻi. The APE is primarily within the existing operational Po‘ipū Road right-of-way, between Kōloa Road and approximately 275 feet east of Keleka Road. However, there are some areas where work will occur on parcels adjacent to right-of-way, including minor grading work and intersection improvements at select locations. Please refer to the enclosed map of the APE. The area of the APE is approximately 41.72 acres and includes the following areas, rights-of-way (ROW), and TMKs: Suzanne Case April 13, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Area of Potential Effects (APE) Area Area Description Approximate ROW Length (Feet) Approximate ROW Width (Feet) ROW Area (Acres) 5 feet beyond both sides of Po‘ipū Road ROW from Po‘ipū Road/ Kōloa Road Intersection to 275’ east of Po‘ipū Road/ Keleka Road Intersection (40 feet beyond ROW in some areas, See Figure 1) 17,288 Varies (37 to 120) 39.44 Kiahuna Plantation Road ROW (40 feet beyond ROW on east side, See Figure 1) up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Road 220 60 0.34 Ala Kinoiki (Koloa Bypass Road) ROW up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Road 250 84 0.53 Peʻe Road ROW up to 300' south of intersection with Po‘ipū Road 270 56 0.36 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:008, Royal Palms at Po‘ipū Beach See Figure 2 See Figure 2 0.10 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:018, 2253 Po‘ipū Road Kiahuna Phase III-B See Figure 2 See Figure 2 0.52 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-015:082, SVO Pacific Inc. See Figure 2 See Figure 2 0.01 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:016, Kōloa Bypass Road Māhāʻulepū Farm LLC See Figure 3 See Figure 3 0.09 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:004, Kōloa Bypass Road Māhāʻulepū Farm LLC See Figure 3 See Figure 3 0.13 Total APE Area See Figures 1 to 3 See Figures 1 to 3 ± 41.72 Suzanne Case April 13, 2020 Page 4 of 5 A portion of the APE extends below the ground surface as follows: • Replacement of stop controlled intersections with roundabouts, anticipated maximum depth of 24 inches, locations: Po‘ipū Road – Kiahuna Plantation Road Intersection and Po‘ipū Road – Ala Kinoiki Intersection; • Roadway resurfacing, shoulder widening, construction of sidewalks, improvements to accessible ramps and curbs, construction of vehicle parking stalls, construction of medians, replacement or upgrades to bus stops, anticipated maximum depth of 24 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Replacement of roadway signage and new roadway signage to denote bike lanes and pedestrian crossings, anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Reconstruction/replacement of guardrails, anticipated maximum depth of 42 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Storm drainage improvements, anticipated maximum depth of 7 feet at various locations throughout the APE with one location at the existing Poipu Road roundabout extending to a maximum depth of 10 feet; • Possible street light installation and/or relocation, utility pole guy wire adjustments, anticipated maximum depth of 8 feet, at various locations throughout the APE; and • Minor adjustment of utility boxes, and manhole frames and covers, as necessary, anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches, at various locations throughout the APE. The construction staging areas will be located on the shoulder of Po‘ipū Road from the edge of pavement to the right-of-way boundary. These areas are within both the APE and the road right-of-way and are further described as follows: on the mauka side of Po‘ipū Road between Kiahuna Plantation Drive and Kīpuka Street, adjacent to TMKs 2- 8-014:029, 2-8-014:026, 2-8-014:021, 2-8-014:019, on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Pa‘anau Road, adjacent to TMKs 2-6-008:022, 2-6-008:018, 2-6-008:013, and 2-6-008:021, and on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Lopaka Paipa Boulevard adjacent to TMKs 2-6-015:006 and 2-6-015:026. In addition to providing us with information on NHO, and potential consulting parties, we ask for your concurrence to our determination on the APE for the proposed project within 30 days from this notification. Suzanne Case April 13, 2020 Page 5 of 5 We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Troy Tanigawa via email at publicworks@kauai.gov, or by US Postal Service to Public Works Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275, Lihue, HI, 96766, or contact Ms. Christie Bagley by phone at (808) 241-4885 or by email at cbagley@kauai.gov. We look forward to working with you on this needed undertaking. Sincerely, Sincerely, Michael Moule, P.E. Troy K. Tanigawa Chief, Engineering Division Acting County Engineer Enclosure: Area of Potential Effect (APE) Maps c: Meesa Otani, FHWA bc: Justin Rush, HWY-DE, Kimo Aiu, Austin Tsutumi & Associates DAVID V.IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAU ^'ssss* .^-?~s?Xi'i<?<'s5a."'':5>.y.s&sifer..-^ STATEOFHAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LANB AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILABLVD.,STE 555 KAPOLEI,HI 967C17 SUZANWE D.CASE CHA1BPERSON BOARD OF LANG ANDMATURAL RESOURCES COMllBSION OMWATER RESOURCE MANAOEMENT ROBERT K.AtASDDA FIRSTDEPOTY M.KALEO MANUEL DEPUTYDIRECTOIt-WATEE AQUATTC RESOURCE3 BOATWO AMD OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU W CONVEYWiCES COMMISSIONOMWATERRESOURCEMANAGEMENT COMSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATIONANDRESOURCESENrORCEMENT ENGINEERMO FORESTRY AND WJLDLiFE HISTOMC FRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLANP RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATEPARK5 May 12,2020 INREPLYREFERTO: Michael Moule,P.E.,Chief,Engineering Division LogNo.:2020.00826 and Troy Tanigawa,Acting County Engineer Doc.No.:2005SH09 County ofKaua'i Archaeology Department ofPubIic Works,Engineering Division Email:mmoule@kauai.gov and ttanigawa@kauai.gov Dear Michael Moule and Troy Tanigawa: SUBJECT:National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)Section 106 Review - Initiation of Consultation and Request for Concurrence with the Area of Potential Effect Po*ipu Road Multi-ModaI Improvements Federal Aid Project No.STP-0520(004) Koloa and Weliweli Ahupua'a,Kona District,Island ofKaua*i TMK:(4)2-6-008:018,(4)2-6-OOS.-013,(4)2-6-008:021,(4)2-(-008:022,(4)2-8-014:008, (4)2-8-014:021,(4)2-8-014:019,(4)2-8-014:026,(4)2-S-B14:029,(4)2-8-914:018, (4)2-6-015:006,(4)2-6-015:026,(4)2-8-015:082,(4)2-8-022:004,(4)2-8-022:016 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)received a letter dated April 13,2020 from the County ofKaua'i Department of PubUc Works Engineering Division (Kaua'i County)on behalf of the Federal Highway Admmistration (FHWA)to initiate NHPA Section 106 consultation,request recommendations and contact information for consulting parties,and request the State Historic Preservation Officer''s (SHPO's)concurrence with fhe proposed Area ofPotential Effect (APE)for the Po'ipu Road Multi-Modal Improvements project on the island of Kaua'i.The SHPD received this submittal on April 13,2020. The proposed Kaua'i County project,in coordination with the Hawai'i Department of Transportation (HDOT),will receive funding from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)and is therefore a federal undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800,16(y).The proposed undertaking is subject to compliance with Section 106 ofthe NHPA and historic preservation review under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)§6E-8.Pursuant to the Programmatic Delegation ofAuthority (May 2016),the FHWA has delegated Section 106 consultation to Kaua'i County and HDOT. The proposed project is located in Kotoa on the island ofKaua'i.Kaua'i County indicates the APE is primarily within the existing operational Po'ipu Road right-of-way (ROW),between Koloa Road and approximately 275 feet east of Keleka Road,however,there are some areas where work including minor grading work and intersection improvements will occur on parcels adjacent to ROW.The area ofthe APE is approximately 41.72 acres and includes 5 feet beyond both sides ofthe Po'ipu Road ROW from the Po'ipii Road/KSloa Road Intersection to 275 feet east of the Po'ipu Road/Keleka Road Intersection (40 feet beyond the ROAV in some areas),Additional information regarding the APE is included in a table in Kaua'i County's letter.Additionally,Kaua'i County indicates a portion ofthe APE extends below the ground surface as follows; •Replacement of stop controlled intersections with roundabouts require ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of 24 inches below surface at these locations;Po'ipu Road -Kiahuna Plantation Road Intersection and Po'ipu Road -Ala Kinoiki Intersection; Addressee Date Page2 •Roadway resurfacing,shoulder widening,construction of sidewalks,improvements to accessible ramps and curbs,construction of vehicle parking stalls,consfaTiction of medians,and replacement or upgrades to bus stops require ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of 24 inches below surface,at various locations throughout the APB; *Replacement of roadway signage and new roadway signage to denote bike lanes and pedestrian crossings require ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches,at various locations throughout the APE; •Reconsfruction/replacement of guardrails require ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of 42 inches,at various locations throughout the APE; •Storm drainage improvements requires ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of 7 feet at various locations throughout the APE with one location at the existing Poipu Road roundabout requurmg ground disturbance that will extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet; •Possible street light installation and/or relocation and utility pole guy wire adjustments will require ground disturtiance to an anticipated maximum depth of8 feet,at various locations throughout the APE;and •Minor adjustment of utility boxes,and manhole frames and covers,as necessary will require ground disturbance to an anticipated maximum depth of36 inches,at various locations throughout the APE. The construction staging areas will be located on the shoulder ofPo'ipu Road from the edge offhe pavement to the ROW boundary,These areas are within both the APB and the road ROW and are further described as follows:on the mauka side ofPo'ipu Road between Kiahuna Plantation Drive and KTpuka Street,adjacent to TMKs 4-2-8-014:029, 4-2-8-014:026,4-2-8-014:021,4-2-8-014:019,on the westem side ofPo'ipu Road south ofPa'anau Road,adjacent to TMKs 4-2-6-008:018,4-2-6-008:013,4-2-6-008:021,and 4-2-6-008:022 and on the westem side ofPo'ipii Road south ofLopaka PaipaBoulevaid adjacent to TMKs 4-2-6-015:006 md 4-2-6-015:026. Based on the informalion received,the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)has no objections to tfie APE as it is defined. In response to Kaua'i County's request for a contact list ofpotential consulting parties,the SHPD agrees with the plan to refer to the Native Hawaiian Organization Notification List provided by the U.S,Department ofthe Interior and maintained by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.Additionally,SHPD recommends expanding consultation to interested parties such as civic clubs and historic preservation interest groups such as Historic Hawai'i Foundation and the National Tmst for Historic Preservation. The SHPD looks forward to continuing the Section 106 process for the proposed project. The Kaua'i County,HDOT,and FHWA are the offices ofrecord for this undertaking.Please maintain a copy ofthis letter with your environmental review record for fhis undertaking. Please confact Stephanie Hacker,Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV,at Sfephame,Hacker@hawaiLgQv or af (808)692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. AIoha, /ilw Sov/Wf Alan S.Downer,PhD Administrator,State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc:Meesa Otani,FHWA (Meesa.0tani@dot.gov) Justin Rush,HDOT (Justin.SE.Rush@hawaii.gov) www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DIVISION D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S T H E C O U N T Y O F K A U A ‘ I DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K. TANIGAWA ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER MICHAEL H. TRESLER ACTING DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER July 23, 2020 Suzanne D. Case Chairperson and State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kakuhihewa Building, Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 ATTN: Dr. Alan Downer, PhD., State Historic Preservation Division Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Subject: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation: Request for Eligible Historic Properties Currently Listed on the Hawaii State Inventory Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Kōloa & Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kona Moku, Island of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i Federal-Aid Project No. STP-0520(004) Multiple Tax Map Keys Dear Ms. Case, On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT), the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works (Kaua‘i County) would like to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (2006), for the subject Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements project. Consultation with SHPO Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.2(c)(1), the SHPO has a consultative role in the Section 106 process. For the SHPO to ensure that historic properties are taken into consideration at all levels in planning and development in the Section 106 process, HDOT requests SHPO’s assistance in carrying out its historic preservation responsibilities. Please provide us with information on all eligible historic properties or cultural sites listed on the state inventory that are within the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) that is listed below. Please provide us with the dimension of each site (length, width, and depth). We also request that you provide us with information on issues your agency may have relating to the undertaking’s potential effects on each significant historic property you have identified and provided a description on. Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Consultation July 23, 2020 Page 2 of 3 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Other Consultation Consultation letters to NHOs are being sent concurrently with this letter. Area of Potential Effect (APE) The proposed project is located in Kōloa, Kaua‘i Island, Hawaiʻi. The APE is primarily within the existing operational Po‘ipū Road right-of-way, between Kōloa Road and approximately 275 feet east of Keleka Road. However, there are some areas where work will occur on parcels adjacent to right-of-way, including minor grading work and intersection improvements at select locations. Please refer to the enclosed map of the APE. The project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) is approximately 41.7 acres and includes the following areas, rights-of-way and TMKs as shown in Table 1: Table 1: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Area in Acres. Area of Potential Effects (APE) Area Area Description Approximate ROW Length (Feet) Approximate ROW Width (Feet) ROW Area (Acres) 5' beyond both sides of Po‘ipū Rd ROW from Po‘ipū Rd/ Kōloa Rd Intersection to 275’ east of Po‘ipū Rd/ Keleka Rd Intersection (40' beyond ROW in some areas, see Fig. 1, sheet 1) 17,288 Varies (37 to 120) 39.44 Kiahuna Plantation Rd ROW (40 feet beyond ROW on east side) up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 220 60 0.34 Ala Kinoiki (Kōloa Bypass Rd) ROW up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 250 84 0.53 Pe‘e Rd ROW up to 300' south of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 270 56 0.36 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:008, Royal Palms at Po‘ipū Beach See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.10 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:029, 2360 Kiahuna Plantation Dr. Eric A Knudsen See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.06 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:018, 2253 Po‘ipū Rd Kiahuna Phase III-B See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.52 Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Consultation July 23, 2020 Page 3 of 3 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-015:082, SVO Pacific Inc. See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.01 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:016, Kōloa Bypass Rd Māhā‘ulepū Farm LLC See Figure 1, sheet 6 See Figure 1, sheet 6 0.09 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:004, Kōloa Bypass Rd Māhā‘ulepū Farm LLC See Figure 1, sheet 6 See Figure 1, sheet 6 0.13 Total APE Area See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 ± 41.7 The construction staging areas will be located on the shoulder of Po‘ipū Road from the edge of pavement to the right-of-way boundary. These areas are within both the APE and the road right-of-way and are further described as follows: on the mauka side of Po‘ipū Road between Kiahuna Plantation Drive and Kīpuka Street, adjacent to TMKs 2-8-014:029, 2-8-014:026, 2-8-014:021, 2-8-014:019, on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Pa‘anau Road, adjacent to TMKs 2-6-008:022, 2-6-008:018, 2-6- 008:013, and 2-6-008:021, and on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Lopaka Paipa Boulevard adjacent to TMKs 2-6-015:006 and 2-6-015:026. Kaua‘i County has received your letter dated May 12, 2020 (Log No. 2020.00826, Doc. No. 2005SH09) advising that the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has no objections to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined for the subject Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements project. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Troy Tanigawa via email at publicworks@kauai.gov, or by US Postal Service to County of Kaua'i, Public Works Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275, Lihue, HI, 96766, or contact Ms. Christie Bagley at (808) 241-4885 or cbagley@kauai.gov. Sincerely, Michael Moule Digitally signed by Michael Moule Date: 2020.07.22 16:28:05 -10'00' Michael Moule, P.E. Chief, Engineering Division Attachments: APE Map Figure 1, sheets 1-6 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K. TANIGAWA ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER MICHAEL H. TRESLER ACTING DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER September 28, 2020 Ms. Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa Deputy Director of Planning Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Līhu‘e, HI 96766 Subject: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties Po‘ipū Road Multimodal Improvements Kōloa & Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i Federal-Aid Project No. STP-0520(004) Multiple Tax Map Keys Dear Ms. Sayegusa, Thank you for your letter dated August 31, 2020 regarding the Section 106 consultation for the subject project. On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT), the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works (Kaua‘i County) has provided the following responses to your comments, numbered to correspond to your letter. A.We acknowledge the concerns expressed for the Kōloa Safe Routes to School Project, which may be relevant for the Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements. As the subject project is federally funded, Determination of the undertaking’s effect on historic resources pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is required to be made by the FHWA. The comments provided by the County Planning Department solicited through this consultative process will be considered in the analysis leading to the FHWA’s determination. We note that the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) concurred with the “no historic properties affected” determination for the Kōloa Safe Routes to School Project in a revised letter dated June 12th, 2020. To help guide understanding of the archaeological environment, the Po‘ipū Road Multimodal Improvements project includes an Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report, which is in development at this time. Preliminary report recommendations include, continued consultation with SHPD, and an expectation that archaeological monitoring at discreet locations within the project area could be required by SHPD. If monitoring is required by SHPD, preparation of an Archaeological Monitoring Plan, detailing the degree and intensity of the archaeological monitoring, will be necessary for SHPD review and acceptance. Should historic resources be found during construction, all construction in the Ms. Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Deputy Director of Planning Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multimodal Improvements Section 106 Consultation September 28, 2020 Page 2 of 3 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer immediate vicinity of the find will cease and the State Historic Preservation Division will be notified in order to minimize impacts to those resources. B.We acknowledge the County Planning Department’s concurrence with the Area of Potential Effect (APE) boundary for the subject project, as detailed in the Section 106 consultation initiation letter, dated July 23, 2020, and previously confirmed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in a letter dated May 12, 2020. C.Responses regarding the identification of historic resources within or in proximity to the APE are included below. In addition, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i is in the process of preparing an archaeological literature review and field inspection report for the undertaking to provide in depth research of potential historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the subject project. 1.We acknowledge the identification of historic sites as included in the South Kaua‘i Community Plan (2015) and specified in Table 1 of your letter. Upon review of South Kaua‘i Community Plan and the sites listed in your letter, the project team was able to confirm that no historic sites listed on the State or National Register are located within the project APE (see enclosed map of historic sites). 2.We acknowledge the identification of archaeological sites in the vicinity of project APE, including the Kaneiolouma Heiau, Kōloa Field System, and Hapa Road. As currently designed, the proposed improvements in the vicinity of the Kaneiolouma Heiau will remain within the existing County right-of-way and we do not anticipate any impact to the heiau. Furthermore, Hapa Road is located well outside the project area and impact to Hapa Road is not anticipated. In addition, it is anticipated that SHPD will require archaeological monitoring during construction to avoid any impacts to archaeological resources. 3.We acknowledge that areas surrounding the APE have a high concentration of historic sites and buildings, including those that may be 50 or more years old and eligible for nomination to the historic register. While the proposed undertaking is primarily located within and adjacent to the County right-of- way (within the APE) and is unlikely to impact nearby buildings, coordination between adjacent property owners affected by the proposed improvements are ongoing and conceptual plans will look to minimize or eliminate impacts to structures and buildings within private property. Should plans change and additional work outside of the right-of-way be required for the project, the project will work to minimize any impacts to existing buildings or structures outside of the right-of-way to the greatest extent possible and reasonable Ms. Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Deputy Director of Planning Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multimodal Improvements Section 106 Consultation September 28, 2020 Page 3 of 3 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer and special consideration will be given to any structure or building deemed historic. 4.We acknowledge that a portion of Po‘ipū Road is located within the Holoholo Kōloa Scenic Byways as well as the information provided regarding this scenic byway corridor. The undertaking will improve the functionality of the existing roadway and will not interfere with this scenic byway along Po‘ipū Road. In addition, the proposed multimodal improvements may allow those who travel along this scenic byway to better appreciate the Kōloa district by constructing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that will facilitate an increase in multimodal travel (such as biking and walking). 5.We acknowledge the information provided regarding exceptional trees. Upon review of the information provided in the South Kaua‘i Community Plan (including table 3-1), the County found that two of the listed exceptional trees, No. K-8 and K-20, are located in close proximity to the project’s APE (see enclosed exceptional tree map). While these trees are located outside of the Po‘ipū Road right-of-way, the tree canopy and roots are likely to extend into the right-of-way. The locations of these trees have been noted and an arborist will be consulted when work associated with the undertaking is in close proximity to the exceptional trees as identified within the South Kaua‘i Community Plan (2015). D.We acknowledge the additional resources provided from the South Kaua‘i Community Plan (2015) that may be relevant to the project. This information will be used to reference locations of any historic, cultural, and archaeological resources that may be located in the vicinity of the project APE. Thank you for your participation in the Section 106 consultation process. Please contact Troy Tanigawa via email at publicworks@kauai.gov, or by US Postal Service to County of Kaua'i, Public Works Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275, Lihue, HI, 96766, or contact Ms. Christie Bagley at (808) 241-4885 or cbagley@kauai.gov if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Michael Moule, P.E. Chief, Engineering Division Attachments: Historic Sites Map, Exceptional Tree Map www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K. TANIGAWA ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER MICHAEL H. TRESLER ACTING DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER November 25, 2020 Ms. Suzanne Case Chairperson and State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kakuhihewa Building, Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 ATTN: Dr. Alan Downer, PhD., State Historic Preservation Division Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Subject: National Historic Preservation Act: Request for Concurrence on Revised Area of Potential Effect – Request for Consultation and Identification of Historic Property Information Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Kōloa & Weliweli Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i Federal-Aid Project No. STP-0520(004) Multiple Tax Map Keys SHPD Log No. 2020.00826, Doc. No. 2005SH09 Dear Ms. Case, On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT), the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works (Kaua‘i County) would like to request the State Historic Preservation Officer’s (SHPO) concurrence on the proposed revised and expanded Area of Potential Effect, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (2006), and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 800.4(a)(1) for the subject Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements project. In addition, Kaua`i County requests information on previously identified historic property within the expanded APE. Prior correspondence related to this project includes: • April 13, 2020 Initiation of consultation and a request for concurrence to APE; • May 12, 2020 (Log No. 2020.00826, Doc. No. 2005SH09) SHPO’s response, advising no objections to the APE; and • July 23, 2020 (Log No. 2020.01715) Section 106 Consultation letter requesting information on previous identified historic property within the original APE. Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Revised APE and Consultation November 25, 2020 Page 2 of 5 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Area of Potential Effect The proposed project is located in Kōloa, Kaua‘i Island, Hawaiʻi. The APE is within the existing operational Po‘ipū Road right-of-way, between Kōloa Road and approximately 275 feet east of Keleka Road. However, there are some areas where work will occur on parcels adjacent to right-of-way, including minor grading work and intersection improvements at select locations. Please refer to the enclosed map of the APE. The project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) is approximately 45.64 acres, including an expansion of approximately 3.94 acres of the previously approved APE. Areas added to the APE are highlighted in Table 1. Table 1: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Area in Acres. Area of Potential Effects (APE) Area Area Description Approximate ROW Length (Feet) Approximate ROW Width (Feet) ROW Area (Acres) 5' beyond both sides of Po‘ipū Rd ROW from Po‘ipū Rd/ Kōloa Rd Intersection to 275’ east of Po‘ipū Rd/ Keleka Rd Intersection (40' beyond ROW in some areas, see Fig. 1, sheet 1) 17,288 Varies (37 to 120) 39.44 Kōloa Road ROW up to 250’ on both sides of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 500 50 0.57 Kiahuna Plantation Rd ROW (40 feet beyond ROW on east side) up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 220 60 0.34 Ala Kinoiki (Kōloa Bypass Rd) ROW up to 300' north of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 250 84 0.53 Pe‘e Rd ROW up to 300' south of intersection with Po‘ipū Rd 270 56 0.36 Limited areas in the ROW of side street approaches to the Poipu Road ROW See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 0.22 Portion of TMK (4) 2-6-004:041, Koloa Fire Station See Figure 1, sheet 3 See Figure 1, sheet 3 3.27 Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Revised APE and Consultation November 25, 2020 Page 3 of 5 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:008, Royal Palms at Po‘ipū Beach See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.10 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:029, 2360 Kiahuna Plantation Dr. Eric A Knudsen See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.06 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-014:018, 2253 Po‘ipū Rd Kiahuna Phase III-B See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.52 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-015:082, SVO Pacific Inc. See Figure 1, sheet 4 See Figure 1, sheet 4 0.01 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:016, Kōloa Bypass Rd Māhā‘ulepū Farm LLC See Figure 1, sheet 6 See Figure 1, sheet 6 0.09 Portion of TMK (4) 2-8-022:004, Kōloa Bypass Rd Māhā‘ulepū Farm LLC See Figure 1, sheet 6 See Figure 1, sheet 6 0.13 Total APE Area See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 See Figure 1, sheets 1 to 6 ± 45.64 The construction staging areas will be located on the shoulder of Po‘ipū Road from the edge of pavement to the right-of-way boundary. These areas are within both the APE and the road right-of-way and are further described as follows: on the mauka side of Po‘ipū Road between Kiahuna Plantation Drive and Kīpuka Street, adjacent to TMKs 2- 8-014:029, 2-8-014:026, 2-8-014:021, 2-8-014:019, on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Pa‘anau Road, adjacent to TMKs 2-6-008:022, 2-6-008:018, 2-6-008:013, and 2-6-008:021, and on the western side of Po‘ipū Road south of Lopaka Paipa Boulevard adjacent to TMKs 2-6-015:006 and 2-6-015:026. Kaua‘i County received your letter dated May 12, 2020 (Log No. 2020.00826, Doc. No. 2005SH09) advising that the SHPO had no objections to the APE as previously defined for the subject Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements project. We request the SHPO’s concurrence on the new, expanded APE. Consultation with SHPO - Request for Historic Property Information Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.2(c)(1), the SHPO has a consultative role in the Section 106 process. For the SHPO to ensure that historic properties are taken into consideration at all levels in planning and development in the Section 106 process, Kauaʻi County is consulting with the SHPO and requests information on previously identified historic property, eligible historic properties, and cultural sites listed on the state inventory that are within the boundaries of the expanded APE. Please provide us with the dimension of each site (length, width, and depth). We Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Revised APE and Consultation November 25, 2020 Page 4 of 5 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer also request that you provide us with information on issues your agency may have relating to the undertaking’s potential effects on each significant historic property you have identified and provided to us. Should the SHPO forfeit its opportunity to consult with Kauai County on the identification of historic properties within the expanded APE, Kauai County will conclude this segment of the Section 106 process and move to determination. Overview of the Undertaking The undertaking is anticipated to consist of a number of roadway improvements with a portion of the APE extending below the ground surface as follows: • Converting stop-controlled intersections to roundabouts, at the intersection of Po‘ipū Road – Kōloa Road, Po‘ipū Road – Kiahuna Plantation Drive and Po‘ipū Road – Ala Kinoiki; • Striping and curb ramp improvements to the various intersections throughout the project limits; • Roadway resurfacing, shoulder widening, construction of sidewalks, improvements to accessible ramps and curbs, construction of vehicle parking stalls, construction of medians, replacement or upgrades to bus stops, anticipated maximum depth of 24 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Replacement of roadway signage and new roadway signage to denote bike lanes and pedestrian crossings, anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Reconstruction/replacement of guardrails, anticipated maximum depth of 42 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; • Storm drainage improvements, anticipated maximum depth of 7 feet at various locations throughout the APE with one location at the existing Poipu Road roundabout extending to a maximum depth of 10 feet; • Possible street light installation and/or relocation, utility pole guy wire adjustments, anticipated maximum depth of 8 feet, at various locations throughout the APE; and • Minor adjustment of utility boxes, and manhole frames and covers, as necessary, anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches, at various locations throughout the APE. • Pavement Striping including striping of pedestrian crossings and bike lanes, anticipated maximum depth of 0 inches, at various locations throughout the APE; and • Vegetation removal, removal of trees that endanger life or property, anticipated maximum depth of 36 inches, at various locations throughout the APE. We ask for your concurrence on the expanded APE, and request information on previously identified historic properties within the expanded APE. Ms. Suzanne Case, Chairperson Subject: Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Section 106 Revised APE and Consultation November 25, 2020 Page 5 of 5 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Troy Tanigawa via email at publicworks@kauai.gov, or by US Postal Service to County of Kaua'i, Public Works Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275, Līhuʻe, HI, 96766, or contact Ms. Christie Bagley by phone at (808) 241-4885 or by email at cbagley@kauai.gov. Sincerely, Michael Moule, P.E. Chief, Engineering Division Attachments: APE Map Figure 1, sheets 1-6 Waimea River Ford Crossing Waimea, Kaua‘i Presented by: County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works KAI Hawaii Bow Engineering & Development, Inc. Project Location: 1.3 miles north of Waimea Town,in the Waimea District on the south- western region of the Island of Kaua‘i. Purpose The County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works proposes to replace the existingWaimeaRiverearthencrossingwithamorepermanentcrossingtopreventerosionofthecrossingandtoreduce the amount of maintenance required.The objectivesare: •To protect the health and safety of the public. •To provide reliable access for residents and farmers across the Waimea River. Funding •State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) •County of Kaua‘i •Federal Funds *This project is subject to County, State, and Federal laws and regulations. FORD CROSSING OPTION 1 –CONCRETE –LONGITUDINAL SECTION FORD CROSSING OPTION 2 –ROCK AND GABIONS –LONGITUDINAL SECTION FORD CROSSING OPTION 1 –CONCRETE –CROSS SECTION FORD CROSSING OPTION 2 –ROCK AND GABIONS –CROSS SECTION Environmental Review Procedures Review Procedures required by the State of Hawai‘i •Compliance with Chapter 343, HRS “Environmental Impact Statements” •Department of Health Title 11, Chapter 200.1, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), “Environmental Impact Statement Rules” •Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) •Publication of the Draft EA: October 8, 2020 of The Environmental Notice (https://health.hawaii.gov/oeqc/) EA Findings and Determination •As set forth in Section 11-200.1-13, HAR, in considering the significance of potential environmental effects, an agency must “consider every phase of a proposed action, the expected impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures.” •The recommended preliminary determination for the Waimea River Ford Crossing is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). •No long-term adverse environmental or public health impacts associated with the proposed action. •Determinations: •Field Inspections (Biological and Archaeological) •Construction activities subject to State and County Regulations and permit conditions Early Consultation The following agencies,organizations, and individuals were sent a preliminary project description for comments and questions prior to preparation of the Draft EA of the proposed project. FEDERAL AGENCIES -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Department of Army -Corps of Engineers -Environmental Protection Agency, -Region IX, Pacific Islands -U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service STATE AGENCIES -Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration -Department of Agriculture -Department of Transportation -Office of Planning -University of Hawai‘i Environmental Center -University of Hawai‘i Water Resources Research Center -Office of Hawaiian Affairs -Department of Hawaiian Home Lands -Department of Land and Natural Resources -Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division COUNTY OF KAUA‘I -Department of Planning -Fire Department -Police Department -Transportation Agency ELECTED OFFICIALS County Council Representative COMMUNITY Nearby residents * Those that provided written comments (either by hard copy or electronically) are highlighted in italics www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR TROY K. TANIGAWA ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER MICHAEL H. TRESLER ACTING DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER August 20, 2020 Suzanne D. Case Chairperson and State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kakuhihewa Building, Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 dlnr.intake.shpd@hawaii.gov ATTN: Dr. Alan Downer, PhD., State Historic Preservation Division Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Subject: Initiation of Section 106 NHPA Consultation, HRS Chapter 6E Consultation, and Request for Concurrence with the APE for the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project, Waimea Ahupua‘a, Waimea District, Kaua‘i Island, TMKs: [4] 1-6-001:027 (por.) and 888 Dear Ms. Case, The County of Kaua‘i (County) submits this letter to provide a project summary for State Historic Preservation (SHPD) review per Section 106 and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-8 in connection with the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project. The proposed scope of work includes replacing the existing earthen crossing with either a concrete or aggregate-based crossing within Waimea River to reduce the amount of maintenance required. The approaches to the ford crossing would be hardened to prevent erosion. Six permanent residents use the crossing as their sole access to their homes via vehicles. When the crossing is not usable, the residents park on the long shoulder of Menehune Road on the Waimea side of the river and use the Waimea Swinging Bridge to get to their homes. There are also other people who have farmlands, including lo‘i (taro terraces), across the river using the ford crossing for access. The County would like to inform SHPD that they are working to advance the project and have authorized Bow Engineering to assist with HRS §6E consultation with SHPD. The project is subject to Hawai‘i State environmental and historic preservation review legislation. Due to federal permitting (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit), the proposed project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 2 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Proposed Project Area/Area of Potential Effect (APE) The proposed project area crosses into Waimea River from Menehune Road on the Waimea side of the river to a dirt road on the Makaweli side of the river, extending 60 m to the north. The proposed project is located approximately 125 m (410 feet [ft]) south of the Waimea Swinging Bridge. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1966 Kekaha and Hanapepe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Figure 1), a tax map plat (Figure 2), a 2013 Google Earth aerial photo (Figure 3), and a client-provided plan of the proposed project area (Figure 4). As proposed, the project includes the construction of a concrete crossing extending across the Waimea River. Ground disturbing activities consist of grading along the riverbanks and disturbance within the staging areas. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the area where the proposed project could potentially affect historic properties and includes any visual, auditory, and/or other environmental impacts beyond the actual footprint of the proposed project. The APE comprises approximately 0.98 acres (0.40 hectare). For the purposes of the project, the project areas and the APE are synonymous (see Figure 1 and Figure 3). Historical, Cultural, and Archaeological Background Waimea Ahupua‘a is composed of several regions which vary widely in climate and terrain. These differences essentially dictated the kinds of resources that were available and had much to do with the way the ahupua‘a (traditional land division) was settled by pre-contact Hawaiians. Information about Makaweli Ahupua‘a is sketchy though it can be compared to the adjacent land area of Waimea, which is similar in many ways. Based on Māhele records and archaeological surveys, the population in Waimea and Makaweli was concentrated along the river valley, supporting the idea of a large inland population rather than a coastal one. The lower portions of Kaua‘i’s southwest plains, which include Waimea and Makaweli, are dry and get little rainfall—less than 30 inches per year with an average of 20 inches per year near the coast. Water for crop irrigation and sustainability of large settlements would have been a problem if not for the ditch system created by pre-contact Hawaiians. In 1778, when Captain James Cook stepped ashore at Waimea, extensive agricultural systems covered the entire floor of the lower valley and the area displayed a high degree of ingenuity and engineering skill that Hawaiians had already developed. Much of the taro lands were converted to rice paddies in the 1860s and peaked in the 1890s. Most of the rice crop was grown by Chinese farmers who continued production on the valley floor well into the 1930s. Over 150 kuleana awards were granted in Waimea. Fifteen claims were awarded in Kīkīaola ‘Ili, on the west side of Kana‘ana Ridge. Over 50 claims were awarded in the ‘ili Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 3 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer (land division smaller than an ahupua‘a) of Pe‘ekaua‘i, on the east and west sides of Kana‘ana and Poki‘i Ridge. The land east and west of the Kana‘ana Ridge was mainly Crown and Government Land; some of which had already been given or sold to individuals and associations. One of the potential staging areas within the proposed project area lies within the eastern edge of Land Commission Award (LCA) 6308 B (Figure 6), which consisted of one lo‘i, kula (pasture), and one house lot. Although the proposed project area encroaches on the eastern edge of LCA 6308 B, that area has existing transportation and water control infrastructure (i.e., Menehune Road and the Waimea River levee, see Figure 3 and Figure 5). During the last decade of the nineteenth century, the population of Waimea rebounded, with the establishment of commercial sugarcane planting, first at Waimea and a few years later in Makaweli. Commercial sugar crops were first raised in the valley in the 1880s. Much sugarcane was grown, especially on the flats of the upper valley. The companies growing cane in the area included the Waimea Sugar Company (1885-1946) as well as the Hawaiian Sugar Company (1889-1940), later under new management as the Olokele Sugar Company (1940-1994), and then sold and operated under the name Gay & Robinson (1994-2009). Smaller plots in the lower valley, such as the one formerly cultivated in the study area, were probably worked by independent growers who sold their crops to the mill. A ditch system was constructed to bring Waimea River water to the fields, which covered about 200 acres. In 2009, the last of Kaua‘i’s sugar plantation era came to an end with the closing of Gay & Robinson. During recent decades, growth in Waimea has focused on development of the former sugar plantation lands and structures into tourist-oriented facilities. Nearby Makaweli land use has remained much the same since the turn of the century. A field inspection of the proposed project area and a literature review of previous archaeological studies identified no historic properties within the project area for the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project. State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) # 50-30- 09-00026, Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch (Menehune Ditch) is immediately west of but outside the project area and traverses the western boundary of LCA 6308 B (see Figure 6). Table 1 outlines the previous archaeological studies identified within and near the vicinity of the Waimea River Ford Crossing project area, and Table 2 lists the historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The previous archaeological studies and historic properties are depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8. One study was conducted within the proposed project area. In 1979, Hawai‘i Marine Research, Inc. (Joerger and Streck 1979) conducted a cultural resource reconnaissance of two areas adjacent to the west bank of the Waimea River. The study assessed the potential adverse effects of the flood control project on Cook’s Landing Monument (SIHP # 50-30-05-09303) and the Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch (SIHP # 50-30-09- 00026). Area 1 was adjacent to the mouth of the stream (partly within Lucy Wright Park), and Area 2 was located at the junction of the Waimea River and the Pe‘ekaua‘i Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 4 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ditch. The proposed project area is partially in the Joerger and Streck 1979 study area within Area 2 (see Figure 7). No subsurface testing was conducted, but exposed soil stratigraphic sections were observed. Joerger and Streck noted of Area 2: The portion of the Peekauai Ditch included within the survey area, however, has been extensively modified through realignment of the watercourse and destruction of the original construction […] The ditch was apparently realigned during the 1920s […] [and] portions of the Menehune Ditch were exposed by the building of the ‘new’ ditch and road. [Joerger and Streck 1979:27] No historic properties were identified within the proposed project area. SIHP # 50-30- 09-26, Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch (Menehune Ditch), is located to the west outside the proposed project area and will not be affected by the construction of the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project. Initiation of Section 106 Consultation, HRS §6E-8 Consultation, and Request for Concurrence with Project APE This letter respectfully requests the initiation of consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and HRS §6E-8 consultation with SHPD for the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project. We look forward to receiving comments regarding the undertaking and the archaeological work conducted for the project to date. Additionally, within 30 days from notification, the County requests concurrence with the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project’s APE as described and depicted in this letter and its enclosures addressed to Troy Tanigawa via email at publicworks@kauai.gov, or by U.S. Postal Service to Public Works Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275, Lihue, HI, 96766, or contact Ms. Christie Bagley at (808) 241-4885 or cbagley@kauai.gov. We look forward to working with you on this needed undertaking. Sincerely, Michael Moule, P.E. Chief, Engineering Division Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 5 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 1. Portion of the 1991 Kekaha and 1996 Hanapepe USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles showing the location of the proposed project area/APE Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 6 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 2. Hawai‘i State Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 1-6-001, showing the proposed project area/APE, (Hawai‘i TMK Service 2014) Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 7 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 3. 2013 aerial photograph of the proposed project area/APE (Google Earth) Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 8 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 4. Demolition and erosion control plan showing the proposed project area (courtesy of client) Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 9 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 5. 2013 aerial photo showing project area/APE (Google Earth) Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 10 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 6. Portion of the 1996 Hanapepe USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle showing the location of LCA parcels and the proposed project area/APE Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 11 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Table 1. Previous archaeological studies within and near the Waimea River Ford Crossing project area Reference Type of Study Location Results Joerger and Streck 1979 Cultural resource reconnaissance Waimea River flood control study Exposed soil stratigraphy on west bank of Waimea River near mouth, showed recent fill Kikuchi 1983 Archaeological reconnaissance Menehune Rd, Waimea One historic property, SIHP # 50- 30-09-01870, burial identified Hammatt and Ida 1993 Archaeological inventory survey 1-acre Waimea Town lot Recorded cultural layer, dated to AD 1000-1275, and a burial designated SIHP # 50-30-05-04012 Ida and Hammatt 1993 Archaeological subsurface survey Waimea, Kaua‘i, TMK: [4] 1-6- 001:004 One historic property identified, SIHP # 50-30-09-00559, a trash deposit Chiogioji et al. 2004 Archaeological field inspection Ten localities within Kōke‘e and Waimea Canyon State Parks, TMK: [4] 4-8-001 No significant findings Kamai and Hammatt 2015 Archaeological inventory survey Menehune Rd, TMK: [4] 1-5-001:002 Two historic properties identified: SIHP #s 50-30-09-02271, ditch and tunnel segments and -00026, Kikia‘ola Ditch Tomonari- Tuggle and Duarte 2017 Archaeological inventory survey Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch in Waimea Valley Extensive discussion and documentation for a portion of SIHP # 50-30-09-00026, Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch Table 2. Historic properties identified in the vicinity of the Waimea River Ford Crossing project area SIHP # (50-30-09) Site Type Age References 26 Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch (Menehune Ditch) Pre- Contact Bennett 1931:105–106 Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 12 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 7. Portion of 1991 Kekaha and 1996 Hanapepe USGS topographic quadrangles, showing locations of previous archaeological projects in and around the vicinity of the proposed project area/APE Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 13 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer Figure 8. Portions of 1991 Kekaha and 1996 Hanapepe USGS topographic quadrangles, showing locations of previously identified historic properties nearest to the proposed project area/APE Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 14 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer References Cited Bennett, Wendell C. 1931 The Archaeology of Kaua‘i. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Chiogioji, Rodney, Kēhaulani Souza, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2004 Cultural Impact Assessment for Kokee and Waimea Canyon State Parks, Waimea Ahupuaa, Kona (Waimea) District, Island of Kauai (TMK 4-8-01). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Google Earth Imagery 2013 Aerial photographs of Hawai‘i. Google Inc., Mountain View, California. Available online at www.google.com/earth.html. Hammatt, Hallett H. and Gerald K. Ida 1993 Inventory Survey of Approximately 1 Acre in Waimea Town, Kauai, Waimea District, Kauai (TMK 1-6-5:82, 12). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i TMK Service 2014 Tax Map Key [4] 1-6-01. Hawai‘i TMK Service, Honolulu. Ida, Gerald K. and Hallett H. Hammatt 1993 Archaeological Subsurface Survey of The Campos Property, Waimea, Kauai (TMK 1-6-01:4). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Joerger, Pauline King and Charles F. Streck Jr. 1979 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Waimea River Flood Control Study Area, Kauai, Hawaii. Hawai‘i Marine Research, Inc., Honolulu. Kamai, Missy and Hallett H. Hammatt 2015 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Menehune Road Rockfall Mitigation near Swinging Bridge, Phases 1-2-3 with Additional 1 Acre Waimea Ahupuaa, Kona District, Kauai TMK: [4] 1-5-001:002. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Kikuchi, William K. 1983 Waimea 12 inch Transmission Main, Waimea Intake Towards Waimea Town, Job # 81-5, Waimea, Island of Kaua‘i. Crafts-Hawai‘i, ‘Ōma‘o, Kaua‘i. Tomonari-Tuggle, M.J. and Trever Duarte 2017 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Pe‘ekaua‘i Ditch, Ahupua‘a of Waimea, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i Portions of TMK 4-1-5-001:002 and 4-1-5- 002:008. International Archaeology, LLC, Honolulu. Suzanne D. Case August 20, 2020 Page 15 of 15 www.kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street Suite 275 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4883 (b) • (808) 241-6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1991 Kekaha USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1996 Hanapepe USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. DAVID V.IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAJ[ STATE OF HAWAII DEPABTMENT OF LAND AND NATCBAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVAT10N DrVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD.,STE 555 KAPOLEI,HI 96707 SUZANNE D.CASE CHAIRPE&SON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COhfMISSIHN ON WATBl RESOURCE MANAOEMENT ROBERTK.MASUDA FHU.T DEPLFTY M.KALEO MANCEL DEFUTY DBSECTOR -WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BCATMO AND OCEAWBECREAnOM BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISS10N OWWATER BESOURCE MANAOEMENT CONSERVATICWANDCOASTALLANDS CONSERVATIONANPRESOURCESENFORCEMENT B101NESUKO FORESTRY AND WtLDUFE HIS'TOKIC FBESERVMTOt4 KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE CaMMKSroN LAND STATEFARKS INREPLYREFERTO: LogNo.:2020.01954 Doc.No.:2009SH14 Archaeology September 23,2020 Michael Moule,P.E.,Chief Engineering Division Depanment ofPublic Works County ofKaua'i Email:MMoule@Kauai.gov DearMichael Moule: SUBIECT:Chapter 6E-8 and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)Section 106 Review - Initiation of Consultation and Request for Concurrence with the Area of Potential Effects Waimea River Ford Crossing Project Waimea Ahupuata,Waimea District,Island ofKaua'i TMK:(4)1-6-001:027 por.and (4)1-6-001:888 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)received a letter dated August 20,2020 from the County ofKaua'i Department of Public Works,Engineering Division (County)to initiate Chapter 6E and Section 106 consultation and to request the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO's)concurrence with the Area ofPofential Effects (APE)for the Waimea River Ford Crossing project on the islmd of Kaua'i.The SHPD received this submittal on August 27,2020.An archaeological Jiterature review and field inspection (LRFI)report,project plans,and a completed SHPD 6E Submittal fonn was submitted with the County's letter. Due to federal permitting required from the U.S.Army Corps ofEngineers Section 404 Permit,the proposed project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The County has also informed SHPD that they are working to advance the project and have aufhorized Bow Engineering fo assist with HRS §6E consultation with SHPD. The proposed scope ofwork includes replacing the existing earthen crossing with either a concrete or aggregate- based crossing within Waimea River to reduce the amount of maintenance required.The approaches to the ford crossing would be hardened to prevent erosion.Ground disturbing activities consist of grading along the riverbanks and disturbance within the staging areas. The proposed project area crosses info Waimea River from Menehune Road on the Waimea side ofthe river to a dirt road on the Makaweli side ofthe nver,extending 60 m to the north.The proposed project is located approximately 125 m (410 feet [ft])south ofthe Waimea Swinging Bridge.The APE has been defined as the area where the proposed project could potentially affect historic properties and includes any visual,audifory,and/or other environmental impacts beyond the actual footprint ofthe proposed project.The APE comprises approximately 0.98 acres (0.40 hectare).For the purposes of the project,the Chapter 6E project area and the APE are synonymous. Based on the information received,the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)has no objections to the project area/APE as it is defined. An LRFI titled,Draft Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Reportfor the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project,Waimea Ahupva 'a,Waimea Distnct,Kaua 'i TMKs:[4]l-6-001:027 (por.)and 888 (Folk et al., August 2020)was prepared by Cultural Survey's Hawai'i,Inc.(CSH's)in support ofthe proposed project and to identify previously documented historic properties within and near the APE.No historic properties were identified Michael Moule,P.E. September23,2020 Page2 within the proposed project area.State Inventory of Historic Places No.50-30-09-00026,Pe'ekaua'i Ditch (Menehune Ditch),is located to the west outside the proposed project area and will not be afiected by the construction ofthe Waimea River Ford Crossing Project.Ida and Hammatt (1993)recorded a.cultural layer,dated to AD 1000-1275,and a human burial designated SIHP #50-30-05-04012,south ofthe project area/APE. Although the LRFI does not fulfill the requirements of an archaeological inventory survey as specified in Hawai'i Administrative Rules (HAR)§13-276,it serves to facilitate project planning and supports the historic preservation review process.Please^^end two hard copies of the document,clearly marked FINAL,along with a copy of this review letter and a fext-searchable PDF version on CD to the Kapolei SHPD office,attention SHPD Library.Please also forward a PDF copy ofthe LRFI report to Lehua.K.Spares@hawaii.gov. The SHPD 6E Submittal form indicates a Chapter 6E detennination of'No historic properties affected."Prior to the SHPD's concurrence with the 6E effect determination,SHPD requests receiving a detailed written scope ofwork with future correspondence that includes the length,width,and depth of proposed ground disturbance anticipated during the project. The SHPD looks forward to continuing the Section 106 and Chapter 6E historic review processes for the proposed project. The County of Kaua'i and the Army Corps of Engineers are the offices of record for this undertaking.Please maintain a copy ofthis letter with your environmental review record for this undertaking. Please contact Stephanie Hacker,Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV,at SteEhame.Hacker@hawaii.gov or at (808)692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, /{tiW SoiVWt Alan S.Downer.PhD Administrator,State ffistoric Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc:Troy Tanigawa,County ofKaua'i (publicworks@kauai.gov) Christie Bagley,County ofKaua'i (cbagiey@kauai.gov) National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for HAWAIʻI HISTORIC BRIDGE MINOR PROJECTS 2 AGENDA Introduce Team o Purpose o Scope of Agreement: Minor projects, S106 and 6E o Inventory of Historic Bridges o Management Approach: Best Practices Manual concept o Minor Rehab/Maintenance with “tiers of activities” o Next Steps Questions and comments regarding above Efforts Undertaken to Date Review Statement of Purpose and Outline Questions and comments regarding protocols and website Consultation Protocols, Introduce Website 3 TEAM 4 CONSULTATION efforts to date February 2020 Kickoff Meeting with Hawaiʻi Dept of Transportation March 2020 Initial meetings with State Historic Preservation Division and Historic Hawaiʻi Foundation August 2020 Federal Highways Administration September -December 2020 State District Engineers and County Public Works Divisions December 2020 US Army Corps of Engineers December 9th, 2020 Formal Initiation of Consultation January 28th, 2021 Native Hawaiian Organization/Public Stakeholder Meeting 5 PURPOSE The FHWA and HDOT propose to develop a NHPA Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) for HawaiʻiHistoric Bridge Minor Projects to serve as a statewide agreement for historic bridge maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation projects, that will… 6 PURPOSE Ensure safe public transportation Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic bridges Efficiently deliver federally-funded projects at the state and local levels Streamline implementation, review, and reporting for bridge projects that are not likely to affect or have minor effects on historic properties Encourage adoption of best treatment practices for historic bridge types and materials 7 SCOPE of Agreement The PA will address Ongoing maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation of historic bridges Federal regulations -Section 106 of the NHPA, and the implementing regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 800 State regulations -HRS Chapter 6E as a separate but parallel regulatory process 8 SCOPE of Agreement The PA will not apply to Major bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects Projects with an effect to archaeological resources Previously undisturbed areas outside of the right-of- way where archaeological resources may be present 9 HISTORIC Bridge Inventory Hawaiʻihas approximately 400 highway bridges that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places Historic bridges are identified in the State Historic Bridge Inventory; this document is available on the PA Sharepointwebsite The 2013 inventory is currently being updated 10 MANAGEMENT Approach Tiers of activities from “no potential to cause effects” to “conditional no adverse effect” on the historic bridge if approved treatments employed Hawaiʻibridge-specific Best Practices Manual to be developed for each activity to ensure compliance with accepted engineering and historic preservation standards 11 ACTIVITIES Typical Activities to be addressed Concrete spall repairs Expansion joints replacement/sealing Stone masonry repairs Cleaning and painting Deck paving/sealing Bridge railing repairs and safety improvements Scour protection Structural strengthening measures Emergency Repairs 12 NEXT STEPS January to July 2021 Compiling Best Practices Manual with specific treatments to be discussed with consulting parties. This will involve numerous iterations over this timeframe. July to September 2021 Preparation of the Draft Programmatic Agreement September 2021 Next NHO/Public meeting anticipated for the September 2021 timeframe 13 Purpose Scope of Agreement Bridge Inventory Management Approach Next Steps 14 CONSULTATION protocol To register to participate in the Historic Bridge PA: http://HawaiiHistoricBridgePA.com/4ABL Or use the QR code below: 15 SHAREPOINT tour HBPA - Home (sharepoint.com) 16 Consultation protocol Sharepoint site 17 Mahalo HEADQUARTERS HAWAIʻI ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 91-1227 ENTERPRISE AVENUE KAPOLEI, HAWAIʻI 96707-2150 November 6, 2020 Dear Potential Consulting Party: SUBJECT: Section 106 (NHPA)/ HRS 6E-8 Additional Consulting Parties– Proposed High Frequency Antennas, 1-3460 Kaumualii Hwy, Hanapepe, Kauai County, Hawaii TMK: [4] 1-8-008:029 and 078. The Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG) is identifying additional organizations with an interest in the proposed High Frequency Antenna Project and its potential to affect historic properties. The aforementioned project is in a conceptual design phase, the HIARNG is seeking consulting parties to be included in the Section 106 process. The purpose of this letter is to find out whether you and/or your organization wish to become a consulting party for this project. Consulting parties have certain rights and obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The review process is known as a Section 106 review. By becoming a consulting party, you will be actively informed of steps in the Section 106 process, including public meetings, and your views will be actively sought. In order to become a consulting party, you/your organization must respond within (30) days to request consulting party status. If you/your organization does not respond within this time frame, you/your organization may request consulting party status in the future; however, the project may advance without your input and you won't have an opportunity to comment on the current steps. If you/your organization is requesting consulting party status, HIARNG asks that your organization nominate one representative and an alternate to participate on behalf of the group. People may also participate in the Section 106 process as members of the public. Attached for your review are copies of relevant documents supporting our determination of the no adverse effect finding, including archaeological and historic building surveys and maps showing the location of the project. If you/your organization would like to request consulting party status on this project or if you have any question about this project, please contact Mr. Kekapala Dye, Cultural Resources Specialist, at (808) 672-1274 or kekapala.p.dye.nfg@mail.mil,. SUBJECT: Section 106 (NHPA)/ HRS 6E-8 Consultation – Proposed High Frequency Antennas, 1-3460 Kaumualii Hwy, Hanapepe, Kauai County, Hawaii TMK: [4] 1 -8- 008:029 and 078. 2 If we do not hear from you within thirty (30) days as per 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4), we will assume that you concur with our findings and will proceed with our project. Sincerely, Karl K. Motoyama Hawaii Army National Guard Environmental Protection Specialist Enclosures (3), CD Encl 3 Distribution List Mr. Hailama Farden Association of Hawaii Civic Clubs Ms. Kanoe Ahuna EAO Hawaii Inc. Ms. Blossom Feiteira Association of Hawaiians for Homestead Lands Mr. Samson L. Brown Au Puni O Hawaii Mr. Joseph Kūhiō Lewis Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement Mr. Abraham Cortes-Kaleopaa Hawaiian Kingdom Task Force Ms. Paula Akana Friends of ‘Iolani Palace Ms. Lehela Williams Hawaiian Community Assets, Inc. Mr. Adrian Nakea Silva Hui Huliau Inc. Ms. Dreanalee Kalili Imua Hawaii Ms. Piilani Hanohano Kamehameha Schools - Community Relations and Communications Group, Government Relations Sylvia M. Hussey Ed.D. Office of Hawaiian Affairs ATTN: OHA Compliance Ms. Carol N. Johnson Kauwahi ‘Anaina Hawai‘i Hawaiian Civic Club Mr. Dennis W. Ragsdale Kingdom of Hawai‘i Dr. Alan Downer State Historic Preservation Division Department of Land and Natural Resources Ms. Charlene Lui Mainland Council Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Ms. Mililani Trask Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii Ms. H. Kanoeokalani Cheek Na Ku‘auhau ‘o Kahiwakaneikopolei Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos Nā Kuleana o Kānaka ‘Ōiwi Ms. Paige Kapiolani Barber Nanakuli Housing Corporation Erika Vincent Native Hawaiian Education Council Ms. Taffi Wise Kanu o ka ‘Āina Learning ‘Ohana Mr. Dennis W. Ragsdale Order of Kamehameha I Ms. Mahealani Cypher Ko‘olau Foundation Ms. Sheri-Ann Daniels Ed.D Papa Ola Lokahi Mr. Jan E. Hanohano Dill Partners in Development Foundation Mr. La‘akea Suganuma The Mary Kawena Pūku‘i Cultural Preservation Society Ms. Robin Puanani Danner Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations Mr. L. La‘akea Suganuma Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts Lance Kamuela Gomes Wahiawa Ahupuaa LCA 7714B Apana 6 RP 7813 Mr. Melvin Soong The I Mua Group Mr. Eugene O’Connell The Makua Group Ka'aina S.Hull Director ofPlanning Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa Deputy Director ofPlanning COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Kaua'i County Historic Preservation Review Commission I.SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC:Section 106 consultation for the proposed installation of two new 80 foot tall,60 foot wide (turning radius),25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC),and the finding of no adverse effects to historic properties. II.PROJECT DATA spKd'r'1'wa Parcel Location:Hanapepe Tax Map Key(s):(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Area:1.7590 ac&10.5320ac LAND USE DESIGNATIONS &VALUES Zoning:Open State Land Use District;Urban General Plan Designation;Natural Owner(s):State ofHawai'i III.PROJECT DESCMPTION AND USE BACKGROUND The subject lot ofrecord is located at Puolo Road in Hanapepe.The subject lot ofrecord is approximately 1.7590 acres in size,and it is located in Hanapepe Ahupuaa,Kona Moku, Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i.It is located within the County ofKaua'i's Open Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District,and General Plan Designation Natural. The Applicant is seeking a permit to construct two new 80 foot tall,60 foot wide (tuming radius),25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC). IV.ADDITIONAL FINDINGS I.<2L.^. !1 9 2020 TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Marchl9,2020 Page2of4 Per the Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Community Development Plan (1 974),"Building Design Criteria Height Limits": "There is presently a 35-foot height limit allowed for the commercial area. However,any new structures along Hanapepe Road should be limited to two stories or less,rather than 35 feet as such,to be compatible with existing stmctures. Allowance of over two stories or 20 feet,should be by special pemiit or variance only,and subject to review." Per the County ofKaua 'i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972),as amended,there is currently no height limitation for the Open District.However,specific height limitations for the Commercial District,the most liberal zoning district with regards to height limitations,does set forth clear restrictions: "(l)No building within a General Commercial District shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height measured from the ground level ofthe primary building entrance. (2)No building within the Neighborhood Commercial District shall exceed thirty-five (35)feet in height measured from the ground level ofthe primary building entrance nor shall the building contain more than two (2)stories." Although subject to federal preemption,the following regulations and policies may not apply under a County permit,they are relevant considerations when considering the effects on view planes from the Historic Hanapepe Town. V.AGENCY COMMENTS None. VI.EVALUATION Based on the design criteria set forth in the existing Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Community Development Plan (1974)and the County ofKaua 'i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972),and based on the clear absence ofexisting buildings and structures standing over 50 feet tall within the Hanapepe Town area,this proposed project will most likely have a negative impact on the view planes,character,and feeling ofthis historic and unique West Kaua i town. VII.CONCLUSION Based on the information contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation,the Planning Department concludes that the proposed installation ofthe two 80 foot antenna,will have an adverse impact on the feeling,setting,association,and location ofthe subject property, TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 March 19,2020 Page3of4 as well as adverse impact affecting the signature,unobstructed view planes of several other historic properties in Hanapepe Town. VIII.RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion,the Planning Department recommends that the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission NOT CONCUR with the Hawai'i Army National Guard's finding ofno adverse effect,provided that: 1.Applicant shall ensure that the architectural form,style,and material used for the proposed renovation is consistent with the U.S.Secretary oflnterior Standards & Guidelines,and does not detract from or significantly alter the historic integrity ofthe existing property. 2.Applicant shall consider design alternatives that will be less intmsive and offensive to the Hanapepe community,its view planes,and its landscape.Alternatives should include:implementing the minimum required height limitation for the functional antennas to reduce the negative impact and visual obstmction caused by the excessive massing that greatly exceeds the structural height limitations set forth by the County of Kaua 'i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972)and the Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Community Development Plan (1974),using appropriate camouflage and color schemes to best mitigate for the massing and visual obstruction caused,and consideration for the relocation ofthe two 80 foot tall antennas to a less intrusive site further away from Hanapepe Town. 3.Applicant shall incorporate design strategies to midgate for the height and obtrusiveness of the two massive antennas that greatly exceed the height limits of all other buildings and structures (including the stadium lights and utility poles mentioned in the Section 106 correspondence)in Hanapepe Town. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making.The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a.Government agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The land owner's response. ALEX WONG Planner TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Marchl9,2020 Page4of4 Approved &Recommended to Commission: By. :A.fllGtjCHySAYEGUf Deputy Director of Planning Date:3//^/^/%> DAVID Y.IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAH ^^S^y, STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DFVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOEOLABLVD..STE 555 KAPOLEI,ffl 96707 SUZANNE D.CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSIOM ON WATER RE30URCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K.MASUDA FIRSTDEPUTy M.KALEO MAIWEL DEPinYHIRECTOIt-WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BQATMG ANDOCEAM RECKEATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAOEMEMT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND BESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGMEERIMO FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISIORIC FRES ERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMSSION LAND STATE PARKS April 2,2020 IN REPLY REFER TO: LogNo.:2020.00436 Doc.No.:2004SH02 Archaeology Karl K.Motoyama Environmental Protection Specialist Hawai'i National Guard 91-1227 Enterprise Avenue 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei,Hawai'i 96707-2150 Email reply to:Kekapala.p.dye.nfg@mail.mil Dear Karl K.Motoyama: SUBIECT:National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)Section 106 and Chapter 6E-8 Review - Initiation of Consultation and Request for Concurrence with the Effect Determination Draft Archaeological Assessment Report Proposed High Frequency Antennas at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Highway Hanapepe Ahupua'a,Waimea District,Island ofKaua'i TMK:(4)1-8-008:029 and 078 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)received a letter dated Febroary 25,2020 frorn the State of Hawai'i Anny National Guard (HIARNG)to initiate Section 106 and Chapter 6E-8 historic preservation review and to request the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO's)concurrence with the effect determination for a project to install High Frequency Antennas at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Highway on the island of Kaua'i.Accompanying HIARNG's letter is a draft report titled,Archaeohgicat Assessment Report for the Hanapepe Armory HIAKNG Installation,Site No.:15A05,Hampepe Ahupua'a,Waimea Districl,Kaua'i TMKs:[4]1-7-008:029 and 078 (Spangler et al.,June 2019)and a 2009 document titled,Historic Buildings Survey and Evaluation Report ofTen Facilities Hawai 'i Army National Guard.The SHPD received this submittal on Febmary 26,2020. The proposed high frequency (HF)Antenna project is a joint effort between the HIARNG and National Guard Bureau.The HIARNG is proposing to constmct two (2)25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC),located at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii.The proposed construction will be located at the southem portion ofthe Readiness Center,adjacent to the county sports field.The HF antennas will be approximately 80 feet tall and have a tuming radius of approximately 60 feet.The proposed undertaking is subject to compliance with Section 106 ofthe NHPA and historic preservation review under Hawaii Revised Stafaites (HRS)§6E-8. According to HIARNG's letter,Hanapepe RC is a 3.28-acre site located on the southwest coast ofKaua'i,on the west end of the town of Hanapepe.The site is near the convergence on Hanapepe Valley River and Hanapepe Bay on the coastal plain.The area has been extensively graded and filled,as evidenced by the adjacent park and cemetery.The Hanapepe RC includes seven (7)buildings consisting of the RC,maintenance shop,and storage facilities.The RC land was acquired in 1937 fi-om the US Navy as part ofthe HIARNG build-up on Kauai.The original RC was constmcted in 1939 to house the 298th and the 299th Infantry Regiments ofthe National Guard that protected Bums Field (the only paved landing field on Kaua'i in 1941)and Port Allen.The regiments were also assigned at Hanapepe to protect the new field at Lihue under the command ofLTC Eugene Fitzgerald.The original RC was a warehouse constructed in 1930 and was used several times as part of evacuation efforts for Kaua'i Karl K.Motoyama April 3,2020 Page2 residents.In 1968 the RC was federally activated in response to the Vietnam War.The original RC was replaced with a one-unit RC,which replaced the original RC in 1988. The HIAKNG has defmed the Area of Potential Effect (APE)as the southem portion of the Hanapepe RC parcel, which includes the location ofthe utility excavation trenches,foundations and the swing arm radius ofthe antennas, including an 8 ft buffer around the project areas. The installation ofthe HF antennas will require ground disturbance for the following portion ofthe scope ofwork: 1.Foundations a.The proposed HF antenna project will require ground disturbance for the installation oftwo concrete foundation pads approximately 28 feet and 6 inches long by 28 feet and 6 inches wide and 6 feet deep; b.A concrete pad for an associated container building will be approximately 30 feet long by 14 feet wide and be approximately 1 foot deep;and c.Trenching for underground utilities will be approximately 275 linear feet,2 feet wide by 4 feet deep. Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,Inc.(CSH)recently conducted an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS),which defines the study area as the entire 4.9-acre (1.98-hectare)HIARNG Site No.15A05 installation.The report notes that the archaeological survey is part ofa project that includes ten installations across five ofthe Hawaiian Islands,totaling approximately 157.72 acres;the Hanapepe Armory installation,designated as HIARNG Site No.15A05,is one of the ten installations included in this project. According to the Spangler et al.(2019)report,fieldwork included 100%coverage pedestrian survey ofthe study area and subsurface testing consisting of 30 shovel test pits (STPs)(the report contains contradicting numbers of either 24 or 30 STPs).The pedestrian survey was accomplished through systematic sweeps spaced 5 m apart on all portions of the study parcel lackmg structural development.Exploratoiy shovel testing occurred principally in open green spaces on the mauka side of the Armory building along Kaumuali'i Highway and Puolo Road and in the extreme makai (seaward)areas ofthe study area.Pits generally had a diameter of 0.5 m and terminated around 0.5 to 0.6 m deep.No cultural materials were observed nor collected during the stidy and no laboratory work was conducted.When an AIS results in negative findings,the outcome is reported in archaeological assessment (AA)per Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR)§13-275-5.The AA recommends no further archaeological work for the proposed project. SHPD notes placement of the STPs appears random.The testing did not reach the depth of excavation that will be required to carry out the proposed project.According.to what was received,letters from HIARNG to initiate consultation for this project were dated February 25,2020.The SHPD has not been notified whether any consulting parties requested to participate in consultation and whether any information from consulting parties was received. The HIAJRNG asserts no historical or archaeological resources have been identified within the proposed APE and all the ground disturbing activities will be located in areas ofprevious disturbance,in a maintained grassy area. The HIARNG states that "while this project could have a potential visual effect on these properties,there are already numerous visual impediments in the vicinity,such as the sports field lighting and the utility poles and towers located within the Port Allen industrial area...we propose that is project will not have a significant detrimental visual effect on the surrounding historic resources.Due to the existing visual impediments we have determined that the project will have no adverse effect." The SHPO coacurs with fflARNG's determination of no adverse ejfect per 36 CFR 800.5.The SHPD looks forwardto receivingHIARNG's Chapter6E effectdeterminationperHAR §13-275-7 forthe proposedproject. Additionally,the SHPO requests all future Section 106 effect determinations include the documentation required per36CFR800.Il. Karl K.Motoyama April 3,2020 Page 3 The Spangler et al.(2019)report meets the requirements stipulated in HAR §13-276-5(a)and (c).Please send two hard copies ofthe document,clearly marked FINAL,along with a copy ofthls review letter and a text-searchable PDF version on CD to the Kapolei SHPD office,attention SHPD Library.Please also send a PDF version to LehuaJcJSoares(%hawaii^ov. The HIARNG is the office of record for this undertaking.Please maintain a copy of this letter with your environmental review record for this undertaking. PIease contact Stephanie Hacker,Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV,at StephanieJH[acker@,hawaii.^ov or at (808)692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, 4W IlOW/Wi^ Alan S.Downer,PhD Administrator,State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Renovations to the Gulick-Rowell House Photo by Ray Jerome Baker, 1961 No date, Rowell era, mauka/Ele’ele corner 1877 Photo c1930 Photo 2015 Photo Chronology 1978 – Gulick-Rowell House placed on the National Register of Historic Places 2015 – First visit to the site by Mason June 2017 – Initial report to Owner 2018 – Reroofing of main building done July 2019 – Completed Historic Structures Report November 2019 – Submitted for building permit to repair lanai structures to allow termite treatment December 2019 – Submitted information for 6E to SHPD website 2019 Photo Portions of Lanai Roof and Floor Removed 2018 2016 Photo on the left and condition as of 2019 (and today) on the right All ceiling damage photos taken 2019 Top:Hart Wood residence, Piedmont, California, 1912. 2016 Photos Left & Right: Iceplant hedge, Panama-Pacific international Exposition, San Francisco, 1915. Design by Hart Wood and John McLaren. 2019 2016 2019 2016 Primary Purpose – Stop Termite Activity 2019 2019 2016 2019 All Photos taken in 2019 Hart Wood, ca. 1920 Wall between the kitchen and the hall is two-inch by 3-inch studs with plaster in between. Termites are active in at least one of the studs. Unclear how to save this unique wall but stopping termites is first step. Left:Fort Street, Honolulu, ca. 1915 Right:King and Fort Street intersection, Honolulu, ca. 1910 Left & Right:Sketches of Bertram Goodhue’s proposal for Honolulu Control of Details HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT FOR THE GULICK-ROWELL HOUSE Waimea, Kauai, Hawaii August 2019 Historic Structures Report for The Gulick-Rowell House i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Administrative Data ................................................................................................................ 1 Project Team ......................................................................................................................... 2 Part 1. Developmental History .................................................................................................... 2 A. Historical Background and Context.................................................................................... 2 B. Chronology of Development and Use ................................................................................ 3 C. Physical Description .......................................................................................................... 5 Site ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Roof ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Exterior Walls ........................................................................................................................ 6 Interior Walls.......................................................................................................................... 8 Floors .................................................................................................................................... 8 Ceilings .................................................................................................................................. 9 Doors and Windows ............................................................................................................... 9 Cabinets ...............................................................................................................................19 Interior Stairs ........................................................................................................................20 Exterior Stairs .......................................................................................................................20 Deck .....................................................................................................................................20 Bathroom, Kitchen and Washroom Fixtures ..........................................................................21 Part 2. Treatment and Use A. Ultimate Treatment and Use .............................................................................................21 B. Requirements for Treatment .............................................................................................22 Department of the Interior Policies & Regulations .................................................................23 Legal ....................................................................................................................................23 National Historic Preservation Act ..............................................................................23 Amricans with Disabilities Act.....................................................................................23 International Building Code ........................................................................................23 National Fire Protection Association...........................................................................24 C. Alternatives for Treatment and Use ..................................................................................24 D. Specific Recommendations for Preservation Treatments .................................................24 E. Recommendations Regarding Sequencing of the Work ....................................................26 Compilation of Research on Early Missionary Construction in Waimea, Kaua1 ....................27 Historic Structures Report for The Gulick-Rowell House ii Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................56 Appendix - Photograph and Drawing Figures........................................................................57 1 HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT The Gulick-Rowell House i. Executive Summary This primary research sources included manuscripts, letter and transcript copies in the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society collection, Gulick’s autobiography, manuscripts of George Rowell from 1846 to the 1860s, and other sources listed in the accompanying bibliography. Since no plans exist that document any of the work done on the building analysis depended heavily on observations made on site. The existing building retains a remarkable amount of material from the 1830 to 1846 construction period. It is the oldest building on the island of Kauai and one of the oldest buildings in Hawaii. However, termites are active in the building and threaten to destroy historic fabric if not eliminated. As it is, the gable ends of the building will need to be reconstructed, and the roof and floor structures of the 1927 deck addition are either gone or so deteriorated as to require reconstruction. One positive factor is that the roof over the main portion of the building was redone, providing a waterproof roof over the most historic portions of the house. Unfortunately, some of that work will need to be redone, since the gable end eave details do not match the original design. The building should be tented to eliminate all active termites. This cannot be done until the roof over the decks is repaired, since no treatment company will venture on the building until the roofs over the decks are either removed or reconstructed to be safe. The logical approach is to conserve as much of the 1927 and pre-1927 material as possible. The current intent is to treat the house as a museum and to present the story of the builders and the building’s construction. ii. Administrative Data. This section contains (a) names, numbers, and locational data used to refer to the historic structure, (b) the proposed treatment of the structure including the source document, (c) related studies, (d) cultural resource data including date listed in the National Register, period of significance, and context of significance, and (e) recommendations for documentation, cataloging, and storage of materials generated by the HSR. Common Name: Gulick-Rowell House Address: 9567 Huakai Road Waimea, Kauai, Hawaii 96796 Tax Map Key: 1-2-06: 034 Related Studies: Fox Hawaii Existing Condition Report, 1981 2 The Gulick-Rowell House has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978. It is the earliest example of early missionary housing on Kauai and is notable for the amount of original construction still extant. Site number is 30-05-9314. The site is listed by the County of Kauai as one of 11 Special Treatment Districts. Project Team Client: Hale Puna P.O. Box 565 Waimea, HI 96796 Preparer: Mason Architects, Inc. dba MASON 119 Merchant Street #501 Honolulu, HI 96813 PART 1. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY A. Historical Background and Context. Peter Gulick was assigned to the mission in Waimea in 1828, arriving in June of that year. He lived in a thatched house, built for him by the governor of the island. Much of the chronology of construction which is discussed below is based on a review of letters and logs of Gulick and Rowell, a summary of which is included in this report, starting on page 27. In 1830 Gulick began collecting material for a more substantial house and by November 1830 had dug the basement (cellar) of the house. Walls were erected by May of 1831. Progress was made on roofing, floors and other elements, but it unclear how complete the house was when Gulick was transferred to Koloa, where he arrived on January 1, 1835. The house stood vacant for the next 11 ½ years, until G. B. Rowell was assigned to the Waimea mission in 1846 and began work improving the house that Gulick had started. By early 1848 it seems that most of the work on the house had been completed. The Rowell family lived in the house until 1884 and subsequently, their daughter and son-in-law lived in the house. In 1907 H. P. Faye acquired the assets of Waimea Sugar which included the Rowell house and lands. In 1927 the house was remodeled by Alan Faye and it was shortly thereafter occupied by the Wramps family, who lived in the house until c2003. The 1927 renovation widened the surrounding decks and instead of the first floor of the deck being wood framed, the first floor was constructed of concrete. During that renovation a wall between two rooms in the front (south) of the house was removed, and the bathroom created, for the first time installing indoor plumbing. Electricity was introduced in to the house for the first time during the 1927 renovation. 3 In 2018 the roof over the main portion of the building was replaced, but historic details were not followed at the gable ends. The lack of protection for the lanai roof structures, partially resulting from the work done repairing the roof over the main portion of the house, has resulted in failure of some of those elements. Despite the deterioration of some windows, doors and the roofs over the decks, the house is remarkably intact. The changes to the interior that were made in 1927 changed relatively little of the Rowell-era design. The lanai design was significantly changed in 1927 but the house always had a two-story deck structure on three sides. The period of significance for the house is proposed to be from 1830 to 1927 and the intent is to conserve the property to that period. There are several reasons for selecting this period. The first is that there is no record of precisely what was done to the house in the 1927 renovation. We can see the exterior changes and the removal of the wall in the Parlor. However, relatively little is known about the other changes in the house. For example, although the bathroom was apparently built in 1927 we do not know what the configuration of that space was before it was a bathroom. We do not know what, if anything, was changed in the Kitchen. We do not know if the Washroom existed prior to 1927. We also do not know the relationship of the cellar stair to what was likely a wood deck. Transforming the first floor deck to wood-framed construction would require some conjecture. Conserving the house in its current configuration will significantly reduce the amount of conjecture during its restoration. It is also notable that the house has existed in its current form for 92 years, with little change other than that due to deterioration. It existed in its missionary form from 1846 up to 1927, so about 81 years. Other elements outside the house which require consideration in any program to restore the resource includes the following, all of which date from the historic period: · The large Monkeypod tree at the entrance to the site, which was planted by Rowell1, is reported to be the oldest Monkeypod tree on Kauai. · A cistern constructed of limestone at the northeast corner of the house · Remnants of a boundary wall along Huakai Road. · Three gravesites B. Chronology of Development and Use. It appears that no plans of the house were ever drawn. Determination of the sequence of construction is based largely on physical observations. A detailed description of information about the building construction, taken from various correspondence, is included at the end of this section. By early 1830 Gulick was beginning to gather material for the construction of the house but as of mid-July of that year no work had yet started. By November 12 of 1830 Gulick notes that the cellar has been dug. He notes on December 2, 1830 that timber had been 1 The Monkeypod tree shows up in a pre 1927 (likely 1890s) photo (Figure 2) as already a large tree. 4 delivered and “300 stone” were delivered, but that “near 1,000 stone yet to be cut”. Two weeks later he mentions that most of the stones have been cut.2 Despite Gulick’s mention of being able to get lime “as fast as it will be wanted” it should be noted that the cellar walls were mortared with what appears to be a modified adobe. Lime may have been used as a binder, but the primary material in the mortar is soil (Figure 4). The walls above the cellar level are mortared with lime-based mortar. On January 7, 1832 Gulick writes that they were now inhabiting “our new and very comfortable house” but on April 30, 1832 he requests 1,000 feet of “good boards” to render it comfortable and safe. He repeats requests for shingle nails and boards later that same year. There are no further entries relating to construction by Gulick and on January 1, 1835 he moved to Koloa. Since his requests in 1831 included cabinet hardware, it is assumed that cabinets were done as part of Gulick’s work, although it is unclear if those cabinets are any of those that exist today. When Rowell gets to the property in 1846 he immediately begins making requests for materials for the house. Those requests continue at least into 1848. Rowell’s Station Report for the period ending 1 April 1848 mentioned “the unfinished and decaying house” which needed “finishing, repairing and enlarging somewhat . . . .” There are several characteristics of the house that point to just what was meant by enlarging the house. First, the second floor corridor slopes away from the walls as if it were once an exterior deck. The stair to the cellar that appears to be original is the one that leads directly outside. The interior stair that connect to the cellar looks like it was cut through the cellar walls since, unlike the rest of the mortared cellar walls, this connection is done with walls that are entirely lime mortared. This indicates that this interior connection was done later. It is notable that the windows in the south portion of the house at the first and second floors are all 6 over 9 light windows, while with one exception, the windows in the north portion of the house are all 6 over 6 light. The one exception is window 4, which is likely a reused window from the Gulick version of the house, taken from the north wall when Rowell made his additions. A fourth indication, although potentially meaningless by itself, is that the floor framing in the portions of the building not over the cellar run perpendicular to the framing of the portion of the house over the cellar. One significant indication of eras of construction are that the first floor ceilings in the Gulick portion are sheathed with boards whereas all the ceilings in the north portions of the house, except the Kitchen, are wood lath and plaster. Rowell asks for lath repeatedly in his writings. There are other anomalies possibly explained by an addition to the original Gulick portion of the house, such as the jog in the wall noted on the east side (Figure 59 and 60) and the fact that a portion of the interior wall between the Parlor and the Sewing Room is also coral stone. The door in that wall is set into the wall is also similar to the other exterior doors in the south portion of the house. 2 See the compilation of research on early missionary construction in Waimea starting on page 27 for information relevant to this and subsequent descriptions of construction history. 5 Taken together, it appears likely that the portion of the house including and above the cellar were the original Gulick portion of the house and the rooms north of that were added during Rowell’s control of the house. Regardless of the time frame for individual pieces, all the floor framing is hand-hewn Ohia or other native woods mortised and tenoned together, the exterior walls are coral or coralline sandstone and that all the nails of window casings and floor boards are cut iron nails. The glass that remains is all single strength mouth-blown antique glass. To a great extent the main portions of the building therefore date from c.1848 or before. In 1927 various changes were made to the building. The most significant of those is the exterior decks. The original decks were wood framed at both first and second floors (Figure 6). They also appeared to be narrower, at least on the sides. The Rowell-era deck terminated in a single-story addition on the first floor, east side (Figure 1) and had a stair that lead to the second floor deck on the same side, which was as wide as the deck. The railing design of the original was simpler and the posts were slightly outset of the perimeter beam, instead of being visually interrupted by the beam, as in the case today. The most significant difference is the fact that the current first floor of deck is smooth cast in place concrete. Changes to the interior done at this time include removal of a wall between what were once two front (south) rooms on the first floor. A more detailed description of this is noted in the next section. The upstairs bathroom was added, likely in a room that was previously a bedroom. In both the south room (Parlor) and the bathroom, the ceilings were finished in ¼-inch thick gypsum board. At the first floor Parlor the gypsum board finish was fastened to the underside of the wood ceiling. At the second floor bathroom, the gypsum board was attached to the underside of the attic floor joists. Newer kitchen fixtures were added, but it is unclear how much of the kitchen was changed as a result of the 1927 renovation. It appears relatively little. The masonry base that forms the foundation for the chimney has a small recess at the base that looks like a small fireplace but is not. Above it is a cover plate over a hole into the chimney. This was likely the connection point for a flue from an iron stove. In his November 4 letter to Castle and Hall, Rowell asked for a good cooking stove. C. Physical Description. Site The existing site has the remnants of the wall that supported a white picket fence along Huakai Road (Figure 2). Some of the stones in that wall have drilled holes in which metal bars were set and fixed in place with lead. These bars supported the fence above the stone base. The site is bordered by a basalt stone wall in various conditions. At the entry to the site from Huakai Road there is a very large and old Monkeypod Tree that shows in photos taken of the site in the 1890s. Immediately north of that is a low stone wall made of unmortared stones, some of which are sandstone or coral blocks. Also on the site are gravesites, including a headstone marking the grave of Rowell (Figure 8). There is a large cistern with a flat dome raised above the ground at the immediate northeast corner of the house (Figures 1 and 9). This cistern shows in the 6 earliest photo we have located of that side of the house. When the cistern was being used the roof had gutters. The west gutter collected water and ran it across the north side of the house to a box downspout into the cistern. Other historic elements include the concrete slab of a former carport that was attached to a board and batten building to the north of the house. All that remains of the south portion of the building are rubble stones that marked the perimeter of the structure (Figure 10). Sometime after 2016 two other wood structures were built on site. One has plywood sheathed walls and is completely enclosed. The other, closer to the house on the north side, is an open sided structure with knee-braced posts. Roof The existing roof over the main part of the house was replaced in late 2018. When this was done the original sheathing was removed and replaced with plywood sheathing. The roofing for this portion was done in corrugated metal, which matches the roofing material present on the building in 1927 and which lasted until it was replaced with wood shingles after hurricane Iniki in 1993. Photos taken of the house prior to 1927 also show a corrugated metal roof. When the upper roof was replaced in 2018 the roof was extended to form an eave over the south and north gable ends (Figure 11). The original roof was constructed almost flush with the gable walls, so this current configuration is considered a major change to the appearance of the building. The roofing over the decks was not replaced in 2018, and as a result this has accelerated the deterioration of those lower sloped portions of the structure since there is no continuity between the upper and deck roofs. The single story shed roof over the north deck is now gone (it still existed in 2015) and the roof over the west deck has been removed. The roof over the other portions of the deck still exist, but in deteriorated condition. Exterior Walls The gable ends are sheathed with shiplap siding, fastened with cut nails. There is no waterproof membrane behind the sheathing. Holes have existed in the sheathing since at least 2015, which lets rain into the walls. Wall studs that were near the windows on the north side are almost completely eaten by termites. Although some of the sheathing appears to be relatively intact the amount that is salvageable will not be determined until removal of the sheathing is done. The paint on the sheathing is almost certainly lead- based but this should be verified. Rowell requested an additional keg of white lead for painting in January of 1848. After the 1927 renovation it appears that a flagpole was installed on the south gable wall (Figure 3). The remaining walls are typically plastered coral or coralline sandstone. The original plaster was lime-based, but subsequent repairs have been made with cement plaster. At window 5 a wood trim was added around the exterior casing to allow for the additional 7 plaster in this area. The original plaster was painted, so the adhesion between the cement plaster and original plaster is poor. The base of the walls next to the concrete deck has been repaired with newer cement plaster in most areas. Although this may have been partially attributable to potted plants being watered next to the walls it is equally likely that the previous damage was due to some form of rising damp exacerbated by filling and pouring concrete against those walls. Other areas have also been plastered with cement plaster (Figure 13). Lintels over openings in the walls are from hand-hewn timber. The plaster over the beams is cracking is some locations and above window 10 the removal of the plaster revealed termite damage to the wood lintel. The termite damage appears significant but superficial and the lintel may be left in place. It is noted in this location that the lintel is long enough to span the window and the adjacent recess. A single long lintel was used to span the opening to the Dining Room on the north side (Figure 15). The lintel appears to be in good condition but it is now bending and is taking too much load from the masonry wall above. There used to be a door with windows on either side of it in this location and the jambs between the door and windows likely provided additional support for that lintel. With them gone the lintel is left to take more weight than it should3. The wall under window 10 is made of 1 x 6 tongue and groove boards with a sand finish paint. The washroom walls are made of 1 x 6 tongue and groove boards installed over a simple 2 x _ interior frame. The interior of the wall adjacent to the laundry sink is covered with sheet metal (Figure 15) 3 The visible lintels are hand-hewn timber and are of native woods. There are no load tables that can be used for calculating capacity of these lintels. 8 Interior Walls The interior surfaces of the cellar are the exposed original stone blocks4. Interior walls of the first and second floor are wood studs with plaster on wood lath. The plaster is applied over masonry at the exterior walls and except in one case over lath and plaster on wood studs for interior walls. That exception is the wall between the Parlor and the Sewing Room. This is a plastered masonry wall, which may at one time been an exterior wall. At the east side of the Parlor most of the walls have a wood wainscot. The wood trims that define this wainscot have been removed adjacent to where the wall was removed (Figure 16). The west side of the Parlor shows no sign of ever having a wainscot. The one exception to the more normal interior plaster wall construction occurs at the wall between the Kitchen and the Dining Room. This wall is supported by 2” by 3” verticals at about 28 inches on center. On the hall side the wall appears flat with the plaster finish skimmed over the face of the verticals (not more than about 1/8” thick). On the kitchen side the verticals are exposed and the plastered surface has a slightly concave shape between each vertical (Figure 17). At its thinnest the wall may be no more than 1 ½” thick. It is assumed this wall was made by plastering over wood lath only, between the verticals but this cannot be verified until the wall is partially dismantled, which will be necessary to replace two of the verticals that are entirely termite eaten. At the second floor most of the interior walls are plastered. These walls are noticeably cracking but seem relatively solid. Limited destructive testing is justified to determine the cause of the cracking. Also at the second floor, several closets were constructed out of ¾” thick tongue and groove material. The closet in Bedroom 4 has extensive termite damage and will largely need to be reconstructed (Figure 18). The interior surfaces of the walls in the attic at the gable ends are sheathed with 1 by 12 boards installed horizontally with battens. There is some surface termite damage of these boards on the south side which may be able to be repaired since the surfaces of these rooms are painted. This same pattern and board size is used on the ceilings in the attic rooms (Figure 19). The two other walls that run east-west, and define the hall from the two main attic rooms, is sheathed with 1 x 6 tongue and groove boards (Figure 20). The short walls on the east and west sides of both attic rooms are smooth. Floors The cellar floor is paved in large sandstone blocks, some of which are notched around other stones (Figure 5). This is an unusual floor and it is doubtful there is another building in Hawaii with such paving. The front rooms of the first floor are covered with a tongue and groove flooring with an exposed face of 3.25”. In the middle of the room is an 8.5” wide patch where the former wall used to be (Figure 21). The floors of the northern rooms are wood tongue and 4 Although Gulick refers to the stone as “limestone” it is more likely the blocks are a fine-grained sandstone. 9 groove boards with exposed faces of 5.25”. The same flooring conditions exist at the second floor, with the two south rooms having narrower boards than the north rooms. The flooring at the first floor appears to be in good condition. Most of the floors are exposed wood but the kitchen was covered in a now deteriorated linoleum and earlier resilient tiles. It should be noted that the first floor structure of the north portion is not visible as the crawl space under that floor is inaccessible. At the second floor there are three boards in Bedroom 3 that were badly termite eaten and are now removed (Figure 22). In the attic rooms the floors are quite different. The south room has wide boards that vary anywhere from 8.5” to 17” wide. The north room has flooring made of tongue and groove boards with face dimensions of 5.25”. Both floors are in fairly good condition and both appear to have been nailed with cut nails. In both cases the floor boards run in the east/west direction. Ceilings The ceiling in the first floor front (south) room are ¼” gypsum board applied directly over the 1 x 6 tongue and groove ceilings. A portion of this has fallen, revealing termite damage to the boards above. The ceiling in the kitchen is exposed 1 x 6 boards. All other ceilings of the first floor are plaster on wood lath (Figure 23). Ceilings of the second floor interior are all plaster on wood lath, except that the ceiling in the bathroom is ¼” gypsum board applied directly to the floor framing above. Portions of all the second floor ceilings have collapsed in every room (Figure 24). In most cases the lath appears to be ok, but there is some deterioration of the lath in Bedroom 4. Figures 63 and 64 illustrate the extent of plaster or gypsum board replacement recommended. The meeting of the walls and ceilings at the second floor typically have a simple cove molding. The exceptions to this are the Pantry and Kitchen which have no cove molding. Ceilings in the attic are covered with 1 x 12 boards with battens and are entirety painted. There is no finished ceiling in the cellar, which reveals the original mortise and tenon hand-hewn first floor structure. Doors and Windows See the table below for individual descriptions of each window and door, which includes information about hardware. Several summary observations follow: · Most of the windows are 6 over 9 light with both lights operable. Although Rowell asks for both window “springs” and “pulleys” it is apparent that he never got any 10 pulleys since all the windows are secured in place with spring loaded window pins. The style of the pins (Figure 25) is typical in all the windows except window 28, which uses a more “modern” spring window pin (Figure 26). · There are 13 windows which are 6 over 6 light (in addition it is likely missing windows 7 and 8 were also 6 over 6 light double hung windows). There are 7 6 over 9 light sash (plus one that likely was the same – window 1). The 6 over 6 light windows are roughly the same size as the 6 over 9 light windows, but the panes of glass are 8’ x 12” instead of 8” x 10” for the other windows. Muntins are typically thin and of a style characteristic of the 1800s. One 6 over 6 window has a slightly thicker muntin (window 10) and may be from a slightly later date. · Some of the sash have completely failed. All extant window glass shall be preserved and reused in any window replacement. · During the Rowell era the windows all had shutters with operable louver blades (Figures 1, 2 and 6). There are no photos that show shutters on windows after the 1927 renovation. It is not known exactly why the shutters were removed but they would not work with the screens and screen frames that existed in the post 1927 era. · Doors are paneled with glass light, solid paneled or made out of boards. The doors made out of boards were usually made with boards that had beaded edges. Sometimes there is only one bead present and it is randomly placed in the width of the door so it is likely that these doors were made from leftover material. · The doors to the closets in the upstairs bedrooms are all five panel doors that are different from all other doors in the house. These closets are all single wall. Due to the door design, wall construction and use of wire nails it appears these closets were added during the 1927 renovation. · The exterior casings and sills of the windows and doors appear to have all been painted with a sand finish. The sand grains used were quite fine. WINDOW SCHEDULE – Refer to Floor Plans (Figures 59, 60 and 61) for Window reference numbers Window Description Recommended work First Floor 1. Sash is missing (Figure 27). The sill nosing is badly termite eaten and north jamb is gone. The interior casing on the north side is intact and a cut nail is evident, used to attach the casing to the former jamb. · Replace sash with 6 over 9 light sash to match window 3. · Provide new spring sash holder to match older style. 2. 6 over 9 light sash (Figure 28). Sash in good condition. Three panes of glass are missing, each being about 8” wide x 10” tall. Sill and apron termite eaten. Sill and apron are embedded in the exterior plaster of the wall. · Replace three missing panes of glass with salvaged glass or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze existing sash. · Epoxy fill the termite eaten portions of the sill. · Paint · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 11 · Install new screen to match historic wood screen frames. 3. 6 over 9 light sash. Has one cracked pane of glass. Sash in good condition. · Replace cracked with salvaged or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze existing sash as required. · Remove existing paint and repaint · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. · Install new screen to match historic wood screen frames 4. 6 over 9 light sash. One broken pane of glass. Exterior casing has remnants of a sand finish paint. The screen frame for the window was located on the deck under the window. · Replace cracked pane of glass. · Reglaze existing sash as required. · Paint. Evaluate whether sand finish should remain or be stripped and replaced with sand finish to match existing. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. · Replace screen and restore existing screen frame. 5. 6 over 6 light sash. Glass panes are 8” wide x 12” tall. Three panes are missing. A 6 ½” high and ¼” thick piece of plywood is screwed to the top at the exterior. The exterior of the sash has a number of rusting thumbtacks stuck into it. This window has slightly thicker muntins than most of the windows. Window has a trim added around the exterior casing that acts like a screed for plaster and this results in the window being set back slightly into the wall. The plaster around this window appears to be cement plaster installed over original lime plaster. · Replace missing panes of glass with salvaged or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze existing sash as required. · Remove plywood and all thumb tacks. · Paint. Evaluate whether sand finish should remain or be stripped and replaced with sand finish to match existing. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 12 · Fabricate screen frame to match that of window 4. screen frame. 6. 6 over 9 light sash. Sash appears to be in good to fair condition, but bottom sash is missing 5 panes of glass. One jamb is very deteriorated. The casing of the window is bad at the head and at both sides. Sill is very deteriorated. · Replace misiing panes with salvaged or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze existing sash as required. · Replace all of the frame and casings to match originals. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. · Replace screen and restore existing screen frame. 7. Window is gone. No historic photos have been found that show this window, or window 8. The sill and portion of the jamb that remained in 2015 show that the window was a double hung window (Figure 29). The jamb and sill are now gone. Window should be replaced with new 6 over 6 light double hung window. 8. Window is gone. See recommendation under window 7. 9. 6 over 6 light sash. · Install new glazing putty as required. · Strip window of paint and repaint. Exterior casing shall have a sand finish 10. 6 over 6 light sash. Muntins are slightly thicker than the other 6 over 6 light sash. · Install new glazing putty as required. · Strip window of paint and repaint. Exterior casing shall have a sand finish. 11. 6 light inward-acting hopper window. Two panes of glass are missing. · Remove window sash and frame from wall and store for later reuse. 13 · Replace missing glass with salvaged glass or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze window glass as required. 12. 6 light sliding window. · Remove window sash and frame from wall and store for later reuse. · Reglaze window glass as required. Second Floor 21 6 over 9 light sash. One pane is missing and one pane is cracked. · Replace all missing glass pane and cracked glass pane with salvaged glass or new light restoration glass. · Reglaze all panes as required. · Paint. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 22 6 over 9 light sash. Appears in good condition. · Reglaze all panes as required. · Paint. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 23 6 over 9 light sash. Three panes of glass have small cracks · Keep cracked panes. · Reglaze existing sash. · Paint · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 24. 6 over 9 light sash. Two panes of glass are cracked. · Keep two cracked panes if possible. · Reglaze existing sash. · Paint · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 25 6 over 6 light sash. Two panes of glass are missing. One pane has a crack in the corner. · Replace two missing panes of glass with salvaged glass 14 or new light restoration glass. · Keep existing cracked glass in place. · Reglaze existing sash. · Paint · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 26 6 over 6 light sash. Sash and frames are not salvageable. Salvage 3 extant panes of glass for reuse. Has older style spring sash holder. · Replace window sash and frame, including sill, to match existing · Install 3 salvaged panes of glass · 27 6 over 6 light sash. Sash and frames are not salvageable. Salvage 2 extant panes of glass for reuse. Has older style spring sash holder. Workable but rusted. · Replace window sash and frame, including sill to match existing. Keep existing for templet. Reinstall two salvaged panes of glass. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 28 6 over 6 light. Three of the 12 panes are missing. Sill is in poor condition. Sash and frame may be able to be refurbished. Has newer style spring sash holder. Plaster gone at the head. · Replace missing panes with new light restoration glass. · Replace sill. · Epoxy consolidate and patch frame and sash. 29 6 over 6 light. Glass of lower sash is painted but paint is partially gone. Jambs are deteriorated. Plaster gone at the head. · Salvage and restore sash. · Replace frame, including sill. · Do not remove paint from glass. A final decision about the paint should be made in consultation with the interpretive team who will run the house museum. Third Floor (Attic) 31. 6 over 6 light sash. All glass gone except for four panes. Window frame is deteriorated or gone completely. See figure 30 · Short term, remove any salvageable portions of the sash and board up the 15 window opening to prevent rain from getting inside the house or into the gable end wall. · Salvage panes of glass. · Replace entire frame with one to match the original – after the gable wall is reconstructed as discussed earlier. · Repair or replace existing sash. If replaced, shall match original in all respects. · Paint. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. · 32. 6 over 6 light sash. Deteriorated to the extent that one sash lies on the floor with all glass smashed except one pane (Figure 31). · Short term, remove any salvageable portions of the sash and board up the window opening to prevent rain from getting inside the house or into the gable end wall. · Salvage 4 panes of glass. · Replace entire frame with one to match the original – after the gable wall is reconstructed as discussed earlier. · Repair or replace existing sash. If replaced, shall match original in all respects. · Paint. · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 33. 6 over 6 light sash. Window is currently covered on the exterior. Missing 4 panes of glass. · Replace all missing glass with new light restoration glass. · Replace sill after repair to gable wall. · Repair existing sash, reglaze all panes. · Paint. 16 · Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. 34. 6 over 6 light sash. Window is currently covered on the exterior. Missing 9 panes of glass. · Replace all missing glass with new light restoration glass. · Replace sill after repair to gable wall. · Repair existing sash, reglaze all panes. · Paint. Refurbish existing spring holder for reuse. DOOR SCHEDULE – Refer to Floor Plans (Figures 59, 60 and 61) for Door reference numbers Door Description Recommended work A 6’-8 ½” X 2’-11 5/8” X 1 5/8” thick six-panel door. Two button tipped hinges. Mortise lockset exists. Interior escutcheon and both knobs are gone. Existing escutcheon is 5 15/16” x 2” and very rusty. Door strike is gone and the strike jamb is split. Door threshold is in poor condition. Door has two partial height operable sidelights each with 5 panes of glass. One muntin is missing on the west sidelight. (Figure 32) · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinge · Replace knobs and escutcheons with new to match original steel. · Replace missing strike · Repair jamb · Replace threshold · Replace glass in sidelights with light restoration glass. B Six-panel door similar to door A. The bottom stops (trims) of the two lower panels are gone. Has lockset with escutcheons and two knobs, all rusted. Lockset stile is badly deteriorated. Door has two partial height operable sidelights each with 5 panes of glass. One muntin is missing on the west sidelight. Panels under the sidelights are missing. · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges · Remove rust and plate knobs and escutcheons. · Replace the two missing panel trims. · Replace the door stile that has the lockset in it. · Replace glass in sidelights with light restoration glass. · Replace bottom panels under sidelights. C 6’-6” x 2’-8”. Two surface mounted hinges. Two wood panels below and a 6-light panels above. One of the glass panes is missing (Figure 33). Mortise lock with escutcheon. · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges. · Replace missing glass. D Door is missing. 17 E Two ball-tipped hinges. Two wood panels below and a four-light panel above. One of the upper panes is missing and the other is cracked. Exterior sill is deteriorated (Figure 34). · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges. · Replace cracked or missing glass · Replace exterior sill if epoxy consolidation and patching is not feasible. F Door is missing. Original door was 6’-2 5/8” x 1 ½” thick. Had two hinges. Strike still exists. Threshold is deteriorated. On the Kitchen side, the left casing is deteriorated. Stud is bad next to right jamb. · Leave opening as-is except as noted below. · Replace deteriorated casing · Replace door threshold with one to match original. G Door and hinges are missing. Door was 6’-3 14” x 2’- 10 ½” x 1 3/8”. Hinge locations are very deteriorated, with nothing that would hold a hinge. · Repair hinge jamb with epoxy or by replacement of the wood jamb · Install new door, hinges and lockset. Style of door shall determined H Door made of ¾” thick planks I Door made of three ¾” thick boards with 11 ¼”, 6 1/8” and 11 1/8” widths. Has two ball-tipped hinges. The jambs and head are badly termite-eaten. · Retain door. · Lubricate hinges. · Replace jambs and head with new to match existing. J 6’-6 ½” x 2’-0” x 1 1/8” thick 5-panel door. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. Knob escutcheon noticeably rusted. Two ball-tipped hinges 3 ½ x 3 1/2 · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Clean and rust neutralize escutcheon and box lock and paint. · Lubricate hinges. K 6’-7” x 2’-8”. Simple 6-panel door with no ogee panel trim. Two hinges, each 3” x 3” with no ball tips. Has thumb latch operator on the Parlor side. Clean and paint. L Identical to door K except both jambs are completely termite eaten. This door has a small hold-back latch at door operator height (Figure 35). · Lubricate hinges. · Replace both jambs with new material to match original configuration. M 6’-01/4”” x 2’-05/8”. Has two hinges. Door leads to the basement stairs. Made of two boards 1” thick. One board is 16 ¼” wide. · Lubricate hinges. · Paint N 5’-10 3/8” x 1’-4 3/8” with two 3” x 3” hinges. Made of boards. · Paint O Not used. 18 P No door. Both jambs are in very poor condition. · Replace existing door frame and casings to match original. · Replace door with one to match door “V”. Q Screen door only. 6’-5 ¾” x 2’-5 ½”. Box lock with brown porcelain knobs. Two 3” x 3” plain hinges. The door stile that the lock is mounted on is in poor condition. There are rat holes eaten into through both lower corners of the door (figure 36). · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges · Replace damaged stile · Patch the rat hole on the hinge stile · Replace screen. Q1 6’-01/2” x 2’-0” five panel door. Door is in good shape. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. The entire door frame is badly termite eaten. · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges · Replace door frame and casings. R Screen door similar to “Q” but this door is in good condition. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. Has two 3” x 3” hinges with steeple tips. Only hinges in house like these (Figure 37). · Oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Lubricate hinges · Replace screen. R1 6’-0” x 2’-5”. Made of ¾” thick tongue and groove boards each with an exposed face of 3 ¼”. Has two ball-tipped hinges. No recommendations other than painting. S 6’-6” x 2’-7 ½” four panel door with steel mortise lock with two rusted 3” x 3” hinges. · Clean and oil existing lockset and reinstall. · Clean hinges of rust and lubricate S1 Door made of three boards, each with a bead. Simple latch with thumb latch on interior No recommendation other than painting. S2 6’-5” x 2’-8 ¾” x 1 ½” thick. Six panel door similar to K and L at first floor. Has two 3 ½ x 3 ½” ball tipped hinges. Rusted steel knobs and escutcheon. · Oil existing lockset and reinstall · Salvage escutcheon and knobs, clean of rust and finish to prevent further rust · Lubricate hinges T 6’-5” x 2’-5 ¾” x 1 1/8” thick. Four panel door with raised panels. One of top panels is gone and mid rail is gone. Termite damage to stile and mid-rail, with rat holes in bottom corner of the hinge side (Figure 38). · Salvage hardware and refurbish for reuse. · Reconstruct new door to match original. T1 6’-0” x 1’-11 5/8” x 1 1/8” thick. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. Five panel door. Door sill and floor of the closet is 3 ¾” higher than main floor of the bedroom. No recommendations other than painting. U Door is similar to door “C”. Missing glass in bottom center pane. The top hinge is cracked and may need replacement (Figure 39). · Replace missing glass with new light restoration glass. 19 · Remove cracked hinge and weld cracked sections together. Grind smooth and reinstall. V Simple 6 panel door similar to doors “K”, “L” and “S2”. Has two 3” x 3” hinges and a foot latch hold-open X Six panel door with mortise lock and rusted knobs and escutcheons. Bottom corner of the strike stile appears to have been gnawed by rats. The paint is peeling off this door. · Oil existing lockset and reinstall · Clean knobs and escutcheon of rust and coat with rust preventative coating. · Lubricate hinges · Patch door at corner · Strip all existing paint from the door and repaint. X1 6’-5 ¾” x 2’-01/8” x 1 1/8” thick. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. Five panel door with two hinges. No recommendation other than painting. X2 6’-5 ¾” x 2’-01/8” x 1 1/8” thick. Has box lock with white porcelain knobs. Five panel door with two hinges. No recommendation other than painting. Cabinets There are built-in cabinets in the Parlor, Kitchen, Dining Room, in the Pantry, along the stair to the second floor and in Bedroom 1 (Figure 40). The ones in the parlor originally had glass panes but these have all been broken and removed (Figure 41). The cabinet in the Kitchen has been built in between the fireplace/chimney and the north exterior wall. Dining Room cabinets also had 5 glass panes each. The northern cabinet is missing its door. The cabinet door to the south of door G is extant. It has a small glass knob. (Figure 42). The Pantry has a cabinet on the south wall and a cabinet in the northeast corner. These cabinets have glass doors above and panel doors below. There is a continuation of the lower cabinet under window 6. To the left of that is a cabinet with a single panel door (Figure 43). The small cabinets above the stair to the second floor have single panel doors. At the second floor the only room with a built-in cabinet is Bedroom 1 (Figure 40). This cabinet, which has upper single panel doors and flat-panel drawers below, appears in good condition. There is a countertop that extends under the center two cabinets, with a shallow arched decorative valance under them. The doors and drawers have small glass knobs similar to the one on the Dining Room cabinet door. 20 Interior Stairs The stairs from the first floor to the cellar are stone and fairly steep (Figure 44). The bottom landing is about 2 inches higher than the floor of the cellar. The wood stair from the first to the second floor has treads 10.5” wide, which includes about 1.5” of overhang at the nosing. The risers are about 8” from tread to tread. The nosings have an ogee shape. Five of the stair nosings show some evidence of termite damage, which may be able to be patched with epoxy fillers. The stair is painted. The stair from the second floor to the attic has an 8-inch tread (including the overhang) and 9.5-inch risers. It is very steep and the stair has no handrail. At the top of the stair is a guardrail that ends in a newel post. That newel post has some termite damage but the damage can be patched with an epoxy patching compound. There is a stair leading from the attic level to what used to be a roof hatch, and also to the small space above the attic ceiling (Figure 45). This stair exhibits enough termite damage that it was not advisable to use it. The stair should be reconstructed, utilizing any salvageable material in its reconstruction. Exterior Stairs There are three exterior stairs. Two are plastered masonry and both are on the south side and lead to the south deck (Figures 46 and 47). Based on the cracking pattern it is likely these are made of stone blocks that have been smooth plastered. A wood framed stair at the south end of the west deck leads to the second floor deck. The bottom riser is concrete, which would indicate that this stair was constructed in 1927. The underside is enclosed with 1 x 6 tongue and groove boards with sand finish paint on the exterior. The enclosed space was used for storage. This stair is in poor condition and will need to be reconstructed since the stringers are termite eaten (Figure 48). Deck The first floor had a covered deck around nearly the entire perimeter of the building. The first floor is concrete that appears to have been acid-stained and is roughly the color of the soil color surrounding the house. Although it has been hypothesized that the color may have been the result of over 90 years of exposure to the red dirt of Waimea, the vertical faces of the concrete are also exactly the same color, which is unlikely to have occurred due solely to dirt stains. The deck was constructed with no expansion or control joints except for a diagonal joint at the east and west front corners. The concrete has randomly cracked as a result of the lack of control joints. The front (south) portion of the deck has settled and separated badly at the east corner (Figure 49). The short retaining wall at the front has bowed in that direction pulling the integral concrete pedestals for the posts with it, causing the posts to be as much as 3 inches out of plumb (Figure 50). Portions of the concrete are salvageable, particularly at the west side and back (north) side. The west side is split by the extension of the 21 original cellar stairs and just north of that, a trench in which is installed the sewer line from the kitchen (Figure 51). There was a screened portion of the upper deck at the north end of the west side. This is no longer extant (Figure 52). Bathroom, Kitchen and Washroom Fixtures The bathroom has a sheetmetal-lined shower, freestanding tub, toilet and wall-mounted sink (Figures 53 and 54). The toilet appears to be of a more modern design but the other elements could be from the 1927 renovation. The kitchen has a cabinet with a sheetmetal countertop and sink (Figure 55) and a range (Figure 56). To the right of the sink cabinet is what appears to be a small water heater. The dates of these elements is not known but they are not of recent vintage. The Washroom has a two compartment concrete laundry sink, a toilet and a lavatory that was at one time wall hung. The lavatory is now supported by and partially in one of the laundry sinks. The toilet is of a fairly modern design but the laundry sink and lavatory are both of an older style. All of the existing fixtures mentioned above should be saved and reinstalled. The only exception to that would be the toilets, which are more modern. Whether these get changed to toilets appropriate to the 1927 period should be decided as part of the interpretive program. PART 2. TREATMENT AND USE A. Ultimate Treatment and Use. The proposed use of the house at this time is as a house museum. This will allow for a maximum preservation of historic material. Specific recommendations for treatment of windows and doors is included in that section. Specific recommendations for treatment are also included, starting on page 23. Those recommendations are primarily focused on preserving the resource. There are some issues relating to the site that should be addressed if any development of the site is considered. · The gravesites must be saved and the same is true of the Monkeypod Tree. · Remove structures recently built to the north side of the house. The site is quite large and could possibly tolerate an additional structure or two. No structures should be built in the southern half of the lot and a minimum 50-foot separation is recommended between any new structure and the existing house. First preference for constructing anything new would be the site of the former garage and workshop. · Cistern shall be preserved. · Perimeter stone walls should be maintained. The front (south) wall should be restored to its c1927 appearance. 22 · The stack of stones to the north of the tree should be repurposed on site. The coralline blocks mixed into this wall likely date from its earliest construction so should be separated and any reuse of them should consider this history. · Any parking area should be placed in the northern half of the site and should not be visible from the street. B. Requirements for Treatment. Handicapped access to the house can easily be accomplished from the north side since the ground is almost level with the first floor. This would make the entire first floor accessible since most of the door openings meet minimum widths to accomplish this. The decks are open, with a significant drop to the ground at the front. The building code does not require a guardrail in these locations because the change in elevation is less than 30 inches. However, if the site is made open to the public it is recommended that a simple rail be added or other measures, such as plants or benches be used to keep people away from the edges. Stairs have no handrails and are fairly steep. Public visitors could be allowed to the second floor but it is recommended that this only be allowed under supervision and with adequate cautions. The same recommendation stands for any visit to the cellar. It may be that visits to the cellar should only be via the exterior stair due to the narrowness of the interior stair and low head height, but this should be further considered as operations plans are developed. It is not recommended that the public be allowed to use the stairs into the attic. Even with this restriction handrails must be added to this stair. The stair to the roof should not be used except for the rare occasion of needing to get to the space above the attic rooms. From a risk management perspective it would also be advisable to consider adding a handrail to one or both of the south stairs to the front deck. A hazardous materials investigation has not been done for the house. Based on research it is highly unlikely that any asbestos materials will be found, but there are several references to “white lead” for painting and it should be assumed that lead paint is present in the building. A full hazardous materials report needs to be done. All the electrical wiring in the house should be replaced with new electrical wiring to meet current codes. Almost all of the wiring for lights has been run through surface conduit, which is a practice that should be followed in the rehabilitation. Existing electrical pathways and surface conduit locations shall be duplicated. Although restoration of the second floor bathroom is recommended consideration should be given to making the bathroom non-functional. That is, to remove all plumbing lines to fixtures. This would remove the risk of leaks occurring that may damage historic fabric. Doing this implies the construction of an accessible toilet facility elsewhere on the site for the use of staff and the public. 23 Department of the Interior Policies & Regulations Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties establish a framework for planning projects involving historic structures. They establish standards for the treatment of historic properties, including preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. The SOI has also published Guidelines for interpreting the Standards, as well as Preservation Briefs that provide detailed guidance for appropriate treatment of various features, materials and conditions. Legal A number of laws, regulations, and functional requirements delineate treatment and use of historic structures. In addition to protecting the cultural resource, these requirements also address issues of human safety, fire protection, abatement of hazardous materials, and accessibility requirements. Any treatment must be carefully considered in order that the historic fabric of the structure be preserved. National Historic Preservation Act The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) mandates Federal protection of significant cultural resources. This would apply to this facility only if any Federal funds were used in helping to preserve it. In implementing the act, a number of laws and authorities have been established that could be binding on the property. A routine step for the treatment of historic structures is compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of any under-taking involving National Register properties. To satisfy the requirements of Section 106, regulations have been established that require, among other things, consultation with local governments, State Historic Preservation Officers, and Indian tribal representatives. Prior to any undertaking, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ensures access to the built environment for people with disabilities. As a result of the Act, ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) were developed, which establish enforceable standards that the public must follow. While people with restricted mobility have most frequently benefited from ADA, protection also extends to those with other disabilities such as visitors with impaired vision or hearing, Requirements for full compliance with ADAAG regulations are extensive and easiest to apply to new construction. Full compliance for historic buildings is more difficult and sometimes would require significant alterations to the historic character of the property. International Building Code Any alteration and additions to the property must be guided by the International Building Code and all appendices. The IBC states: 3406.1 Historic Buildings: The provisions of this code related to the construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occupancy 24 shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard. Building code requirements include safety concerns such as egress. Public safety and health must always be a priority, but for a historic structure, alternatives to full code regulations can be sought where compliance would threaten the integrity of the historic structure. National Fire Protection Association Any alterations and additions to the property must also be guided by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) National Fire Codes. The NFPA has codes for historic buildings, including NFPA 909, “Code for the Protection of Cultural Resources Properties - Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship,” and NFPA 914, “Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures.” C. Alternatives for Treatment. Any alternative treatment to treating the house as a house museum would require additional compromise to the historic resource. Of primary concerns are what would need to happen to make the stairs leading from the first to second floor acceptable for full public use, floor load capacities, lighting, electrical service and data connectivity which would also likely need to be improved. Alternatives for treatment should focus on possible uses for the site as a whole. The site is fairly large and much of it is now being farmed. This could continue. Buildings to support this effort and possibly supply restroom facilities for visitors, could be built on other portions of the site. A caretaker’s residence or other rental may also be able to be constructed on the site if guidelines are followed to mitigate the effect of this construction on the historic house. D. Specific List of Recommendations 1. Repairs to windows and doors are described on pages 10 through 19. 2. Reconstruct the first floor deck as indicated in Figure 59. Duplicate the 1927 configuration and current color of the concrete. 3. Reconstruct the second floor deck and the roof over it and the back (north side) shed roof. This includes the railing, posts and the stair. This shall be done with wood milled to match the original sizes of the wood members. Salvage and reuse any usable wood from the existing second floor structure. Strengthen the second floor structure as need to allow for compliance with current building codes, or restrict use of the upper deck so the public cannot use it. 4. Tent the house for termites. Install a ground termite bait system. 5. Reconstruct gable end walls. Salvage as much of the existing siding as possible. If any new siding is needed, the configuration shall match that of the existing siding. Install new wood studs with a moisture barrier before reinstalling the 25 siding. When this work is done, reconfigure the existing upper roof to match the original gable end configuration by removing the overhang added in 2018. 6. Repair or replace all doors and windows, including the door and two windows from the Dining Room to the back lanai. Refer to Table __. 7. Reconstruct the exterior stair leading to the second floor. 8. Replace the wood single wall enclosure of the niche in the wall on the west side. 9. Provide a wood cover for the trench in the concrete at the first floor. 10. Reattach any loose wood furring and install new plaster ceilings where noted. 11. Remove gypsum board ceiling finish in Parlor and Bathroom and replace with new ¼” thick gypsum board finish. 12. Replace deteriorated wood studs in wall between Kitchen and Dining Room and replace plastered wall in between. Explore the alternate treatment of epoxy reinforcing those stud locations and leaving the wall. 13. Remove all termite damaged wood and replace with new at attic stair to roof. 14. Epoxy repair stair nosings at stair from first floor to second floor. 15. Epoxy repair newel post at attic level. Epoxy repair superficial damage to wall boards at attic level. 16. Cover channel in floor at west side lanai with a wood board with top flush with adjacent concrete. 17. Install barrier around, or construct cover for, stair to cellar. 18. Remove all old knob and tube wiring. Leave all ceramic knobs in place. Install new electrical wiring throughout, using surface molding methods used in 1927. 19. Delete all water service to the second floor. Fixtures shall be salvaged, cleaned and reinstalled. Provide signs that indicate the fixtures are not usable. 20. Repair other termite damaged wood or replace as required with identical material (e.g. the closet walls of Bedroom 4). 21. Replace missing door to one Dining Room cabinet. Replace all missing glass in cabinet doors with light restoration glass to match the original. 22. Reconstruct washroom on north side using salvaged windows. 23. Remove cement plaster used at the base of exterior walls. Removed plaster cracking at lintels of windows. Reuse existing wood if possible, but replace if 26 termite damage is too extensive. Replaster each location with natural hydrated lime plaster. 24. The tree should be monitored and pruned as required. It is a valuable resource itself but overhanging branches need to be kept away from the house. 25. Cover exposed roots of the Monkeypod tree with at least 6” of soil. This will require altering the slope of the driveway. Leave the driveway unpaved if possible. Better protection should be given to the tree. 26. Reconstruct the original south site wall and picket fence. 27. Repair other damage as indicated in this report. E. Recommendations Regarding Sequencing of the Work The highest priority for work on the house is to stop any further termite damage. Since termite tenting of the structure cannot occur until treatment companies will allow their employees to walk on the roof structure, the lanai (deck) roofs must be made structurally sound. Since the roof of the west side deck is gone, that will need to be reconstructed. The concrete deck on the south side, which forms the base for the posts supporting the decks above, has broken away, the concrete repairs should be done at the same time. Recommended repairs to finishes, windows, doors and casework should be done, but this work can be delayed, as it needs to occur after the building is made structurally sound and termite damage ceases. The cost estimate, prepared as a separate document, reflects the sequencing recommendation made above. 27 COMPILATION OF RESEARCH ON EARLY MISSIONARY CONSTRUCTION IN WAIMEA, KAUAI 28 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events May-June 1820 (Joesting, pp. 122-123) Son of King Kaumualii returned to Kauai in company of Samuel Whitney and Samuel Ruggles. King very grateful. July 25, 1820 Samuel & Nancy Ruggles, Journal) Arrival of Whitney and Ruggles with wives, who were “the first white females who were ever on the island.” August 23, 1820 Sandwich Islands Mission Journal, in Forbes et al. Their first house built by Hawaiians. “They have commenced building a meeting house…70 ft. by 40 ft. [that] stands near the King’s dwelling. On the ground lately occupied by a …[heiau].” Fall 1820 (S. Whitney, Nov. 6, 1820 letter to his three sisters) “Our house….is made of sticks tied together, and thatched with straw…Is 50 feet in length and 22 in breadth, having a [hall] of 8 feet in the center with mat partitions , making two…rooms.” One room for Ruggles and one for Whitneys. Portico along whole length “we use for our schoolroom and meeting house. We have three windows in each of our rooms, one of glass, six panes, and the other two of boards” Late 1822 (Joesting, p. 125) Construction started on mud and stone house for Whitney family, built near river, on east bank. Measuring 26 x 36 feet , it had large stone cellar. Daniel Chamberlain assisted in its construction. That house flooded in 1826. 29 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Aug. 1, 1825 (S. Whitney, Kauai Station Report) “I have some plans for building however which may require some [missing word] after a while…. My old house is tumbling down over our heads.” 1825-1826 (Gowans and Penkiunas, 1993, p. 103) Small thatched meeting house replaced, by order of Gov, Kaikioewa, with larger one, with footprint of 90 x 30 feet. This reported by ABCFM in 1826 as “the best building ever erected in that island.” June 3,1828 (P. J. Gulick, Autobiography, June 3rd.entry, p. 22) “I landed at Waimea Kauai, where I am to be located, as an associate of the Rev. Samuel Whitney…. At first view, Waimea has a forbidding aspect. But it is a pleasant … village; & many facilities for doing good, & also … a comfortable subsistence.” Whitney hired a carpenter on Kauai, but since he was “not a house carpenter,” W requested Mr. Hart (carpenter working for mission, & then in Honolulu) come supervise for “a season.” W also asked C for shingles, lathes, and some clapboards, as well as purchase of timber for window sashes if no spare wood on hand. “The house that I now live in is falling down, and probably will not stand a shower of two hours continuance. June 9, 1828 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain, in Kauai Station report) July 15, 1828 (S. Whitney, Letter to Ruggles) “The building of my new house occupies much of my time…. I {have] need for boards. Can you help me?” Offers to replace boards with “avails” (money from or trade of) expected of yam crop. Aug. 16, 1828 (S. Whitney, in Aug. 11, 1828 “My cellar walls are finished. The masons have just began [sic] to lay up the first story – They are so 30 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Letter to Chamberlain) difficult and fretful that I [may]…discharge them before the walls are done…. Except for the peevishness of the masons, every-thing relative to the building goes on well.” July or August 1828 (P.J. Gulick, Autobiography, p. 23) Gulick, wife, and just-born first son arrived at Waimea. “The governor, who had kindly offered to have a house built for us, fulfilled his promise. It was a thatched building, about 25 feet by 40; & brother Whitney had a floor laid a [a]cross one end of it, & extending 15 or 16 feet. (Most of the first missionaries, had at first, only mats for floors).” October 20, 1828 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) “My house goes on but slowly. The masons say three weeks more and the walls will be done…. Window glass you will please to sned for the lower story 8 by 10, for the upper 7 by 9. If you can get me a few joists, they will be very acceptable.” Nov. 18, 1828 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The walls of his [Whitney’s] new house were yesterday finished. But the carpenter, or rather the man who endeavours to supply a carpenter’s place, does not sufficiently understand the business,” Nov. 18, 1828 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) “It is a good building 42 feet by 20, two stories and a cellar…. My carpenter has the plates about ready to put up.” He asks for building materials and tools. 31 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Dec. 1, 1828 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) “You ask what is done to the inside work of my house -- Nothing at all, except the large beams laid down. My carpenter, poor man, has been unable to work for some weeks and I fear will never do more…. looking daily for Mr. Hart.” May 2, 1829 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) “Mr. Hart commenced working for me yesterday.” His rate and terms discussed. “I fear Hart will not be the man for you he was last year, though I believe you can not get a better one so cheap. I mean cheap for the Islands.” June 6, 1829 (S. Whitney, Letter and list to Chamberlain, in Kauai Station report) In list attached to Whitney letter, under “From Natives” heading, entry for “Building of Mr. G houses and workshop” gives value of $50.00. [Note: not clear why plural “houses” used.] Whitney encloses a long list of costs for his house, with conflicting numbers cited in letter. He requests that list be for Chamberlain’s eyes only. “I have now about done with your carpenter.” [referring to Mr. Hart?] June 19, 1829 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) “I have got a house and a good one…. I have laboured hard to get the house done as cheap as possible, and am not ashamed of the expense. The house and every thing attached to it, I consider to be the property of the A.B.C.F.M. In building it, I have not though merely of my own comfort and usefulness, but that of my successors.” March 29, 1830 “I have given 8 books, for a sqr. fathom of limestone & one for the cutting of 15 stone, 2 ft. by 18 32 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) inches. I hope … to get the stone hewed, viz. prepared for laying up; before they get so dry as to crack under the process of squaring. The lime … may be saved underground, should it be prepared, before we are ready to use it.... I may get native timber which will answer for beams, joists; & perhaps door & window frames.” April 12, 1830 Gulick 1990 Autobiography (p. 30) “Went up into the hills, North of us, for my health, & to ascertain if it is practicable here to get timber for the house. Found the land very broken into steep hill, narrow & deep vallies [sic]. This will render it very expensive to get timber down to our station.” He notes the suffering of the sandalwood cutters. “Will you send a box or part of a box of glass 7 by 9” April 12, 1830 (S. Whitney, Letter to Chamberlain) July 14, 1830 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) He expects work on house to start soon. He engaged a stone cutter & Mr. Hart (a carpenter). Discusses materials, cost, planned sizes and layout. Asks for suggestions. At end, asks for window glass size available. Construction of Kauai Governor Kaikioewa’s new house was mentioned, and that the stone cutter and Mr. Hart were both working on that house first. Nov. 12, 1830 (P. J. Gulick, unfinished Letter to Chamberlain) “I am now engaged with my building concerns….Two thirds of my stone are yet to be squared, a considerable quantity of limestone to be collected, burned & brought to this place, & 15 heavy sticks of Comparison of costs between Whitney and Gulick houses appears to have become an issue. Much of G’s Nov. 12 letter is about how to keep an exact account of building expenses, asking questions about “The governor has made a contract for timber for rafters, door, & window frames, &c. At least this I am told. His schooner, by which I send this [letter], may perhaps bring the timber on her return.” 33 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events timber to be carried down from the mountains. These are heavy jobs…[discusses slates and books that were used to trade with Hawaiians for their labor]. The digging of our cellar will probably be finished today; & should we not be hindered by rain, a month or two hence may see the walls rising.” how to keep an exact account of building expenses. He talks especially about boarding cost for workmen, since he learned from Rev. Whitney that W forgot to account for that. Dec. 2, 1830 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Timber (plates and beams) from mountains and 300 stone delivered to building site, but “near 1,000 stone yet to cut. And my axes & halves are nearly worn out; & broken to pieces… I am now getting timber to put over doors& windows to support the walls. I get a stick 5 feet long, nearly 1 foot wide, & 3 inches thick for [books].” Discusses a stone layer just hired to begin following week, and “the Kauai carpenter” whom he expects to employ. Mentions writing slates or cash needed to pay them. Explains the need for the 1,000 stones. Gulick repeats in Dec. 2 letter questions about how to account for board of workmen in his building expenses, again stating that Rev. Whitney did not allow for that. He asks, what is practice on this subject? Dec. 17, 1830 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “In two, or three weeks … unless hindered by some unforeseen occurrences, we shall be ready for the window frames….We have concluded to carry up the walls of our cook-house as high as the other & have but one roof.* To cover the whole, Mr Hart says, will require about 7000 more shingles besides In the timber order for the door and window frames of the Governor’s house, Gulick was told “the Governor had engaged a supply” for him as well. 34 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events what I have purchased. This, will still be, more than 1000 less than Mr. Whitney used…. Most of the stone are now squared; & I believe … I can get lime, as fast as it will be wanted.” Letter also states the stone layer is working rapidly, noting number and dimensions of stones placed and height of above-ground and cellar walls. “Should we get the walls up, & be unable to proceed; a temporary roof will preserve them.” (“*Where the roofs join there will be something like a gutter on one side. To render this tight, Mr. Hart says will require shingles less liable to split than mine.”) Feb. 20, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Much about method of keeping accounts re: building costs, especially value of board for workers. Issue of fairness in size and expense of mission family houses is discussed. “Our dwelling house is 18 feet by 30 in the clear; an addition for cook-room & bed-room is 20 feet by 22 within the walls, one story…. You … are surprised at our progress in building. And truly, we are also…. We [are] ready for the upper window frames. We have also an oven; & a chimney carried up in the walls of the cook house…. And the stone for the Governor’s house apparently finished, since people released from that project came to work on cutting stone for Gulick’s house. 35 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events remainder of our dwelling house are collected & nearly all squared.” Feb. 28, 1831 entry in (P. J. Gulick, Feb. 20, 1831 Letter to Chamberlain) “We want {need] timber for rafters and piazza [lanai], 3500 feet of boards, 7000 shingles, perhaps 150 lbs. of shingle nails, beside a few locks, hinges, &c. … as I am now supplied with materials for the window frames, I had much rather have the value of plank designed for them, (150 feet in length, 3 in. by 12) in shingle nails.“ “Mr. Hart [carpenter] will probably work a month or six weeks for Mr. Whitney before he engages properly with us.” (i.e. before he will be free to work on the Gulick house). March 12, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to C) “It is more than a month, since anything has been done at my walls.” “The carpenter & mason are both engaged, & likely to be so, several weeks on the governor’s house.” March 28, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The walls of our house remain as they were on the 10th of Feb.” Original plan for thatched roof on cook-house part discussed, and G does not object if it can be rain and fire resistant.”It seems quite as important, that these points should be secured, for this part of the house, as for the other. And bro. W. says, with the materials we have, this cannot be done.” Asks for advice. “the workmen, will I suppose, be two weeks yet, at the governor’s house.” May 9, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The walls of our house are now up; & the nominal expense of the mason’s work is $100… The chief expense, of the walls, was incurred for lime & for quarrying stone…. But getting native timber, & having it carried down from the mountains, “The expense of pine boards, ‘on hand’ is not included in the bill. If you think proper to add it, bro. W. can tell you under what head to place it. The boards are his.”[Not clear if Whitney house or Gulick house used these boards.] 36 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events has swelled my bill, faster than anything else. I still need timber for rafters, piazza posts, & railing; shingles & shingle nails.” G. asks if the needed materials could be purchased for him, if cost not exorbitant. He proposes ways to pay for them. In a P.S., lath was also needed. May 9, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) He received supplies, including boards, shingles, and nails, from Chamberlain and thanks him. G hopes “that my house may be made comfortable, without incurring any great expense.” May 30, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Manuscript Letter to Chamberlain) “You say nothing about lath, I suppose therefore, have none to spare. Mr. Hart [carpenter] talks of beginning to work for us next week.” June 21, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Received some articles (not specified). “300 feet of roof boards would answer my purpose.” A June 9 letter was not received in Honolulu (returned to G), & confusion explained in following letter. July 2, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Amounts of boards sent or purchased already, as well as still needed enumerated. “Mr. Hart thinks I shall need 1500 ft. more; besides the 500 [feet of roof boards – up from 300 estimate]. G also needed “brick for finishing the chimney, lining the fire place &c.,” but could not estimate the number. 37 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events August 8, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Reported he obtained boards “sufficient for my roof; & they are on…. I may yet have cause to regret having used such perishable materials. It is said they are liable to be devoured of [sic] worms.” Not likely that house “will be rendered habitable by…rainy season.” Due to two schooners that ran ashore his carpenter lost a month of work, presumably due to lack of supplies. G was in need of hardware for doors and proposed to use Whitney’s “remnant of hinges & latches….8 pair of hinges, & …6 handles & latches.” He would still need screws or nails to attach all, plus “locks, hinges, &c. for two outside doors, & perhaps ½ doz. bolts beside.” August 8, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) G. returned boards sent, calling them useless. “If in lieu of those, I could have 800 or 1000 feet, of boards fit for floors, casings &c., we could make our lower rooms comfortable, so far as lumber is concerned….We shall need 5 or 6 doz. 2 inch screws. - 6 latches, handles & locks; 2 of them strong, for outside doors. Screws for the above locks. 6 bolts. Small wrought nails.” “Should you send me the boards requested, I can spare you the molasses money, $65. – unless my associate [Whitney] should want a part of it to finish his upper rooms.” 38 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Sept. 21, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “I am now ready for the mason, & in want of brick, to carry the chimney, about 10 feet; & also to line the fire place….Our stone will not endure” Oct. 3, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The boards, hinges, &c. were duly rec’d.” Repeats request for bricks & asks for a workman (mason). “It remains somewhat doubtful , whether our new habitation will afford us a refuge from the storms of the approaching rainy season.” Nov. 17, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Requests cotton to pay two workmen and also asks for “1/2 doz. iron buttons for cupboard doors, &c.” In P.S., giving advice to bro. Clark about house design: “if my building were yet to do, I would have the smaller windows below. It would be so much more convenient to raise.” “We are glad to see our kind, tho. childish, old Gov’r come to settle down, once more in this retired nook.” Nov. 17, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The boards rec’d. will enable me to finish…. I need about 12 lb. of 10 p. nails; and shall send $3 .… I am also in want of a whitewash brush.” Dec. 17, 1831 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “I still hope to receive those nails, 10 or 12 lbs., 10’d, & also 10 or 12 lb. of shingle nails; & will pay for them if you wish it so to be. Should also be glad of 1/2 doz. iron buttons, for cupboard doors, and as many pairs of hinges for the same. We wish likewise for a little varnish & Spirits of turpentine…. We expect next week to occupy a house with a fire place in it.” “Hart (carpenter) is now working (when not trading & c.) for bro. W.” (Whitney) 39 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Jan. 7, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “On the 5th we took up our abode, in our new & very comfortable house.” He gives thanks to God and Chamberlain, adding he is “truly glad that I am once more, able to write you, without having occasion to add, a catalog of wants.” He offers Mrs. Judd the upper spare room and invites her to visit. Jan. 19, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to C.) “P.S. I should be glad if you could send me a whitewash brush. I can get neither brush, nor bristles here.” March 29, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) Requests, “by the first conveyance, two paint brushes, a large & a small one, & prussian blue sufficient to paint one room.” April 30, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “I understand you have rec’d a good lot of lumber. Our house needs about 1000 feet of good boards to render it comfortable and safe. None of this however (should it be obtained) is designed for garret floors. I shall use nothing except it be native for that purpose.” Nov. 13, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) He heard lumber was available for trade in vegetables/livestock. “One of our lower rooms, the one for which we have the most use, is uncomfortable for want of a floor; & owing to the unfinished state of the upper rooms, the mice & other reptiles, & vermin are getting in the partitions between the lower rooms ….Should you purchase, about 300 40 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events feet should be pine the other 300 might be, whatever would make good floors. I should be glad of 12 or 15 lbs. of Shingle nails.” Nov. 29, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to C.) “if you should procure some lumber for us I shall want perhaps 12 or 15 lb. of 10’d nails.” Dec. 18, 1832 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “The carpenter has begun to get out stuff for a floor for our dining room; but I have no nails that will answer for that purpose.” 1833 (Gulick’s 1932 report quoted in Koamalu by Ethel Damon, p. 277) “In the year past a new and very substantial meeting house, in native style, has been erected at this station. It is 155 feet long by 48 broad, with 7 double doors, each 8 feet wide and 10 high; made –nails, hinges and all—and hung, entirely by native”s Oct. 3, 1834 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) First mention of planned temporary dwelling and planned “doby” (adobe) house at Koloa station that Gulick plans to establish. Dec. 1, 1834 (P. J. Gulick, Letter to Chamberlain) “Our building is in progress at Koloa, & we hope in the course of this month to be at home there.” Letter dated Jan. 1, 1835 noted family moved that day. 1834 (Gowans and Penkiunas, 1993, p. 103) “A mud and stone church replaced the second thatch building, which had burned. This new building measured 84 by 42 by 17 feet and cost $276 to construct. In 1848 the church collapsed.” 1835-1846 (Ethel M. Damon, Koamalu, p. 287) Gulick house left vacant for 11 ½ years. 41 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events “It had been so long unoccupied that the Rowells found it minus doors and windows.” July 23, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I have been busy yesterday& to-day in landing my things which are all now ashore…. As I can get no shingles on Kauai for my cookhouse I am obliged to ask you to send me some…. I shall want about 3500 shingles, - or else about 350 square feet of Zinc…. I know I shall far over-run my appropriation but I know no other way to get a comfortable habitation for my family.” Family expected to arrive next week. Aug. 8, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I shall not have lumber enough for my building. I shall want either 100 ft. Am Pine & 100 N.W. or 200 ft. California cedar…. Also, 3 or 4 N.W. joist, 20 lbs. Whiting 3 prs 4 in. butts (door) 3 door handles 25 lbs. White lead 1/2 lb. Lamp Black Br. Hall thought you could lend me your DIAMOND for cutting glass. I am now ready to use it.” Aug. 13, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I shall not have enough lath. Please send me 1000 more. Please not omit the nails for the lath and shingles. 42 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events Also 6 Spring doorbolts about 5 inches will be the proper length. Also 6 doz. 3/4 in. screws of middling size.” Sept. 1, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “ I suppose I forgot to ask you for Screws to accompany the 4-in butts. Please send me 4 dozen. I have committee the diamond to Dr. Smith to be sent up by the first opportunity.” Sept. 22, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I shall need probably 3 or 4 more gall’s of paint oil. Please send me a can…. Could you get me a good trusty carpenter at Honolulu to come & do my work on reasonable terms? I had partly engaged one here but he will probably disappoint me…. [H]e is of poor character, & will charge $2.50 per day which is more than we have been accustomed to give on Kauai.” Sept. 22, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I should like 1/2 doz. prs. 1 in. or 1-1/4 in iron butt hinges, with short, stout screws to fit them. Also 1/2 doz., best kind of Window Springs. Also 1/2 doz. pulley’s [sic], iron or brass. Nov. 4, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) Asked for a good cooking stove to be ordered. “I should like to have you send me some Litharge [red form of lead for pigment] & some Sulphate of Zinc to use in my paints. Also about 50 lbs. of lead for 43 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events melting, or old type metal if it comes any cheaper.” Nov. 10, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I have made a mistake in not sending f[or] 1¼ inch boards for my panel doors. I had supposed that inch boards would answer, but they will not… I will thank you to send me 100 feet pine boards 1¼ in. thick.” Nov. 24, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I sent for the Litharge & the Sulp. Zinc, because I found that the Oil I got at dep [mission Depository] would not dry in less than 3 or 4 weeks even in this dry climate.” Nov. 26, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) This is duplicate request to Nov. 10 letter, since letter did not get on board the Victoria when it left Koloa. “I would like to have the lumber sent…to Koloa.” Dec. 24, 1846 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) Money received was $35, rather than $25 requested. “Please charge the other $10, as I shall need it & plenty more before my house repairs are completed.” Jan. 4, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “In case I shall be allowed to complete my repairs the present year. I shall wish you to send me 500 ft. more of N.W. or Cedar boars, a portion perhaps of each kind, and 200 ft. of Am. Pine -- & I shall need a grant of $250 & perhaps $300. Also, please send 10 lbs. 6d. nails. [Re.] 6d. nails, I prefer the Stouter kind. If… slender, send 5 lbs. 6d. & 5 lbs. 8d.… 44 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events 3 small gimlets [wood drilling tools]… 1 common paint brush 1 sash [paint brush] Jan. 11, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I find you have sent me only about half nails enough for my lath, & my Mason is coming to a full stop. Will thank you to send me about 15 lbs. lath nails…. I will thank you to add to [Jan. 4 lumber] list 1,000 more lath with nails.” Jan. 14, 1847 (Unsigned, Note [to shipper?] re. Rowell order) Mr. Rowell wants, by first direct conveyance, a box of Merchandise, now packed [with nails] 500 ft. Cedar boards 200 “ Am. pine 10 bundles Lathe” [sic] Feb. 6, 1846 [sic 1847] (G.B. Rowell, Unaddressed Letter - Brethren) Conveys criticism by his wife that repairs can’t be deferred another year or more. Repairs include installation of attic floor and dust-proofing the “chamber in the ell.” Two outbuidings needed: additional native dwelling and a carpenter shop. Comparison of current station to what they had at Waioli. Materials to send: 700 feet of board, 1200 lath, nails. Feb. 10, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “Will you please send [to Koloa] an Am. pine board 22 feet long and one foot wide throughout, a sound board, or two boards each about 12 45 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events feet long. If it is only 3 /4 inch thick, so much the better. The [recently received] boards… pine lumber,my mason says, is the most ‘shabby lot of stuff he ever saw that came out of Oahu or any other hu.’ It is dreadfully shattered. Moreover I could not make out more than 180 feet of the whole….[S]end me at least 10 feet more.” Feb. 23, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “Be so good as to send me…if you have... 1 doz. good door latches, 3 small bolts 3 inches or less in length, 2 doz. brass screw knobs 1/2 doz. best window springs… 1 doz. curtain knobs or [similar] Also procure for me if to be had, 1 doz. flush bolts (brass)” Mar. 6, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) Repeats Feb. 10 request- sound boards. “The reason why I wish it sent to Koloa is, that I am having some doors made there, & the carpenter wants so much more lumber to make out the panels. It will cost twice as much to send the boards from Waimea as it will to bring them from Oahu. Please send me also the following: - Nails 10 lbs. 8d / 5 [lbs.] 12d / 5 “ 20d / 10 “ 4d… 1 Carpenter’s Square…. 46 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events In reply to bro. Castle’s inquiry… I would as soon have the Cedar lumber as the N.W. for flooring.” April 1, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) ‘Please send me a Screw driver [sic], best kind, & 2 paring chisels: 2 inches and 1½ in. & one ½ in. mortising chisel and one paper 1½ brads, & one paper 2½ brads, stout, & one gro. 3/4 in. screws.” April 21, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “I want 20 lbs. 8d. nails & 10 gall’s more or less of paint oil. Can you tell me what proportions of lime, sand and ashes are required for the cement for the roofs of houses. Or do you know any thing better than that. Please send also a doz. of the screw knobs, & 3 lbs. of the stoutest kind of finishing mails.” May 11, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) Disappointed about grant denial. Mentions being in debt to unknown amount, with more expenses foreseen to replace fences lost in recent flood. May 11, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) Asks for: Key hole Saw, 6 pr. 2 in. door butts 3 pr. 3 in. “ “ 2 “ 4 in. “ “ Screws for…butts. 10 lbs. 6d. nails 10 lbs. 10d. “ 5 lbs. 40d. “ a n d 2 stout & handsome door bolts” 47 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events June 3, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “My paint oil is all gone & the roof not half finished. I shall want at least 15 gallons more. Also 1/2 doz. paint brushes. The brushes I have hitherto got from Dep’y, … come to pieces in half an hour’s use. June 8, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “The last lot of boards which I thought would be sufficient, have unaccountably slipped away. & I must have some more, say 500 ft. of Cedar or N.W., with 10 lbs. more of 8d. nails, & 6 lbs. Wrought nails some about 2 ½ in. long & some about1 ½ in.” June 8, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “The last lot of lath I sent for did not hold out as the former lot did. It took ten or eleven bundled for 500 Sq. feet. I shall want, say seven hundred more, with nails” July 1847 (G.B. Rowell, P.S. in Aug. 16 Letter At end of a P.S. to Aug. 16, 1847 letter: “50 Ft. 3/4 Inch boards, ordered in July.” (no July 1847 letters in HMCS files) Aug. 2, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. Castle & Hall) “Sorry to learn… that the Dep’y is short of linseed oil. I have primed the outside of the house with Kukui oil and the house had been left so long without painting (12 or 15 years I suppose) that it drank in the oil beyond all calculation. I shall need another can of Kukui oil as large as the one you sent (say 12 gall’s) for 48 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events the roof. But for the inside & the second coat outside I must have Linseed oil. Were I to paint the outside with Kukui oil, it would, after a 2 days blow of dust, be as red as the white horses of Lahainaluna. I want two large sized cans of lins’d oil, but if you cannot spare any more from the dep’y, will you please to purchase one can for me down town… also one keg of white lead…, 1 doz. prs. 2 inch brass butts with screws….” Aug. 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letters to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) Aug. 16: “Please add another board containing 15 to 20 ft. I fear I may not have enough.” Aug. 23: ordered “good Whitewash brush, large size.” Oct. 6, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) He learned of boards left for him at Koloa. He notes with sorrow: “freight from Koloa will be 3 or 4 times as much as that from Honolulu. My White lead comes a little short. The last Keg send was not more than 2/3 full. Please send another keg. I am afraid my Lins’d oil will not quite hold out. To be sure, & as I like a little on hand, I will thank you to procure for me a 2 or 3 gall. can in town. If you cannot spare it from the Dep’y.” Oct. 18, 1847 “I should like 1m or ½ m screws 5/8 or 3/4 in. long & No. 8 in size. If you 49 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) have no No. 8s please send me 4 doz of No. 9 or No. 7.” Dec. 1, 1847 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) “Will you please to send me 6 nice cupboard locks [and] a brass plate [specifies dimensions and plan to divide into 6 pieces]…. also 1 gro. screws 1 in. or3/4 in. long, No. 8. Also 1 doz. small screw knobs, & 1 doz. large do.” Jan. 1, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) “For some reason I cannot make a keg of white lead go half as far as the first I used. Please send me another keg. I wrote sometime ago for some 1½ inch plank for a bathing trough, but have not heard whether you have any. I should like a plank 18 inches wide & 20 feet long. Perfectly sound throughout.” Jan. 29, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) A ship captain unloaded his supplies at Wahiawa, Kauai, instead of Waimea, and R. is righteously indignant about the double or triple freight charges that it would cost to get them to Waimea. Mar. 8, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) “I should like … 3 nice cupboard locks, such as are designed to fit into the wood.” 1846-1848 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, Ending Apr. 1, Arriving in Waimea, “I found a larger amount of pastoral & medical labor claiming my time and strength than I had bee accustomed to perform. “The meeting house which was built of mud & stone in 1834 has fallen to the ground & its foundations have been cleared away for the erection 50 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events 1848 (p. 1 & 2 of typescript) Moreover the unfinished & decaying house … needed finishing, repairing & enlarging somewhat, to render it a comfortable dwelling. Not being able to secure a carpenter, I was obliged to do most of the joiner’s work with my own hands. of another. My ambition aspires so high as to a permanent stone house, with a belfry & a shingle roof, with a floor and seats.” He pitches the idea of mission churches and brethren all contributing to this grand plan. “The schools of this district are prosperous at present.” May 1, 1848 (M.J. Rowell, Letter to Mrs. Chamberlain) “Our house too is quite comfortable except the leak of the flat roof when it rains, but we hope to have that zinced before long.” May 27, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) Discusses accounting data re. grants from mission appropriated for Rowell’s improvements/repairs of house. June 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letters to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) June 1: Orders “5 or 6 Gall’s of Boiled Linseed Oil.” June 9: “Can no Zinc be obtained reasonably in town for my roof. We shall be pilikia, for the plaster in the rooms below will all be off unless we can stop the leaks some way.” July 7, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to S. N. Castle) Discusses issue of whether Mission normally makes grants for items such as “well curb, Carpenter’s Shop & c.” which were in Rowell request. He explains: “I have asked the Mission to make me such grants, on the principle of replacing what it has taken from me by changing my location” [from Waioli to Waimea]. 51 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events July 13, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) Writes his order for lumber, including “handsome Koa,” and for roofing material (sheet lead or Zinc). July 31, 1848 (M.J. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) Writing for her husband, due to his “sore eyes”: “It was lead he wishes to have ordered from the U.S. as he thinks his letter stated, 600 square feet.” Sept. 25, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) “I should like the tool called a ‘bevel’. I prefer the kind made with slide & screw. Also, a ‘hollow’ for hollowing out eaves troughs.” Nov. 9, 1848 (G.B. Rowell, Letter to Messrs. C. C. & Hall) “I wrote you a good while ago for some turning gouges & chisels. You had none then, perhaps you have some now or might procure some without much trouble. I would like 3 gouges 1 in. & 1/2 in. and two chisels 1-1/4 & 3/4. In.” 1849 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, Ending Apr. 1, 1849, (typescript p.1) “Sickness in my family compelled my absence…in the Summer, [then] the epidemic … interrupted our plans & efforts….Our contemplated meeting house had progressed but little….The Schools of the district have been flourishing as usual, [but] with …interruptions by the sickness.” 52 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events 1851 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, Ending Mar. 31, 1851, (typescript pp.1 & 2) “Our progress towards the acquisition of a permanent house of worship is very slow. Materials still being gathered. $500 had been raised for pastoral support, but robbery of meeting house fund may change where money goes. High contributions this year due to California market & good potato crop. 1851 Gulick 1990 Autobiography (p. 60) ABCFM “offered to give, to any of the old missionaries, the house and premises, which they then occupied.” Ownership of house & land passed to Rev. & Mrs. Rowell about this date. Their son, W.E. Rowell, said land in nearby area (after 1884 death of father) “belonged mostly to my mother.” Whitney had died in 1845, but his widow stayed in the house they had occupied until her death in 1872. By late 1850s its “coral sand stone [walls were] cracked because of imperfect foundations and the walls bulged out and had to be shoved up with heavy timber props.” Late 1850s J.M. Lydgate, Interview in 1915 with W.E. Rowell (oldest son, born 1845, of G.B. Rowell) 1853 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, April 1853, (typescript p.1) “ I should like $200, to repair the roof & verandahs of our house, if the mission is able to grant it.” “After years of hard struggling to get … materials for a house of worship, we are at last permitted to see the walls up, the roof on, & the carpenter & masons now commencing the work inside…. Asks the brethren to help with the rest of work—floors, etc. 1850s on (uncertain dates) J.M. Lydgate, Interview in 1915 with W.E. Rowell “We had a stove, but there was an old-fashioned fireplace in the house, with a crane, and also a brick oven; but I think we never used it much. It took too much wood. Our wood came from the mountains. With “The Waimea church was built of sand-stone which was quarried out in blocks about 3 ft. long by 18 in. wide, and 6 to 8 in. thick. This sand-stone lay in great layers down near the beach, a mile or so away from the church site. 53 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events bullocks we hauled down great logs once in a while.” The stone was cut out with an axe, it was quite soft when cut, and hardened with exposure.” Lime mortar made from coral pieces burned in an open pit about 20 feet in diameter, near church. For Waimea church, “wood work involved selecting and squaring lehua timbers in the mountains and hauling them down…. The tie beams had to be 42 feet long, straight, and free from defects, and they were mighty hard to find…. The floor, doors, and windows were of imported materials, also the seats….Shingles were imported and were boiled in whale oil…. They lasted …25 years.” 1854 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, Ending Mar. 31 “Substantial church edifice, in which we have been worshiping for the last few weeks, with much comfort”, still no floor & seats. 1858 G.B. Rowell, Station Report, Ending Mar. 31 “We have had a floor laid in our house of worship, & the seats are in the process of being made.” 1863 G.B. Rowell, Station Report “For several years there have been none but the protestant schools in the district.” 1865 Rowell suspended, formed a congregation SOURCES } Don J. Hibbard, 2011 (p. 51) { 54 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events 1870s Followers built Victorian frame church 1881 G.B. Rowell married Piilani and Koolau 1884 Rowells resided in house to this date. Don J. Hibbard, 2011 (p. 51) 1880s & 1890s Hale Puna website & historic photo Mary (Rowell)Stolz & Louis Stolz lived here Forbes, Kam, and Woods, 2018 (p. 539) 1893: Dept. Sheriff Stolz shot in Kalalau when trying to capture Koolau to send him to Kalaupapa without Piilani 1894 Prov. Gov’t granted Mary Stolz a pension C.H. Dickey & J.K. Kekaula, 1901 1907 H.P. Faye acquired assets of Waimea Sugar, including Rowell house and lands [Kikiaola Land Co.], typed documents, n.d. 1920 circa Gowans and Penkiunas, 1993, p. 103 Stone church remodeled –rebuilt tower, new shingles, made openings Gothic 1927 Hale Puna website [Kikiaola Land Co.], typed documents, n.d. Only extensive renovation of house, “when it received electricity and plumbing and the original cooking stove bricked in and plastered over.” Remodeled by Alan Faye, Sr. “Removed one interior wall in parlor… Upstairs lanai railings replaced. Maybe roof replaced with corrugated [metal] 1930-2003 House occupied by Wramp family. [Kikiaola Land Co.], typed documents, n.d. 1993 “Hurricane-damage roof replaced with wood shingles – grant money” Don J. Hibbard, 2011 (p. 52) Spencer Mason Architects restored Stone church after Hurricane Iniki 55 Date (Author, Source)* GulIck-Rowell Buildings Whitney Houses Other Waimea Early Foreign-influenced Buildings and Events [Kikiaola Land Co.], typed documents, n.d. 2017 Hale Puna website House purchased by 4th generation West Kauai resident. Non-profit organization established to insure survival of house. Emergency roof repairs started. 56 Bibliography Damon, Ethel M. Koamalu, A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and of What They Built in That Island Garden. Honolulu: Star-Bulletin Press, 1931. “Death of Former Kauai Girl,” The Garden Island, April 17, 1917, p. 1. Dickey, C.H. and J.K. Kekaula. “Report to Speaker of the House of Representatives,” in Journal of the House of Representatives, First Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bulletin Publishing Company, Limited, 1901, p. 566. Forbes, David W., Ralph Thomas Kam, Thomas A. Woods. Partners in Change: A Biographical Encyclopedia of American Protestant Missionaries in Hawai’i and their Hawaiian and Tahitian Colleagues, 1920-1900. Honolulu: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archive, 2018. Gowans, Alan and Daina Penkiunas, with photographer Augie Salbosa. American Missionary Churches in Hawaii. Honolulu: Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, 1993. Gulick, Peter J. Manuscript letters and typescript copies in Missionary Letter section of Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, especially correspondence between Gulick and Chamberlain from 1828-1834. Gulick, P.J. “Autobiography of Peter Johnson Gulick [1797-1877], Begun May 8, 1876. Written at request of his son, Luther Halsey Gulick.” Typescript completed May 1990. Transcribed from the original in HMCS Library Journal Collection. {Autobiography includes copied entries from his journal and retrospective additions.} Hibbard, Don J. Buildings of Hawaii. Charlottesville{ University of Virginia Press. 2011. “Interesting Article Coming,” The Garden Island, October 7, 1913, p. 1. Joesting, Edward. Kauai, The Separate Kingdom. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press and Kauai Museum Association, Limited. 1984. [Kikialoa Land Co.] Typed documents, (all titled with “Gulick-Rowell House” at beginning) “Remarkable Features,” “Development Constraints,” and “Cost and Contents of Proposed Preservation Plan.” Lydgate, J.M., “Interview with W.E. Rowell, Dec. 6, 1915,” The Garden Island, March 28, 1916, p.3 & 6, continued in April 4, 1916, p. 1. Reports of Waimea [Station], Kauai. Typescripts of original handwritten reports at Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, 1820-1834 (by Whitney mostly) & 1848-1863 (by Rowell). Rowell, George B. Manuscript letters and typescript copies in Missionary Letters section of Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, including correspondence between Rowell and several other missionaries from 1846-18___. Rowell, Malvina J. Manuscript letters and typescript copies in Missionary Letters section of Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, including correspondence between Mrs. Rowell and several other missionary wives. Ruggles, Samuel and Nancy. Typescript copy of the Journal Kept from October 23, 1819 to August 4, 1820, in Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library. “Waialeale, ‘Rippling Waters’,” The Garden Island, October 14, 1913, p. 6 Whitney, Samuel. Manuscript letters and typescript copies in Missionary Letter section of Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, including correspondence between Whitney and Chamberlain from 1820-1833, as well as letters to family & friends. 57 APPENDIX FIGURES (Photographs) FIGURES (Drawings) FIGURES Figure 1: Likely the earliest photo of the house, taken of the northeast corner. Note the gutter and collector system for the cistern. Figure 2: Photo taken from southwest. The photo is pre-1927 and perhaps as early as the 1890s. Figure 3: Photo taken in 1961 by Ray Jerome Baker. Shows change in design of railing and post locations after 1927. Note possible flagpole at south gable. Figure 4: Portion of cellar wall Figure 5: Example of cellar paving Figure 6: Original decks were wood framed. Figure 7: Ceiling in bathroom is 14” thick gypsum board attached to original hand-hewn framing. Figure 8: Headstone of George Rowell Figure 9: Cistern. Photo taken in 2015, prior to collapse of north shed roof structure. Figure 10: Remains of the foundation of the former structure at north part of the site. Figure 11: Photo taken in 2019. Note gable roof eave and missing roof over west deck. Figure 12: Siding on north gable wall near window Figure 13: Plaster adjacent to south door has failed. Note cement plaster remains at base. Figure 14: Lintel over window 10 Figure 15: Lintel over opening at left on north side. Remains of the washroom beyond. Figure 16: Shadow of former wainscot trip is evident on this portion of the east section of the Parlor. Figure 17: Original stud shows on interior of Kitchen, with shallow scalloped plaster wall between studs. Figure 18: Closet in Bedroom 4. Figure 19: South attic room. Figure 20: Southwest corner of north attic room Figure 21: Patch in the floor of the Parlor where the wall was removed. Figure 22: Damaged floor in bedroom 3. Note the wall thickness change at the chimney Figure 23: Kitchen, with exposed board ceiling. Figure 24: Typical ceiling damage at second floor. Figure 25: Typical spring sash holder used in all windows except one. Figure 26: Window 28 is the only window with this type of spring sash holder. Figure 27: Location of window 1. Figure 28: Typical 6 over 9 light window sash. Figure 29: Photo taken in 2015 showing the jamb and sill of the previous window 7. Figure 30: Window 31 sash is close to collapse. Figure 31: Window 32 sash. Figure 32: Door “A”. Figure 33: Interior of Door “C”. Exterior was boarded up. Figure 34: Sill of Door “E”. Note remnant of concrete curb and deteriorated plaster which exposed coralline wall construction. Figure 35: Holdback hardware at door L. Figure 36: Door Q from hallway (screen door). Figure 37: Door R lockset on the left and hinge style on the right. Figure 38: Door T Figure 39: Door U shown on the left. Cracked upper hinge at Door U. Figure 40: To the left, cabinets above stair to second floor. To the right Bedroom 1 cabinet. Figure 41: Two cabinets in the Parlor. Figure 42: One of the two cabinets in the Dining Room flanking Door G. This cabinet has a door. The other cabinet is missing its door. Figure 43: Pantry cabinets. Storage closet on the left, and cabinets on the south wall to the right. Figure 44: Stair from cellar to first floor Figure 45: Stair from attic level to former roof hatch. Figure 46: Stair at southwest corner Figure 47: Stair at center of south elevation. Figure 48: Exterior wood stair. Photo taken in 2015. Figure 49: Damage to deck at southeast corner. Photo taken in 2015. Figure 50: Retaining wall separating from deck and leaning south. (Taken 2015) Figure 51: Trench on west side Figure 52: Former screened portion of west upper deck. Figure 53: Bathroom showing toilet, tub, and shower. Part of sink is shown on the right. Figure 54: Bathroom showing the sink, storage closet door and window. Figure 55: Kitchen sink and cabinet. Figure 56: Kitchen Range FORMERWORKSHOPLOCATION(E) PORTUGUESEOVENPRESERVEGRAVES &BORDERAREA OF WORKFIG. 57 - SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 40'PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)040'80'20' UPUPEXISTPOSTS,TYPFIG. 58 - CELLAR FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)16'08'4' PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)UPDN(E) CONCLANAI FLRUPUPUPPARLORKITCHDININGRMSEWING RMPANTRYA1345678910BCDEFGHKIJNML(E) BEAMABV(E) WSCTFORMER WSCTFORMERWSCTSH.1112WASHRMPLASTER WHEREPLASTER IS MISSINGREPLACECONC LANAI(E) JOINT(E) CONCSTEPSINGLEWALL(E) CURB(E) JOINT(E) JOINT(E) CISTERNFIG. 59 - FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"16'08'4'2NOTES:1MISSING ONE MUNTIN. SILL AT BASEIS BAD. NO GLASS.2NO GLASS. MISSING SILL AT BOTTOM.3NO GLASS. REPLACE BOTTOM RAILAT BOTTOM PANEL.4NO GLASS. REPAIR MIDDLE MULLION.BOTTOM PANEL IS MISSING,REPLACE ENTIRE PANEL. BOTTOM 12INCHES OF RIGHT JAMB IS BAD.PATCH IN NEW JAMB.51'-414" WIDE X 3'-1112" TALL WITH 5LITES. GLASS KNOB.123451FIG 662FIG 66 DN FORMER SHED ROOF BELOW BEDRM 3 UP DN 1 FIG 66 2 FIG 66 BEDRM 4 BATH BEDRM 2 BEDRM 1 X21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 X2 X1 P V T U1 Q Q1 R S R1 S1 S2 U T1 1 1 1 1 FIG. 60 - SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH MAUKA (NORTH) MAKAI (SOUTH) ELEELE (EAST) KEKAHA (WEST) 16'0 8'4' NOTE: 1 REPLACE PLAS ABV WDWS OR DRS TO ATTIC DN BEDRM 6 STO BEDRM 5 31 32 33 34 STO FORMER SHED ROOF BELOW (N) CORR MTL ROOF NO FIN FLR NO FIN FLR FIG. 61 - THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH MAUKA (NORTH) MAKAI (SOUTH) ELEELE (EAST) KEKAHA (WEST) 16'0 8'4' 2 FIG 66 1 FIG 66 FORMER ROOF CHANGE IN SLOPE ROOF BELOW (N) CRICKET & FLASH AT CHIMNEY (E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN (N) FLASH AT GABLE END SIM ROLLED HIP FLASH ROLLED RIDGE FLASHING VTR FIG. 62 - ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH MAUKA (NORTH) MAKAI (SOUTH) ELEELE (EAST) KEKAHA (WEST) 16'0 8'4' REMOVE (E) WOOD SHAKES. INSTALL (N) CORRUGATED MTL ROOFING TYP U.O.N. 2 FIG 66 1 FIG 66 FIG. 63 - FIRST FLOOR RCPSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"16'08'4'PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)OPEN TOFLR ABV(E) BEAMPARLORKITCHDININGRMPANTRYSEWINGRMWASHRM12NOTES:12REPLACE 30% OF PLAS ON CLG.REPLACE 5% OF WD LATH.REPLACE +/-40% OF PLAS ON CLG.REPLACE 10% OF WD LATH. FIG. 64 - SECOND FLOOR RCPSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"16'08'4'BEDRM 1BEDRM 2BATHBEDRM 3BEDRM 4HALLWAYNOTES:1REPLACE ALL CLG PLAS. REUSE WDLATH WHERE POSSIBLE.2REMOVE ALL 14" GYPBD & REPLACEW/NEW. KEEP CROWN MOLDING3REPLACE +/- 40% OF PLAS ON CLG.REPLACE 10% OF WD LATH.4REPLACE 50% OF PLAS ON CLG.REPLACE 5% OF WD LATH.21234PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)OPEN TOATTIC 512" X 334",TYP3" X 4"234" X 512"234" X 358"LEDGER,TYP W/ 78"X 412"FINISH ONBOTTROOFEDGENOTE:REPLACE DAMAGED LANAI FRAMING & SHEATHING W/NEWTO MATCH HISTORIC MEMBERS IN SIZE & TEXTURE. PAINTALL REPLACEMENT MEMBERS TO MATCH EXISTING.FIG. 65 - LANAI ROOF FRAMING PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"PLANNORTHMAUKA(NORTH)MAKAI(SOUTH)ELEELE(EAST)KEKAHA(WEST)16'08'4'234" X 358",TYP234" X 358"BLKG, TYP234" X 734"558"POSTS,TYP ± 10'-634"VIF 4"(E) EXT WALL(N) OR (E)558" POST,TYP(N) OR (E)234" X 734"BEAM, TYP(E) 234" X 358",TYP(E) 234" X 512"JOISTS, TYP412"43 4"CONC FLR(E) 78" X 412"(E) 234" X 358"(N) ROOFING± 7'-534"VIF 4"(N) OR (E)234" X 734"BEAM, TYP(E) 234" X 512"JOISTS, TYP(N) OR (E)558" POST,TYP(E) EXT WALL(E) 234" X 358",TYPCONC FLR(E) WD DECK(E) 78" X 412"(E) 234" X 358"412"412"(E) 4" X 4" POST(E) WD DECK(N) COUNTER FLASHAT GABLE ENDFIG. 66-1 - SOUTH LANAI SECTIONSCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"6'0 2' 4'FIG. 66-2 - WEST LANAI SECTION (EAST SIM)SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"6'0 2' 4'(N) ROOFING (N) FLASHCAREFULLY REMOVE ALLHORIZ SIDING. SALVAGE.INSTALL WATERPROOFBARRIER ON STUDS, THENREINSTALL SIDING. REPLACEMISSING/DAMAGED SIDINGW/NEW TO MATCH EXISTING.PRIME & PAINT ALL WOOD.(N) CORR MTLRFGROLLED RIDGERECONSTRUCT ROOF & DECK(N) CORRMTL RFGFIG. 67 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"24'0 8' 16'NORTHEASTSOUTHWESTREVISE ROOFEDGERECONSTRUCTCONC WALLINSTALLSALVAGEDWDWCHIMNEYREVISE ROOFEDGERECONSTRUCTROOF & DECKINSTALLSALVAGEDWDW1X6 T&G WALLW/SAND FINRECONSTRUCTROOF &POSTSRECONSTRUCTCONC WALL(E) OR (N) 1X6T&G WALLW/SAND FIN(N) T&G WALLW/SAND FIN Applicant: HALE PUNA the survival of Gulick Rowell house and prepare it for its third century as a valuable asset to the surrounding community. The Gulick-Rowell Mission House is one of the oldest surviving structures of its type anywhere in the state of Hawaii. The three-story structure is built of limestone and coral and is considered older even than the Chamberlain House on Oahu. In 1828, the Reverend Peter Gulick and his wife Fanny arrived to Waimea, Kauai from Boston, Massachusetts to work at the missionary station there. The Gulicks immediately set forth building a traditional New England-style house using local materials. Coral bricks two-feet thick were cut from offshore reefs and floated ashore for the foundation and walls. Hawaiians were paid in goats, bibles and window glass for their work mining the bricks. Deborah Kapule Kekaiha'akOlou, the last Queen of Kaua'i, lent her oxen to drag the bricks from the shore to the site of the house. In 1846, Reverend George Rowell and his wife Malvina moved into the house. The Rowells rebuilt the house expanding it as their family grew. George Rowell was an accomplished carpenter, and built two churches in Waimea during his term there. The Rowells remained at Waimea in the home until 1884. After that the home was occupied by various townspeople, including the postmaster (there are remnants of post boxes in the main room), the sheriff, who reportedly used the basement as a jail, and various schoolteachers and church members. The coral bricks are rare and unusual and represent a distinct architectural period in Hawaiian history. It would have been heavy and difficult labor for the native Hawaiians who were employed to quarry these bricks. The house has been on the National and State Historic Register since 1972 (Site#30-05- 9314 ). It has been unoccupied since 2003. In 2006, Historic Hawai'i Foundation placed Gulick- Rowell House on the endangered list. 3. The public purpose and need to be served; TOURISM As the sugar industry declined in Hawai'i, and in West Kaua'i in particular, so too did the local economy. Consequently, a few important sites in the area fell into neglect and disrepair. This compounded an already difficult situation, as tourism overtook agriculture as the principal economic driver. Few people know about the Gulick-Rowell Mission house, its importance to local history, or the people who stayed there (for example, it was once a way-station for people with Hansen's disease awaiting transportation to Moloka'i). Hale Puna sees the restoration of the Gulick-Rowell Mission House as an opportunity to increase tourism in the area, revive the region economically, and provide an important cultural center for the people of the region. The Gulick-Rowell Mission House is well-placed for receiving visitors, being on the road up to Koke'e State Park, which receives up to 1 million visitors per year. Unfortunately, many of Rev 12/18/18 2 Application for Grants Applicant: HALE PUNA Mark lsoshima, principal at Kikiaola Construction on Kaua'i, will oversee the construction work, particularly the stone work. 2. Provide a projected annual timeline for accomplishing the results or outcomes of the service; Jan. -Mar. 2019 Phase 1 Emeraencv work Feb. -Oct. 2019 Phase 2 Documentation, planning, approvals Oct. 19 -Jun. 20 Phase 3 Construction 3. Describe its quality assurance and evaluation plans for the request. Specify how the applicant plans to monitor, evaluate, and improve their results; and Quality assurance and evaluation plans will be executed under the supervision of Jim Ballantine, Managing Director of Hale Puna, and Glenn Mason of Mason Architects. Mark lsoshima will determine milestones and oversee the construction crew. All work will be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 4. List the measure(s) of effectiveness that will be reported to the State agency through which grant funds are appropriated (the expending agency). The measure(s) will provide a standard and objective way for the State to assess the program's achievement or accomplishment. Please note that if the level of appropriation differs from the amount included in this application that the measure(s) of effectiveness will need to be updated and transmitted to the expending agency. Measures of effectiveness will be based primarily on observation. These measures can be quantified in the following breakdown: 1-Completion of Phase 1 within projected timeframe and budget. Photographs and copies of invoices can be provided to the state. 2-Completion of Phase 2 within projected timeframe and budget. The submission of a complete historic structures report and workplan can be provided to the state. 3-Completion of Phase 3 within projected timeframe and budget. These may need to be adjusted based on the outcomes of Phase 2 and can be submitted following completion of Phase 2. 4-Admittance of first visitors to the renovated building and museum with survey results of their satisfaction levels with the experience. IV. Financial Budget Rev 12/18/18 6 Application for Grants Applicant: HALE PUNA 6. The applicant shall provide the balance of its unrestricted current assets as of December 31, 2018. Unrestricted current assets as of December 31, 2018 = Lease agreement: $24,000 Grants awarded (committed to preservation project): $85,500 TOTAL: $109,500. V. Experience and Capability 1. Necessary Skills and Experience The applicant shall demonstrate that it has the necessary skills, abilities, knowledge of, and experience relating to the request. State your experience and appropriateness for providing the service proposed in this application. The applicant shall also provide a listing of verifiable experience of related projects or contracts for the most recent three years that are pertinent to the request. The architect and creator of the historic structures report will be Glenn Mason of Mason Architects. Mark lsoshima will oversee construction. Glenn Mason, FAIA, NCARB is the founder of MAI and former principal of its predecessor, Spencer Mason Architects. He is a project architect and the principal-in-charge for many of the projects undertaken by the firm. Born and raised in Hawai'i, Glenn received an M. Arch. from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, before returning to Honolulu, where he has built his 40- year career in the preservation of historic buildings and new design. Renowned for his award winning preservation projects, Glenn has worked on some of Hawai'i's most iconic buildings, including Bishop Museum, Ali'iolani Hale, Hilo Federal Building, Arizona Memorial, Hulihe'e Palace and the last 35 years of maintenance and repair for 'lolani Palace, grounds and associated structures. He was the 2014 recipient of Historic Hawai'i Foundation's Frank Haines Award and he was one of the Star-Bulletin's 2011 "Ten Who Made a Difference" in Honolulu. A past president of AIA Honolulu and the AIA Hawai'i State Council, Glenn is currently the president of Hawaii Architectural Foundation. The construction work will be overseen by Mark lsoshima. Mark is a principal at Kikiaola Construction from Kaua'i. Mark has over 30 years' experience in construction, and has worked extensively on historic structures, in particular Hawaiian stone features and structures. He supervised the remodel work for the historic Old Stone Church in Waimea, the Visitor Center at National Tropical Botanical Gardens on Kaua'i, and the reconstruction of Kalahikiola Congregational Church on the island of Hawai'i, after the earthquake of 2006 which damaged it severely. Rev 12/18/18 8 Application for Grants Applicant: HALE PUNA 2. Facilities The applicant shall provide a description of its facilities and demonstrate its adequacy in relation to the request. If facilities are not presently available, describe plans to secure facilities. The Hale Puna Board of Directors is currently working on a twenty-year lease agreement that will retain the rights for Hale Puna to continue operations at Gulick-Rowell house, using it as a space to realize the organization's goals. The plan is for Jim Ballantine to eventually gift the house and property to Hale Puna, once the terms for tax requirements have been met. VI. Personnel: Proiect Organization and Staffing 1. Proposed Staffing, Staff Qualifications, Supervision and Training The applicant shall describe the proposed staffing pattern and proposed service capacity appropriate for the viability of the request. The applicant shall provide the qualifications and experience of personnel for the request and shall describe its ability to supervise, train and provide administrative direction relative to the request. Hale Puna is overseen by Jim Ballantine, a sixth-generation resident of Kaua'i. Mr. Ballantine has 30+ years' experience as a production executive, and is a two-time Emmy nominee. He is very familiar with managing large projects, having produced animated films, TV series, and arts events in Sydney, Jerusalem, and Los Angeles. He is known for his work on The Little Mermaid (1989), The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991 ), and Bambi II (2006), and Slinky Bill (2015). He returned to Kaua'i in 2015, where he now lives with his daughter. 2. Organization Chart The applicant shall illustrate the position of each staff and line of responsibility/supervision. If the request is part of a large, multi-purpose organization, include an organization chart that illustrates the placement of this request. Hale Puna has no staff and no salaried employees. It is run by a Board of Directors (attached), who are all volunteers, and are overseen by Jim Ballantine. Mason Architects will report to Mr. Ballantine. 3. Compensation The applicant shall provide an annual salary range paid by the applicant to the three highest paid officers, directors, or employees of the organization by position title, not employee name. Rev 12/18/18 9 Application for Grants BUDGET REQUEST BY SOURCE OF FUNDS Period: July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 Aoolicant: HALE PUNA BUDGET Total State Total Federal Total County Total Private/Other CATEGORIES Funds Requested Funds Requested Funds Requested Funds Requested (a) (b) (c) (d) A PERSONNEL COST 1. Salaries 2. Pavroll Taxes &Assessments 3. Frirge Benefits TOTAL PERSONNEL COST B. OTHER CURRENT EXPENSES 1. Airfare, Inter-Island 2. Insurance 3. Lease/Rental of Eauioment 4. Lease/Rental of Scace 5. Staff Trainina 6. Suoolies 7. Telecommunication 8. Utilities 9 10 TOTAL OTHER CURRENT EXPENSES C. EQUIPMENT PURCHASES D. MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES E. CAPITAL 850,000 150,000 TOTAL (A+B+C+D+El 850.000 I Budget Prepared By: SOURCES OF FUNDING (a) Total State Funds Requested JIM BALLANTINE 808-631-3455 (b) Total Federal Funds Requested Name (Please type..,sir~nt) -~ ~ Phone/ (c) Total County Funds Requested #' :!,;.,~ (;,// l ~/17/19 (d) Taal Private/Other Funds Requested 150,00(v Signature of Authorized Official ( g6te , MANAGING DIRECTOR, HALE PUNA TOTAL BUDGET 1,000,000 Name and Title (Please type or print) 6 Application for Grants Applicant : HALE PUNA TOTAL PROJECT COST PLANS LAND ACQUISITION DESIGN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TOTAL: JUSTIFICATION/COMMENTS: BUDGET JUSTIFICATION -CAPITAL PROJECT DETAILS Period: July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 FUNDING AMOUNT REQUESTED OTHER SOURCES ALL SOURCES OF FUNDS STATE FUNDS OF FUNDS FUNDING REQUIRED IN RECEIVED IN PRIOR YEARS REQUESTED REQUESTED SUCCEEDING YEARS FY: 2017~018 FY: 2018~019 FY:2019~020 FY:2019~020 FY:2020~021 FY:2021-2022 80000 850000 70000 850,000 150,000 Total project cost $1,000,000. A capital campaign is underway to raise a total of $1,000,000 over the next 2 years. $85,500 has already been secured from private foundations, including Historic Hawai'i Foundation. 9 Application for Grants HALE PUNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS +affiliations Jim Ballantine, Managing Director Also Manager of Koke'e Lodge Fanny Ballantine-Himberg, Director Farm Director at Hale Puna Gardens Diane Sumida, Director Kamehameha Investment Corporation Nursery, the development arm of Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate. She also supports and volunteers with The Garden Island Arts Council, Hui O' Laka, the International Center in Lawai and local theatre. Clint Snyder, Director West Kaua'i Farms. Also works with Malama Kaua'i and IWIKUA, leading Agriculture Internships for local youth during school breaks and summer. Marie Mori, Director Pakahi Academy and Makana Training Center. Focused on women's health in West Kaua'i. Michelle Clark, Director Kaua'i Island Biologist with the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office. Kaua'i representative on the Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife's Natural Area Reserves System Commission. Anne Coyle, Director Marketing and fundraising for Hale Puna. Also Kaiola Canoe Club, Rapid Ohia Death (ROD) Working Group on Kaua'i, and Women in Theater. Form No. 10-300 AO-1 a _QAifl SHEEt U1N1 1E.U S I A1C.D UtrYVK.! iVlC,l> 1 Ur 1 nc. 11-N 1 C-IVIWIV NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM H HI •i ill 1 \ •• • Np!||g 1 *l? si &S S Itfc Hill ffl • S! • SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS [NAME HISTORIC GULICK-ROWELL HOUSE AND/OR COMMON LOCATION STREET & NUMBER Missionary Row -NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWNWAIMEA STATEHAWAII __ VICINITY OF CODE 15 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT COUNTY CODEKAUAI 007 CATEGORY —DISTRICT XJBUILDING(S) —STRUCTURE —SITE —OBJECT OWNERSHIP —PUBLIC X-PRIVATE —BOTH PUBLIC ACQUISITION —IN PROCESS —BEING CONSIDERED STATUS X^.OCCUPIED —UNOCCUPIED —WORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE _YES: RESTRICTED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —NO PRESENT USE — AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM —COMMERCIAL —EDUCATIONAL —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —INDUSTRIAL —MILITARY —PARK ^.PRIVATE RESIDENCE —TRANSPORTATION —OTHER: [OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Kikiaola Land Corporation STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWNWaimea STATE_ VICINITY OF Hawaii LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. State of Hawaii REGISTRY OF DEEos.ETc. Bureau of Conveyances STREET & NUMBER 403 South Queen Street CITY. TOWN STATE Hawaii REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Hawaii Register of Historic Places,Site Number 50-05-9514 DATE 1972 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Department of Land Natii-ral 671 CITY. TOWN Hawaii STATE 96809 CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED .^ORIGINAL SITE X_GOOD —RUINS FALTERED _MOVED DATE______—FAIR —UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Gulick-Rowel1" house is a two-story structure (plus an attic) with cut limestone walls 24 inches in thickness. A basement occupies only a portion of the area under the house and has a cut limestone floor and walls. The fist and second floors are surrounded by a porch on three sides, three feet above grade, constructed of rubblestone and finished at the first floor in concrete. Wood posts support the second-floor porch with a wood handrail. A corrugated, gable roof covers the second- floor porch with a lower pitch, while the higher pi^ch creates the attic space. Gable end walls of the attic are covered with clapboard and have rectilinear double-hung windows. Exterior walls are covered by stucco over cut limestone. The plan is rectilinear with entry into the livingroom from the covered entry porch- Windows and. door openings are splayed in the cut limestone walls. A small window in the livingroom which opens from the inside and outside is reported to have housed postal boxes. The first-floor is occupied by the living/dining room and kitchen, the kitchen houses a large cooking fireplace and baking oven which has been bricked in. Plaster covers the stone fireplace structure. A unique feature of the cooking facility is that it is built on the interior side of the wall rather than projecting on the exterior, which was the ordinary practice of the day. The Gulick-Rowell missionary house is one of the oldest and best 01 SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE--CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW A—PREHISTORIC —1400-1499 —1500-1599 —1600-1699 —1700-1799 —1800-1899 —1 900- —ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC _ ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC —AGRICULTURE J&RCHITECTURE —ART —COMMERCE —COMMUNICATIONS SPECIFIC DATES 182 8/29, 1846, —COMMUNITY PLANNING —CONSERVATION —ECONOMICS —EDUCATION —ENGINEERING —EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT —INDUSTRY _ INVENTION —LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE —LAW —LITERATURE —MILITARY —MUSIC —PHILOSOPHY —POLITICS/GOVERNMENT 1865 BUILDER/ARCHITECT Peter Thomas —RELIGION —SCIENCE —SCULPTURE —SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN —THEATER —TRANSPORTATION —OTHER (SPECIFY) Gulick STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. Architectural: The Gulick-Rowell missionary house is one of the oldest and best preserved as well as finest examples of early missionary housing on the island of Kauai. It is important as an example of the adaption of traditional New England building practices adapted to the Hawaiian climate, and the utilization of local materials. 2. Historic: The Gulick-Rowell house is one of the oldest surviving structures of its type anywhere in the State of Hawaii. It is associated with the lives of some of the early missionaries to Hawaii whose activities played a large part in the history of the State. HISTORIC SKETCH: In 1828, three new assistant missionaries Arrived at^Walmea, Kauai, to aid the Reverend aiid Mrs. Samuel Whitney in the operation of the missionary station there. The new arrivals were the Reverend and Mrs. Peter Gulick (and their infant son), and Miss Maria Ogden. The governor of Kauai, Kaikioewa, prepared a native house for them, of poles and thatching, but including a board floor. Within a year, the Reverend Gulick began the construction of a more substantial no ;me for his family. He used coral limestone for the foundation and walls, this being cut from offshore reefs by Hawaiian workers and floated ashore. He paid his Hawaiian assistants in goats, Bibles, textbooks, and other articles out of the "common stock" of the Honolulu Damon, Ethel Moseley, Koamalu: A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and What They Built in That Island Garden fHonolulu: Privately printed), 1931. Hawaiian Mission Children's Society, Missionary Album (Honolulu: Hawaiian Mission Children's Society), 1970 (3rd Ed.) 3GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY _____1 .8 _____ UTM REFERENCES 3 i/0 0 4i w is ni^-^i 12.412,819.4.0 (79,204 sq. ft.) AlV] 111?ZONE EASTING NORTHINGcl... I I I , I ., , I i.l , I , ..: I j_LZONE EASTING Pi . | I I . I . . J__LNORTHING I . I i \ . . 1 VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION As defined by State Tax Map Key System; CODE COUNTY CODE FORM PREPARED BY NAME/TITLE Gary Cummins, Director/Historian ORGANIZATION Hawaii Register of Historic Places DATE 1 ft STREET & NUMBER Department of Land and Natural TELEPHONE CITY OR TOWN Honolulu STATE Hawaii THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS: NATIONAL__ STATE___ LOCALJC— As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. GPO 892-453 Form No. 1p-300a (Aev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY « NOMINATION FORM APR 15 1978 COIMTt IMU ATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE preserved as well as one of the finest examples of early missionary residences on Kauai. It has been continiously lived in (since 1846), but shows few alterations to original form, the structure appears to be in sound condition and receiving adequate maintenance. The overall form is uniquely Hawaiian with the high-pitched roof and covered porches on three sides. It is a simple, and functional structure, yet well- proportioned with well crafted detailing. It is an excellent example of a New England approach to residential architecture adapted to the Hawaiian climate. Form No. 1{)-300a (Aev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ;RECEiVEDQQ1 ^ 5 19?? NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ftpR t c iq7ft INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM DAT* *mmm ' * ^ FOR NFS US£ ONLY CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE mission headquarters. The Gulick family occupied the house as soon as they could, although work continued on it. However, in 1834, they were transferred to Koloa, another mission station on Kauai, and for twelve years, the home stood unoccupied, except for the few occasions that needy Hawaiian families were housed there. In 1846, the Revered and Mrs. George Rowell were transferred from the Waioli Mission on Kauai to Waimea, where they moved into the former Gulick home. The years that the house had been unused had taken their toll. There were no doors or windows, and the structure was generally in a state of disrepair. After first putting doors and windows in one room to ensure a degree of privacy from their curious parishoners, the Rowells rebuilt the house, then added to it as their family grew. Rowell was an accomplished carpenter, and built two churches in Waimea during his term there. The Rowells remained at Waimea in the home until 1865. After that the home was occupied by various plantation manager's families from the local sugar cultivation operations. Each made their share of alterations or improvements, but the end result was not a significant departure from the original design. HRHP-4-73 -ID / 05 / QTIA _ island quad site number HRHP I.D. NO. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF STATE PARKS P. O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 968O9 HAWAII REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Historic Sites Information and Review Form Name of Site (Common): QULICK-ROWELL HOUSE And/Or Historic:GULICK HOUSE, ROWELL HOUSE Street Address:MISSIONARY ROW, City or Town: WAIMEA County:District:WAIMEA Latitude-Longitude Coordinates: Tax Key Numbers: 1-2-06-34 Type of Site: Building^ Public Industrial-Commercial Religious-Educational Residence_- Other (Specify) Historic Site (No Structure) Historic District Historic Object Location Map of the Site: Approximate Acreage of Site;1 . 5 acres Status of Site (Endangered?) Present Ownership; Private X Federal State City-County. 30-05-9314 #1 HAWAII REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES HISTORICAL SITES INFORMATION AND REVIEW FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Please note subject heading (Statement of Significance, etc.; use separate sheet for each heading) . GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Gable end walls of the attic are covered with clapboard and have rec-. tilinear double-hung windows. Exterior walls are covered by stucco over cut limestone. The plan is rectilinear with entry into the livingroom from the covered entry porch. Windows and door openings are splayed in the cut limestone walls. A small window in the livingroom which opens from the inside and outside is reported to have housed postal boxes. The first floor is occupied by the living/dining room and kitchen. The kitchen houses a large cooking fireplace and baking oven which has been bricked in. Plaster covers the stone fireplace structure. A unique feature of the cooking facility is that it is built on the interior side of the *<|all rather than projecting on the exterior, which was the ordinary practice of the day. ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST OR MERIT: The Gulick-Rowell Missionary House is one of the oldest and best preserved and finest examples of early missionary housing on Kauai. It (since 1846) has been continously lived in, but shows few alterations to the original form. The structure appears to be in sound condition and receiving ade- quate maintenance. The overall form is uniquely Hawaiian with the high pitched roof and covered porches on three sides. It is a simple and functional structure, yet well proportioned with well crafted detailing. It is an excellent example of New England approach to residential architecture as adapted for Hawaiian climatic conditions. HRHP-4-73A 30-05-9314 #2 HAWAII REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES HISTORICAL SITES INFORMATION AND REVIEW FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Please note subject heading (Statement of Significance, etc.; use separate sheet for each heading). HISTORIC SKETCH: mission board had decided that the Reverend Gulick's need for a better home was justified due to the age of his first son. . The Gulick family occupied the home as soon as they could, although work was continued on it. However, in 1834, they were transferred to Koloa, and for twelve years, the home was abandoned except for the few occasions that needy families were housed there. In 1846, the Reverend and Mrs. George Rowell were transferred from Waioli Mission to Waimea, where they moved into the former Gulick home. The years that the home had been unoccupied had taken their toll. There were no doors or windows, and the structure was generally in a state of d isrepair. After first putting doors and windows in one room to ensure a degree of privacy from their curious parishioners, the Rowells rebuilt the house, then added to it as their family grew. The Reverend Rowell was a good carpenter and builder. He constructed the large stone church in Waimea and later, a smaller wooden one. Among other improvements, Reverend Rowell sunk a well about 25 feet from the house, but the the water proved too brackish for anything but cooking. The Rowells were stationed at Waimea until 1865. After that, the home was occupied by various plantation managers' families. Each made their share of alterations and improvements, but the end result was not a significant departure from the original structure. 30-05-9314 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AT PRESENT, INCLUDING SKETCHES Detailed Description of Exterior; Foundation: Limestone walls—cut stone floor--post and girder floor system (c. 1926) Wall Construction: Interior walls wood frame plastered stone wall to 2nd floor. structural System: Limestone walls 24"—splayed windows, window seats Porches and stoops: Later conce. porch—3'0 front entry off porch 2nd floor porch partially screened Openings:Doors: Lites on either front door. Windows : Roof: shape and Covering: gable with corrugated metal — wood frame clapboard with two windows in gable end. Detailed Description of Interior: Floor Plan: two story with attic stairways stone to basement Flooring: wood frame PRESENT INFORMATION O., HE SITE - — NAME OF PRESENT OWNER(S): Kikiaola Land Corporation H. P. Faye, President ADDRESS OF PRESENT OWNER(S; Kikiaola Land Corporation Waimea, Kauai Hawaii OWNER'S ATTITUDE: Unrestricted Research Allowed x_ Restricted Research Allowed No Research Allowed ACCESSIBILITY: Unrestricted Access Restricted Access ^ No Public Access y PRESENT USE OF THE SITE: Agricultural Commercial Indus trial Religious Government Residence X Other(Specify) Educational Military Scientific Entertainment Museum Park Transportation PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SITE: Excellent Good X Fair Deteriorated Ruins INTEGRITY OF THE SITE: Altered X Unaltered Moved (If Moved, note original location): Original Place ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AT PRESENT, INCLUDING SKETCHES: General Description: The Gulick-Rowell House is a two-story structure (plus an attic), with cut limestone walls 24 inches in thickness. A basement occupies only a portion of the area under the house and has a cut limestone floor and walls. The first and second floors are surrounded by a porch on three sides, three feet above grade, constructed of rubblestone and finished at the the first floor in concrete. Wood posts support/\d floor porch Co Vc<tt>with a wood handrail. A corrugated metal, Hawaiian gable roof COST/CYS the second floor porch with a lower pitch, while the higher pitch creates the attic space. Condition of Fabric: Fair-good. Quality of Maintenance: Excellent_S tandard X Poor None HISTORICAL AND/OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: EARLY CONTACT MISSIONARY_ MIDDLE 19th CENTURY MONARCHY X TURN OF THE CENTURY 20th CENTURY ARCHITECT.Rev. Peter Thomas Gulick BUILDER: Rev• Peter Thomas Gulick SPECIFIC DATES: 1828/29,1846, 1865 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE, INCLUDING HISTORICAL SKETCH: I. ARCHITECTURAL: The Gulick-Rowell Missionary House is one of the oldest and best preserved and finest examples of early missionary housing on Kauai. It is an excellent example of a New England approach to residential architec- ture adapted to Hawaiian climatic conditions and local materials. II. HISTORIC: The Gulick-Rowell Missionary House is one of the oldest structures of its type in the Islands. It is closely associated with the early missionaries on Kauai. III. HISTORIC SKETCH; In 1828, three new assistants arrived at Waimea, Kauai to aid the Reverend and Mrs. Samuel Whitney in the operation of the missionary station there. The new arrivals were the Reverend and Mrs. Peter Gulick (and their infant son), and Miss Maria Ogden. The governor of Kauai, Kaikioewa, pre- pared a house for them. It was a Hawaiian style home previously used by another missionary, and possessed the luxury of a board floor. However, before a year had passed, the Reverend Gulick began the construction of a more substantial home for his family. He used limestone for the foundation and walls, the same stone used in the construction of the Waimea Church and Whitney home. He utilized local Hawaiians to help him construct the house, and paid them in goats, Bibles, textbooks, and other articles out of the "common stock" of the Honolulu mission. The ^ BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND OTHER SOURCE INFORMATION )amon, Ethel Moseley, Koamalu; A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and of What They Built in That Island Garden (Honolulu: Privately Printe"dTT~ 1931 lawaiian Mission Children's Society, Missionary Album (Honolulu: Hawaiian Mission Children's Society) 1970 (3rd Ed.) MAJOR LITERARY SOURCES: OTHER SOURCES (personal interview,etc.): Dorothy Riconda Pyle, Puunene, Maui, HI REPRESENTATION IN OTHER SURVEYS: Title of Survey: Date of Survey: NONE Records Located: LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Bureau of Conveyances 403 South Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96809 COMMENTS: The home is now occupied by a retired bookkeeper who previously rarked for the owner. After his death, the plans are to keep the building ind carry out whatever repairs, etc. are needed. SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY: Gary Cummins Name Robert M. Fox, A-Hf.A. jiistorian Title Architect PHOTOGRAPHS: Yes Name No Title By; Robert M. Fox Name DATE :1972 COUNTY OF KAUA‘I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ka‘āina S. Hull Director of Planning Jodi A. Higuchi Sayegusa Deputy Director of Planning Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) DIRECTOR’S REPORT I. SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: Consideration of the subject parcel and existing historic building for proposed repair and renovation of the roof, lanai, and other structural improvements to the lanai frame, deck, lower concrete deck, and support posts to enable effective termite fumigation of the structure. a. 6E-10 Project Review 1) Support for the project; or 2) Support for the project with a recommendation to the Planning Department that its approval of any zoning permit should incorporate conditions of approval; or 3) A recommendation to the Planning Department to consider denial of the permit(s). II. PROJECT INFORMATION Parcel Location: Waimea Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-2-006:034 Area: 1.3573 acres LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES Zoning: T3 Village Neighborhood-West Kauai State Land Use District: Urban General Plan Designation: Neighborhood General Owner(s): Robert J Ballantine Jr. III. TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW AND HISTORIC PROFILE NOTE: Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-2 defines “Historic property” as “any building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater site, which is over fifty years old.” TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Title 13 defines “Significant Historic Property” as “any historic property that meets the criteria” for listing on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places under HAR 275-6(b) or HAR 2846(b). 36 CFR 60 and Part 800.16: Buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that meet the eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including those which any Native Hawaiian organization might attach religious and cultural significance. a. Property is Listed on Register – State and/or National Register The Gulick-Rowell House has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978 and the Hawaii State Register since 1977. It is the earliest example of early missionary housing on Kauai and is notable for the amount of original construction still extant. The SIHP# is 50-30-05-9314. Based on the information included in the 1978 National Register nomination form, the subject building was constructed circa 1850. It is important as an example of the adaption of traditional New England residential architecture and building practices adapted to the Hawaiian climate, and the utilization of local materials. Unique and notable features include: The cut limestone walls 24 inches in thickness, including a basement with cut limestone floor and walls. The limestone was quarried from a nearby pasture. A corrugated gable roof which covers the second-floor porch with a lower pitch, while the higher pitch creates the attic space. Gable end walls of the attic are covered with clapboard and have rectilinear double-hung windows. A unique feature of the cooking facility is that it is built on the interior side of the wall rather than projecting on the exterior, which was the ordinary practice of the day. According to the Applicant, the coral bricks are rare and unusual and represent a distinct architectural period in Hawaiian history. It would have been heavy and difficult labor for the native Hawaiians who were employed to quarry these bricks. In reviewing the proposed project site for historical significance, the following should be considered: 1. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) should be considered when evaluating a property’s potential for designation as “historically significant”. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s four National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria for evaluation should TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 3 of 9 also be considered to insure that the County of Kaua‘i remains consistent with national standards. Criteria A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criteria B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; Criteria C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Criteria D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. 2. Based on the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, completed by Gary Cummins on December 18, 1975, the property was nominated based on the applicability of National Register Criteria A, B, and C. (See Nomination and Historic Sites Information and Review Forms attached.) b. Integrity Although the Gulick-Rowell House was originally constructed around 1848, the house was renovated in 1927 by Alan Faye and significant changes were made, including the notable low-pitched roof extension and second story wraparound lanai. The location, setting, feeling and association of this historic building remain intact. However, substantial deterioration and neglect over many years has adversely affected the condition and quality of the design, materials and workmanship of the house. Termites are active in the building and threaten to destroy historic fabric if not eliminated. The high-pitched roof over the main portion of the building was redone in 2019 to provide waterproof coverage over the entirety of the main house (excluding the lanais). According to the Applicant, some of that work will need to be redone, since the gable end eave details do not match the 1927 design. As described in the 1994 Spencer Mason Reconnaissance Survey, notable features of the roof included, “High-pitched roof with gable siding of horizontal boards. Shallow- pitched corrugated metal roofing over lanai.” According to the Applicant, the corrugated metal roof was replaced with wood shingles after damage sustained by Hurricane Iniki. (Refer to the Applicant’s Historic Structures Report for additional TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 4 of 9 information.) The gable ends of the building will need to be reconstructed, and the roof and floor structures of the 1927 deck addition are either gone or so deteriorated as to require reconstruction. The Applicant intends to restore the house to conserve as much of the 1927 and pre-1927 material as possible. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject lot of record is located at 9567 Huakai Road in Waimea. The subject lot of record is approximately 1.3573 acres (59,124 sq ft) in size, and is located on the boundary of Waimea Ahupua’a, Kona Moku, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i. It is located within the County of Kaua‘i's Project Development/Special Treatment Cultural/Historic (P-D/ST-C) Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District, and General Plan Designation Neighborhood General. The lot of record is located behind the West Kaua‘i Tech & Visitors Center and Hapokele Park. The adjacent lot to the northeast is the Kaua‘i Veterans Memorial Hospital, and to the northwest is Waimea Canyon Middle School. The Applicant is currently seeking a permit from the Planning Department for Phase I of a three-phase restoration and rehabilitation project for the Gulick-Rowell House. Phase I includes structural repair and replacement of the deteriorating roof, scaffolding, and lanai to stabilize the structure for termite treatment. The gable ends of the building will need to be reconstructed, and the roof and floor structures of the 1927 deck addition are either gone or so deteriorated that reconstruction is required. The current application seeks to install a roof over the lanais to protect the house and allow for the entire building to be tented for termites. a. Impact to the Historic Property The proposed Phase I of the project will be integral in preventing the further deterioration and loss of integrity of the building. The Applicant states that the scope of work, including the termite mitigation, is the top priority before substantial improvements can be made to renovate and rehabilitate the historic house to its 1927 appearance. Any potential adverse effects to the historic integrity will be relatively minor in comparison to the imminent and irreversible loss and damage that will occur if no work is completed. V. EVALUATION a. General Plan VII.1.C. Projects and Programs. “Maintain the character of historic structures and bridges by implementing best management practices that adhere to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation when TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 5 of 9 rehabilitating and/or renovating historically significant buildings and structures.” b. West Kaua‘i Community Plan The 2020 West Kaua‘i Community Plan (WKCP) lists the Gulick-Rowell House, among twenty-seven other historic properties on the State Register, as a Heritage Resource important to the history and identity of the West Kaua‘i region. The repair and restoration of this significant historic building complies with two Heritage Resource policies set forth by the WKCP: Heritage Resources Policy #2 Celebrate the cultural and historic features that represent West Kaua‘i’s diverse cultural influences, and Heritage Resources Policy #4 Preserve West Kaua‘i’s historic structures and perpetuate its unique architecture. c. Permit History 1. Building Permit No. 19-1984 for the emergency roof repair on September 11, 2019. 2. OEP R5889 Post-Hurricane Iniki Emergency Permit for roof repair. d. Other Research According to the National and State Register nomination forms, the Gulick Rowell house is the oldest building on the island of Kauai and one of the oldest buildings in Hawaii. The existing building retains a remarkable amount of material from the 1830 to 1846 construction period. Peter Gulick was a missionary assigned to Waimea in 1828. He and his family lived in thatched houses for the first two years. In 1830, he began collecting materials for a western style residence. The makai portion of the house was constructed in the 1830 – 1835, when Peter Gulick left to Koloa for missionary work. After he left in 1835, the house stood vacant for the next 11 ½ years. G. B. Rowell was assigned to the Waimea mission in 1846 and began improving the house that Gulick started. By early 1848, most of the work on the house was completed. The Rowell family lived in the house until 1884 and subsequently, their daughter and son-in-law lived in the house. In 1907 H. P. Faye acquired the assets of Waimea Sugar which included the Rowell house and lands. In 1927, the house was remodeled by Alan Faye and it was shortly occupied by the Wramps family, who lived in the house until circa 2003. The 1927 renovation widened the surrounding decks. The first floor was constructed of concrete to replace the first floor deck’s wood framing. During that renovation, a wall between two rooms in the front (south) of the house was removed, and the bathroom created, for the first time installing indoor plumbing. Electricity was introduced into the house for the first time during the 1927 renovation. TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 6 of 9 VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, the Planning Department recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT the proposed restoration and rehabilitation of the existing historic building, provided that the Applicant adheres to the following conditions: 1. All construction workmanship and materials to be used and installed are an “in kind”, like-for-like replacement, where feasible, and shall conform to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitating a historic building. Per The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Revised 2017): “Following repair in the hierarchy, Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair. If the missing feature is character defining or if it is critical to the survival of the building (e.g. a roof), it should be replaced to match the historic feature based on physical or historic documentation of its form and detailing. As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement of the entire feature in kind (i.e., with the same material, such as wood for wood). However, when this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the historic material may be considered.” 2. Prior to construction, Applicant shall submit the proposed scope of work, building plans, building permit application (if applicable), photos, and requisite information to SHPD – Architecture Branch for review. 6E submittals may be completed via the Hawai‘i Cultural Resource Information System (HCRIS) website at https://shpd.hawaii.gov/hicris/landing. Any outstanding issues with SHPD shall be resolved with SHPD. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department’s final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making. The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a. Government agency comments; b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and c. The land owner’s response. TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 7 of 9 By _________________________________ ALEX WONG Planner Approved & Recommended to Commission: By _________________________________ JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA Deputy Director of Planning Date: ___________________ 2-8-2021 TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A: Aerial Photos of the Subject Property (Source: Pictometry. 11/15/2020) TMK: (4) 1-2-006:034 February 18, 2021 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT B: Kaua‘i Historic Resource Profile (Source: Spencer Mason Architects, KHS & SHPO files, 1994 Reconnaissance Survey) Malcom Street Properties LLC DBA Aloha Theatre Inn Lynn Danaher PO Box 830 Hanapepe, HI 96716 alohatheatreinn@gmail.com 808-755-8045 January 28, 2021 To: Kauai Planning Dept. Attn Alex Wong and KHPRC Aloha Theatre Inn updated and changes to project 2020-21 • KHPRC previously voted to support the Aloha Theater renovation project based on the original plans presented in 2019. However, due to COVID and changes in funding, the original plans are not practical. I had 2 different lenders very interested in funding the project as originally planned, but due to Covid they dropped out. I had to revisit the financial viability in a post Covid world. • Preservation the Aloha Theatre façade. This is critical to the overall project’s viability. This important historical feature is very important to the entire town of Hanapepe. It shall be painted once the façade stucco is replaced. The color will be as close to the original as could be determined. Sample of colors in report. • Sign. The original sign was removed for repairs and restoration. It was repaired by the grandson of the original creator of the sign, it is now stored in the theatre awaiting painting and electrification. Once the exterior is painted and electrical wiring is renewed it will be rehung on the front of the façade. • Marquee. The marquee will be painted and restored. A new electronic marquee will be installed that can be programed. All lighting and signage will be LED. • Ticket Booth. A ticket booth has been designed to replicate similar ticket booths from the same era. The recessed vestibule will be recreated as closely as possible to what was originally in place. • Reclaimed materials. I abhor waste and prefer to reuse as much as possible to repurpose and to keep it from the landfill. Due to my close proximity to Habitat for Humanity Restore, I have already secured a great deal of reclaimed material, tile, trim, lighting, furnishings etc. • Hotel/Inn. Through conversations with my current lender it was determined that the theatre inside the building, the larger restaurant on the North side and the additional hotel building on the property which was part of the original plan be dropped. Instead, I have modified the plans to include all Inn rooms within the original structure. I am planning for 15 -18. Any required ADA Inn rooms will be on the ground floor. The Hanapepe community also encouraged me to create a restaurant on the 2nd floor of the façade on the south side overlooking town. I have retained the old small plantation cottage that would have had to have been demoed to make way for the new hotel building. • CPR. To date, I have invested $668,000 in the Aloha Theatre Inn Project. This included the purchase, design, demoing, clean up, sign repair, structural repairs and stabilization of the existing building. My current budget to complete the project is $2.2 M. In order to qualify for funding my lender has encouraged me to CPR the property so that the appraisal will more closely reflect the amount necessary to finish the project. The CPR is in process. • Funding. It has been necessary to obtain funding from a Federal source either SBA or USDA. That requires the project go through the Federal sec 106 process. That process requires approval from KHPRC. Therefore, I need to ensure that the modified plans of this renovation and adaptive reuse of this historic building will be supported by the KHPRC and the Planning Dept of Kauai County. A new letter supporting the modified plans is required as part of the sec. 106 process to qualify for Federal loans. Clearly the overall design and intention has not changed, only the use has been modified based on the lender’s requirements for financial viability. • SBDC. The Small Business Development Center carefully vetted, reviewed all the current plans, financials, timelines and budget for this project. They believe this will have a very positive effect on Hanapepe and the westside. It will transform downtown and be a true economic driver. They crafted a 150 page feasibility study to substantiate their findings and recommend this project be approved for funding. • Permit. The outstanding permit is for demoing and partial reconstruction, including new foundation, framing of the first and second floor as well the roof. The permit has been transferred to my construction company Hanapepe Construction. Those priorities shall be initiated and completed as soon as funding is available. • Covid. The delay has actually allowed me to consider many options, seek compatible funding, gather bids, create an accurate budget, timeline plus modify the plans for financial viability. Please review the feasibility study and my photo report for a clearer understanding of the project. I look forward to the upcoming meeting and answering any questions you might. Mahalo Nui, Lynn Malcom Street Properties LLC DBA Aloha Theatre Inn Lynn Danaher PO Box 830 Hanapepe, HI 96716 alohatheatreinn@gmail.com 808-755-8045 Oct. 18, 2020 Kauai Historic Preservation Commission Aubrey Summers, Chair Aloha Ms. Summers, I thought it would be appropriate and long overdue to give you an update relative to the progress I have made with the historic Aloha Theatre in Hanapepe on Kauai. I sincerely thank all of you at the KHPC for your prompt and supportive response sent last March 2019, to the Kauai planning department in favor of my project. I assume you are aware I received an emergency permit in April 2019, to partially demo and stabilize the structure. It had been condemned by the County of Kauai for three years, so it was in extremely poor condition and in a state of slow inward collapse. Our focus from the point of obtaining the permit was to do very careful and selective demo of those portions of the building that were in danger of collapsing not only upon itself but into the two buildings on each side of the theater. Once the demo was completed, we began replacing framing and stabilizing the entire structure. As of September 20, 2019, the building was completely stabilized with new framing, floors, walls and an 8-foot-high fence surrounding the entire structure. I have attached a PDF that summarizes the historical significance of the Aloha Theatre, how it is integral to the identity of historic Hanapepe town and what has been completed to date. As well as some of my past my completed historical projects to lend perspective. By the time I had completed both the demo and stabilization in Sept. 2019, I had exhausted the funds I had available. Since that time, I have been in the process of applying to numerous banks and lending institutions for funding to complete the project. Banks are relatively conservative and could not appreciate the vision we have for the building. I did a lot of research online looking for possible investors. I happened on the USDA Rural Economic Development Loan Guarantee program few months ago. I realized that the Aloha Theatre project and Hanapepe fit their criteria perfectly. I started corresponding with a lender in Honolulu that specializes in USDA lending. We are in that process currently and are awaiting the SHPD review. My lender Jason Okuhama with Commercial and business lending thought it might be appropriate to give you an update and ask for a formal letter of support for the project. There have been some changes to the original plan as illustrated in the PDF I am providing you. At this point and due to financial realities, I have eliminated the build out of the additional 12 unit structure on the same lot. I have also eliminated the Theatre portion in the back and instead replaced it with a flex space that can be used for multiple purposes…films, pop up vendors and gatherings. Also, in response to community input and realistic financial considerations; I am focusing on creating the Aloha Theatre Inn with 15 inn rooms. There will also be a café, an art gallery, offices, flex space, a spa and a restaurant overlooking the town. I have also become the vice president of the Hanapepe Economic Alliance. Our primary goal is to enhance the small businesses in Hanapepe. We have been awarded a CARES grant and are currently in the process of establishing a virtual art night in response to the COVID-19 situation. We have selected the color for the iconic façade of the structure, it will be painted which is as close as possible to the original color, ironically called vintage coral very much like the Royal Hawaiian in Waikiki. The original Aloha theatre sign has been repaired (by the son of the original craftsman that made the sign) and is ready for paint, illumination and remounting. I also have letters of commitment from 2 future tenants. I have also recently as of May 2020 qualified for and received my contractor’s license. Hanapepe Construction LLC. I am very appreciative of the SBDC for assisting me with the process of creating a feasibility study that follows the USDA guidelines accurately. During the past year, I have created a construction budget, a 3-year cash flow projection and obtained multiple bids on the essential portions of the building. I am prepared to move forward as the contractor in charge along with subcontractors once funding is obtained. To that end I would appreciate a formal letter of support from KHPC to submit to SHPC. Approval from SHPC is necessary to move this process forward towards successfully funding the project. Please let me know if you require further info. Your prompt response would be most appreciated. Mahlo Nui, Lynn Danaher Historic Hanapepe’s Aloha Theatre Inn Adaptive Mixed Use Remodel & Restoration -Agor Jehn Architects first phase Palms Hawaii second phase -Malcom Street Properties LLC dba Aloha Theatre Hui Owner Builder: Hanapepe Construction LLC The Iconic Aloha Theatre in historic Hanapepe inspires artists The Aloha Theatre is integral to Historic Hanapepe’s identity Right in the center of town Swinging bridge Port Allen boat tours depart Salt Pond Beach Park Aloha Theatre Inn ALOHA THEATRE Inn Project Location in the center of Old Hanapepe This project will provide an economic boost to the Hanapepe area, by providing at least 20 new jobs 1940 No No Nanette Featured film Built in 1936 Hanapepe was all bars, brothels & pools halls during the 30’s & 40’s Abandoned since ’92 due to hurricane damage and owners' disinterest. But remained an iconic building in Hanapepe Still functioning as a Theatre, Sweet Shop, Bar/Restaurant , in the 50’s 60’s, 70’s,& 80’s The Aloha Theatre is an essential element in growing the economy of Hanapepe & West Kauai, clearly illustrated in recent economic studies. I currently serve as VP of HEA The hugely successful Friday Night Art Walk was started in 1997, prior to Covid, 1,000’s attended each Friday Night. Adjoining Aloha Theatre Inn on same lot is the Puuwai Gallery, a current tenant. Classic 100 year old home Made from old growth fir Set to be demolished Moved & restored Created 3 offices and an apartment. In Friday Habor WA Received the coveted Stewardship Award for conscientious redevelopment for adaptive reuse and restoration of 6 historic buildings. Aloha Theatre, Feb. 2019 right after purchase 8,000 SF footprint, note the collapsing walls June 2018 Feb. 2019 Need emergency permit to proceed ASAP Building footprint showing areas of collapse Drawing for emergency permit for immediate demo and urgent stabilization work necessary All this required demo has been completed as of Sept. 20, 2019 and the 2nd floor has been framed and covered framing Demo & clean up begins as soon as permit issued Condition at time of purchase Feb. 2019 Feb. 2019 •Completely unsafe, •walls collapsing •roof is falling in •2nd floor rotten Same View: SEPT. 20, 2019 •Collapsing walls removed and rebuilt •Roof removed •All new framing on 2nd floor •Massive clean up completed 2nd floor reconstructed MONUMETAL CLEAN UP COMPLETED SECURE WITH AN 8’ PLYWOOD BARRIER uCompleted as of Sept. 2019. u Demo u New Framing & façade walls u Stabilization u Clean up & u Security fence u Some news doors and windows installed u Partial painting of façade for opinions u Sample color scheme u Vintage coral u Verdigris u Brick red u Royal Hawaiian same vintage The original sign was removed for repairs. It is currently awaiting paint, to be relit and to be remounted to the façade. NOTE: The original sheet metal sign was built by the grandson of the man who repaired it. ”A” was the only remaining intact original fluorescent letter Aloha Sweet Shop This was one of the shops in the theatre front for many years. NOW: Every attempt is being made to recreate the original look and meet code •Permit in place •Plans drawn •Owner has Contractor License •Liquor license in application process •$668K invested to date •$2.2 M to complete The north side facing the river roof design will be altered to accommodate the new floor plan and use. Original proposed footprint, hotel bldg. proposed theatre under the restaurant were eliminated. New plans include ADA rooms on ground floor, replacing the theatre Large screen 2nd Floor Restaurant moved to façade overlooking town, additional Inn rooms added, insuring financial viability Large screen Preliminary floor plan Instead of a dedicated theatre, 2 Huge Wall TV’s will be installed in 2 locations within the building so films can be featured in the restaurant and flex space. Allowing a great amount of flexibility, for lectures, presentations, as well as use as a film festival venue. ADA rooms Beer & Wine Bar View overlooking old Hanapepe town From the deck area that the beer and wine bar will be located u Honoring Hanapepe and the West side of Kauai’s history Throughout the building there will be featured a series of rotating historical photos that tell the story and history of the West side of Kauai. Historic Hanapepe’s Aloha Theatre Inn Adaptive Mixed Use Restoration and adaptive reuse of the iconic Aloha Theatre will foster an economic boost to historic Hanapepe town Malcom Street Properties LLC DBA Aloha Theatre Inn Lynn Danaher PO Box 830 Hanapepe, HI 96716 alohatheatreinn@gmail.com 808-755-8045 January 28, 2021 To: Kauai Planning Dept. Attn Alex Wong and KHPRC Aloha Theatre Inn updated and changes to project 2020-21 • KHPRC previously voted to support the Aloha Theater renovation project based on the original plans presented in 2019. However, due to COVID and changes in funding, the original plans are not practical. I had 2 different lenders very interested in funding the project as originally planned, but due to Covid they dropped out. I had to revisit the financial viability in a post Covid world. • Preservation the Aloha Theatre façade. This is critical to the overall project’s viability. This important historical feature is very important to the entire town of Hanapepe. It shall be painted once the façade stucco is replaced. The color will be as close to the original as could be determined. Sample of colors: • Sign. The original sign was removed for repairs and restoration. It was repaired by the grandson of the original creator of the sign, it is now stored in the theatre awaiting painting and electrification. Once the exterior is painted and electrical wiring is renewed it will be rehung on the front of the façade. • Marquee. The marquee will be painted and restored. A new electronic marquee will be installed that can be programed. All lighting and signage will be LED. • Ticket Booth. A ticket booth has been designed to replicate similar ticket booths from the same era. The recessed vestibule will be recreated as closely as possible to what was originally in place. • Reclaimed materials. I abhor waste and prefer to reuse as much as possible to repurpose and to keep it from the landfill. Due to my close proximity to Habitat for Humanity Restore, I have already secured a great deal of reclaimed material, tile, trim, lighting, furnishings etc. • Hotel/Inn. Through conversations with my current lender it was determined that the theatre inside the building, the larger restaurant on the North side and the additional hotel building on the property which was part of the original plan be dropped. Instead, I have modified the plans to include all Inn rooms within the original structure. I am planning for 15 -18. Any required ADA Inn rooms will be on the ground floor. The Hanapepe community also encouraged me to create a restaurant on the 2 nd floor of the façade on the south side overlooking town. I have retained the old small plantation cottage that would have had to have been demoed to make way for the new hotel building . • CPR. To date, I have invested $668,000 in the Aloha Theatre Inn Project. This included the purchase, design, demoing, clean up, sign repair, structural repairs and stabilization of the existing building. My current budget to complete the project is $2.2 M. In order to qualify for funding my lender has encouraged me to CPR the property so that the appraisal will more closely reflect the amount necessary to finish the project . The CPR is in process. • Funding. It has been necessary to obtain funding from a Federal source either SBA or USDA. That requires the project go through the Federal sec 106 process. That process requires approval from KHPRC. Therefore, I need to ensure that the modified plans of this renovation and adaptive reuse of this historic building will be supported by the KHPRC and the Planning Dept of Kauai County. A new letter supporting the modified plans is required as part of the sec. 106 process to qualify for Federal loans. Clearly the overall design and intention has not changed, only the use has been modified based on the lender’s requirements for financial viability. • SBDC. The Small Business Development Center carefully vetted, reviewed all the current plans, financials, timelines and budget for this project. They believe this will have a very positive effect on Hanapepe and the westside. It will transform downtown and be a true economic driver. They crafted a 150 page feasibility study to substantiate their findings and recommend this project be approved for funding. • Permit. The outstanding permit is for demoing and partial reconstruction, including new foundation, framing of the first and second floor as well the roof. The permit has been transferred to my construction company Hanapepe Construction. Those priorities shall be initiated and completed as soon as funding is available. • Covid. The delay has actually allowed me to consider many options, seek compatible funding, gather bids, create an accurate budget, timeline plus modify the plans for financial viability. Please review the feasibility study and my photo report for a clearer understanding of the project. I look forward to the upcoming meeting and answering any questions you might. Mahalo Nui, Lynn Feasibility Study Created for Malcom Street Properties LLC dba The Aloha Theatre Inn (ATI) Aloha Theatre Hui LLC Hawai’i Small Business Development Center Joseph Burns Associate State Director Sarah B. Shell Sarah Shell Consulting, LLC 11/5/2020 i Aloha Theatre Inn Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 B. Economic Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 4 B.1 Information Regarding the Project Site ................................................................................ 4 B.1.1 Geology .......................................................................................................................... 4 B.1.2 Brief History .................................................................................................................. 5 B.1.3 Economy in Brief: Hawaiʻi ............................................................................................ 5 B.1.4 Economy in Brief: Kauaʻi .............................................................................................. 6 B.2 Availability of Trained or Trainable Labor ........................................................................ 13 B.2.1 Labor Pool .................................................................................................................... 13 B.3 Availability of Infrastructure; Including Utilities, Air and Road Service to the Site ......... 14 B.3.1 Utilities ......................................................................................................................... 14 B.3.2 Transportation .............................................................................................................. 16 B.4 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 18 C. Market Feasibility ..................................................................................................................... 19 C.1 Sales Organization and Management ................................................................................. 19 C.1.1 Sales Organization and Management .......................................................................... 19 C.2 Nature and Extent of Market and Market Area .................................................................. 20 C.2.1 Nature and Extent of Market and Market Area ........................................................... 20 C.3 Marketing Plans for Sale of Project Output (Principal Products and By-Products) ........... 28 C.3.1 Marketing Plans for Sale of Project Output ................................................................. 28 C.4 Extent of Competition Including other Similar Facilities in the Market Area ................... 32 C.4.1 Competition ................................................................................................................. 32 C.5 Commitments from Customers or Brokers - Principal Products and By-Products ............ 37 C.5.1 Commitments from Customers and Brokers ............................................................... 37 C.6 Adequacy of Raw Materials ............................................................................................... 37 C.6.1 Adequacy of Raw Materials ........................................................................................ 37 C.7 Projected Total Supply from Members and Non-Members ................................................ 37 C.7.1 Projected Total Supply from Members and Non-Members ......................................... 37 C.8 Projected Competitive Demand for Raw Material ............................................................. 37 C.8.1 Competitive Demand for Raw Materials ..................................................................... 37 C.9 Procurement Plan and Projected Procurement Costs .......................................................... 37 C.9.1 Planned Procurement and Projected Costs .................................................................. 37 C.10 Form of Commitment of Raw Materials (Marketing Agreements, etc.) .......................... 37 C.10.1 Forms of Commitment ............................................................................................... 37 C.11 Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 37 D. Technical Feasibility ................................................................................................................. 38 D.1 Suitability of the Selected Site for the Intended Use Including an Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 38 ii Aloha Theatre Inn D.1.1 Suitability of the Selected Site for the Intended Use Including an Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 38 D.1.2 Environmental Assessment and Impact Analysis ........................................................ 55 D.2 Technical Feasibility of Achieving Project Income Levels ................................................ 55 D.2.1 Financial Projections ................................................................................................... 55 D.2.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 55 D.3 Constraints or Limitations in Financial Projections and Any Other Facility or Design- Related Factors which Might Affect Enterprise Success .......................................................... 56 D.3.1 Financial Project Constraints and Limitations ............................................................. 56 D.3.2 Other Facility and / or Design Related Factors Which May Affect Enterprise Success ............................................................................................................................................... 56 D.4 Project Operation and Development Costs ......................................................................... 56 D.5 Project Engineer or Architect Determination of Project Feasibility ................................... 56 D.5.1 Project Engineer or Project Architect .......................................................................... 56 D.6 Commercial Replication ..................................................................................................... 56 D.6.1 Commercial Replication .............................................................................................. 56 D.7 Project Risks ....................................................................................................................... 56 D.7.1 Construction ................................................................................................................. 56 D.7.2 Production .................................................................................................................... 57 D.7.3 Regulation and Government Action ............................................................................ 57 D.8 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 57 E. Financial Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 58 E.1 Reliability of the Financial Projections ............................................................................... 58 E.2 Ability of the Business to Achieve the Projected Income and Cash Flow ......................... 58 E.3 Assessment of the Cost Accounting System ....................................................................... 59 E.4 Availability of Short-Term Credit for Seasonal Business .................................................. 60 E.4.1 Financial Projections .................................................................................................... 60 E.5 Risks Related to the Project ................................................................................................ 66 E.5.1 The Offering ................................................................................................................. 66 E.5.2 Applicant Financing Plan ............................................................................................. 66 E.5.3 Operational Units ......................................................................................................... 67 E.5.4 Tax Issues ..................................................................................................................... 67 E.6 Financial Feasibility Recommendation ............................................................................... 68 F. Management Feasibility ............................................................................................................ 69 F.1 Adequacy of Management (Experience, Training and Education of Management) ........... 69 F.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 69 F.1.2 The ATI Management Team ........................................................................................ 69 F.1.3 Experience .................................................................................................................... 70 F.1.4 Training ........................................................................................................................ 78 F.1.5 Education of Management ........................................................................................... 78 F.2 Continuity of Management .................................................................................................. 78 F.2.1 Continuity of Management Plan .................................................................................. 78 F.2.2 Depth of Management .................................................................................................. 78 F.3 Motivation and Character of Management .......................................................................... 79 F.3.1 Motivation .................................................................................................................... 79 F.3.2 Character ...................................................................................................................... 79 iii Aloha Theatre Inn F.4 Risks Related to Applicant as a Company and Conflicts of Interest .................................. 80 F.4.1 Risks Related to the Hanapēpē Construction LLC as an Applicant ............................. 80 F.4.2 Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................... 81 F.5 Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 81 H. Social Feasibility ...................................................................................................................... 82 H.1 Social Feasibility ................................................................................................................ 82 H.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 82 H.1.2 Scope of Social Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 82 H.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 86 G. Qualifications of Authors ......................................................................................................... 87 G.1 Joseph Burns ....................................................................................................................... 87 G.2 Sarah Shell .......................................................................................................................... 90 H. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 94 1 Aloha Theatre Inn Introduction The purpose of this Study is to review the feasibility of Malcom Street Properties, LLC dba Aloha Theatre Hui LLC continuing the renovation and repurposing of the historic Aloha Theatre, located in the town of Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. The completed project will be anchored by the Aloha Theatre Inn, with a café, an art gallery, and retail shops comprising a mixed-use marketplace. According to the Kauaʻi County Planning Department, Historic Preservation Review Commission report dated March 15, 2019, “Based on the information contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation, the Planning Department concludes that the proposed demolition and renovation, and the demolition and construction of a new motel, will not have an adverse impact on the historic integrity of the existing property or historic Aloha Theater building (emphasis in original).” The Commission subsequently voted to support the project on May 7, 2019. See Appendix A-1. The principal of Aloha Theatre Hui LLC, Ms. Lynn Danaher, along with her son, Ryan Bennett, both have extensive experience in construction, entrepreneurship, and historic building preservation, including the design, remodeling and restoration of nine historic properties in Friday Harbor, Washington, among other accomplishments of their diverse backgrounds. See Appendix A-2 and A-3 for their resumes. A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Business and Industry Guaranteed loan from Thomas USAF Group LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, will finance the project. The total loan amount is $2,235,000 which includes USDA loan and other fees. The principal’s cash equity contribution is $668,482, as detailed in the Study. Our financial projections are based on existing Aloha Theatre Hui LLC financial information provided by the principal, as well as primary and secondary research into the financial standards, performance and markets of similar businesses. Based on this information, we made assumptions with respect to initial capitalization, revenue sources and drivers, costs, and expenses. The qualitative sections of the Study, including the business model analysis, are based on primary research with the principal, suppliers and industry veterans, and on secondary market research and other publicly available information. Our goal in producing this Study is to assist USDA Rural Development in assessing the economic and social impacts of this project and to reach an informed underwriting decision. Joseph Burns Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 11/5/2020 2 Aloha Theatre Inn A. Executive Summary The mission of the Aloha Theatre Hui is: 1) To restore and renovate an important landmark building in historic Hanapēpē, using adaptive reuse, and 2) To provide economic opportunities for the rural west side of Kauaʻi, through job creation and affordable commercial rentals. Economic Feasibility Determination/Opinion The rehabilitation of the historic theatre building, and addition of the hotel has been approved by the County of Kauaʻi Planning Department. More than sufficient utilities, infrastructure, and a labor pool are available for the project. The project will create significant direct local economic impact at a minimum, as follows: • 5.5 FTE jobs to start and then 13 upon full operational capability • $28,334 to $42,486 in projected General Excise Tax (GET) in the first year • $53,335 to $80,002 in Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) in the first year • A capital infusion of $2,235,000 into the state’s economy in the first year Additionally, the economic activity of employees, vendors, and guests will maintain the positive economic contribution, through the multiplier effect, that this type of business has on state GDP. The authors conclude that from an economic feasibility perspective, this project is feasible. Market Feasibility Determination/Opinion The ATI will be in a historic building in a well visited town on the west of Kauaʻi. The principals’ experience, as detailed in the marketing section, with successfully remodeling, owning and operating similar endeavors is a solid indicator of the ability of this project to be highly competitive. The ATI will be marketed as a boutique hotel for those looking for a more authentic Hawaiian vacation, building upon the of Hanapēpē’s unique charm by providing high quality lodging in a historic environment. Another competitive advantage is the hotel’s price point, which is below other options in the area. Ms. Danaher’s ability to leverage the Global Distribution System for international travel agent bookings and optimizing existing online marketing channels, such as Online Travel Agents Expedia, Travelocity, and TripAdvisor will help to drive bookings Moreover, the eventual inclusion of the on-site café, shops, gallery, will significantly drive occupancy rates and revenue. The sales forecast in the Study is predicated on reasonable assumptions, supported by market research. The authors therefore judge this endeavor to be feasible from a market feasibility perspective. Technical Feasibility Determination/Opinion The principals will maintain well-qualified staff and existing systems to manage the technical aspect of the business. However, hotel technology continues to advance, from reservation systems to in-room technology to enhance guest experience. Given the principal’s deep experience in the restoration of historic properties spanning more than 20 years, it is reasonable 3 Aloha Theatre Inn to assume that she will continue to monitor new technology and make technology deployment decisions based on defensible cost benefit analyses. Ms. Danaher’s progress to date in demolishing and renovating the existing theatre, which is now primed for the next phase of interior buildout, demonstrate her know how and commitment to this project. Along with the ATI’s location near many attractions, will help to draw visitors. Thus, the authors believe that the project is feasible from a technical point of view. Financial Feasibility Determination/Opinion A thorough review of the assumptions made by the principals shows them to be reasonable given the macro and micro economic climates in which they will operate. The business model has clearly demonstrated value creation for well-defined primary and secondary market segments. The financial risks have been identified and analyzed through a scenario analysis and a sensitivity analysis, showing that even with a very conservative 50% occupancy rate, the hotel will still be profitable. The hotel is projected to generate a minimum of over $600,000 in revenue in year one, and be profitable in its first year of operations. While we cannot of course predict the future, the principal has been conservative in her assumptions with respect to revenues and costs, has prudent contingency plans in place, and has engaged professional guidance where necessary. Taken together, these factors lead us to conclude that this is a financially sound project. Management Feasibility Determination/Opinion The principal has proven to be competent in her management of the portfolio of restored historic properties mentioned above, including the several systems that comprise their operations, including the financial management system, the guest reservation system, among others, along with utilization of property management firms to help drive traffic to the hotel. Ms. Danaher’s experience renovating other properties and generating a positive revenue stream is a strong indicator of her ability for future success, along with letters of recommendation from former partners, lead the authors to conclude that the project is feasible from a management point of view. Social Feasibility Recommendations for Implementation This project has the support of Kaua‘i and Hanapēpē community planners and is well aligned to their vision of the future of Kaua‘i as documented in planning strategies. The ATI will be an overall positive addition to the town of Hanapēpē. It is projected to be a profitable enterprise, an asset to the state of Hawai’i as it relates to contributing to the visitor industry of Hawai’i, will provide jobs and contribute to retaining the history of Kaua‘i. Is it is recommended that from a social feasibility perspective the ATI is a viable project. 4 Aloha Theatre Inn B. Economic Feasibility B.1 Information Regarding the Project Site The project site is on the island of Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. The United States Census Bureau defines Kauaʻi as census tracts 401 through 409 of Kaua‘i County, Hawaiʻi, which comprises all of the county except for the islands of Kaʻula, Lehua and Niʻihau. The 2010 United States Census population of the island was 67,0911. The most populous town is Kapaʻa on the east side of the island. 2 See Figure B-1. B.1.1 Geology Kauaʻi is geologically the second oldest of the main Hawai’ian Islands (after Niʻihau). With an area of 562.3 square miles (1,456.4 km2), it is the fourth-largest of these islands and the 21st largest island in the United States. Known also as the "Garden Isle", Kauaʻi lies 105 miles (169 km) across the Kauaʻi Channel, northwest of Oʻahu. Kauaʻi's origins are volcanic, the island having been formed by the passage of the Pacific Plate over the Hawaiʻi hotspot. At approximately five million years old, it is the oldest of the main 1 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kauaicountyhawaii/PST045219# 2 Adapted from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauai Figure B-1. The Island of Kauaʻi Hanapēpē 5 Aloha Theatre Inn islands. The highest peak on this mountainous island is Kawaikini at 5,243 feet (1,598 m). The second highest peak is Mount Waiʻaleʻale near the center of the island, 5,148 ft (1,569 m) above sea level. One of the wettest spots on earth, with an annual average rainfall of 460 inches (38.3 ft; 11.7 m), is located on the east side of Mount Waiʻaleʻale. The high annual rainfall has eroded deep valleys in the central mountains, carving out canyons with many scenic waterfalls. On the west side of the island, Waimea town is located at the mouth of the Waimea River, whose flow formed Waimea Canyon, one of the world's most scenic canyons, which is part of Waimea Canyon State Park. At three thousand feet (910 m) deep, Waimea Canyon is often referred to as "The Grand Canyon of the Pacific". Kokeo Point lies on the south side of the island. The Nā Pali Coast is popular for kayaking and hiking on the trail along the coastal cliffs. The headland, Kuahonu Point, is on the south-east of the island. B.1.2 Brief History In 1778, Captain James Cook arrived at Waimea Bay, the first European known to have reached the Hawai’ian Islands. He named the archipelago the "Sandwich Isles" after his patron, the 6th Earl of Sandwich, George Montagu. During the reign of King Kamehameha, the islands of Kauaʻi and Niʻihau were the last Hawai’ian Islands to join his Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. Their ruler, Kaumualiʻi, resisted Kamehameha for years. King Kamehameha twice prepared a huge armada of ships and canoes to take the islands by force, and twice failed; once due to a storm, and once due to an epidemic. In the face of the threat of a further invasion, however, Kaumualiʻi decided to join the kingdom without bloodshed, and became Kamehameha's vassal in 1810. He ceded the island to the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi upon his death in 1824. A group of American and European businessmen, some of whom were citizens of the kingdom, seized power in 1893, with the help of a company of U.S. Marines from the U.S.S. Boston, at anchor in the harbor. The U.S. government, under President Grover Cleveland, refused to annex the territory, however, noting that the overthrow of the monarchy was an “act of war” accomplished against popular will using U.S. armed force. A short-lived republic (an oligarchy of American and European businessmen) ensued, until the administration of President William McKinley annexed the islands as U.S. territory in 1900.3 Hawaiʻi subsequently became the 50th state in 1959. B.1.3 Economy in Brief: Hawaiʻi Hawaiʻi’s economic history includes the exportation of sandalwood in the early 19th century, along with whaling, both of which were relatively short-lived. The cultivation and refining of sugar cane began around the same time, with the last mill in the state closing in 2016, flourishing for a period of some 180 years. The first successful coffee operation began on Oʻahu in 1925. Coffee continues to make an important contribution to the agricultural sector of Kaua‘i with the largest coffee plantation in the State. Kaua‘i Coffee is located just east of Hanapēpē. Commercial production of pineapple started in 1899 on the island of Lānaʻi and after a successful run of some 3 https://www.britannica.com/place/Hawaii-state/History 6 Aloha Theatre Inn 80 years, Hawaiʻi’s production of pineapple is less than 10% of the worldwide total.4 Although Macadamia nuts were first grown in Hawaiʻi in the early 19th century, it was not until the 1950s that they became a commercially viable crop. Along with coffee, Macadamia nut production contributes to the Hawaiʻi economy today. Although there was a nascent visitor industry in the 1920s and 1930s, exponential growth took place starting after World War II, culminating in 10,424,995 visitors in 2019, spending $17.75 billion, generating $2.07 billion in state tax revenue, and supporting 216,000 jobs5, far exceeding the plantation economy of the past. The other two large sectors in the economy are government and defense. Government accounts for about $10.8 billion, or 7.2% of state GDP in FY 20186. Defense spending was $7.2 billion, or 7.7% of GDP7. There have been attempts to diversify the economy over the years, but the COVID-19 pandemic has painfully shown that Hawaiʻi remains highly reliant on the visitor industry. B.1.4 Economy in Brief: Kauaʻi The economic history of Kaua‘i, dates back to before the European colonization of Kauaʻi and, in whole, Hawaiʻi. Before Captain James Cook discovered the Hawai’ian island chain in 1778, the native Polynesians of Kauaʻi had a complex subsistence economy of fishing and trade among the other islands. In 1835, the first successful sugarcane plantation was established in Kōloa, Kauaʻi and was the beginning of a prosperous sugarcane industry. Sugarcane remained Kauaʻi’s most dominant industry until the mid-20th century. Today, Kauaʻi is a tourism-centered economy with 1,279,968 people visiting the island in 2017. Visitor spending on the island the same year exceeded $1.83 billion—a 9.3 percent increase from the previous year. However, Kauaʻi still boasts a strong agricultural economy with corn seed being the number one crop alongside coffee, guava, and taro.8 Macroeconomic Trends This section reviews the recent macroeconomic trends in Hawaiʻi and Kauaʻi before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, contrasted with the drastic change several months into the pandemic period. Hawaiʻi generated some $97.3 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2019. The following table shows the top 5 sectors of the economy based on the 2-digit NAICS codes. 4 https://hawaiioceanproject.com/a-brief-history-of-pineapple-in-hawaii/ 5 https://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/media/4120/december-2019-visitor-stats-press-release.pdf 6 http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/GDP_Report_Final.pdf 7 https://www.oea.gov/sites/default/files/defense-spending-rpts/2018/FY2018-Defense-Spending_HI.pdf 8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_History_of_Kaua%27i 7 Aloha Theatre Inn % of Total Nominal GDP in 2019 Industry Group Hawaiʻi U.S Hawaiʻi above U.S. Top 5 Sectors in State of Hawaiʻi 62.2% 41.8% 20.5% Real Estate Rental and Leasing 20.3% 13.4% 7.0% Government 19.7% 12.3% 7.4% Accommodation and food services 9.1% 3.1% 6.0% Health care and social assistance 6.8% 7.6% -0.8% Retail trade 6.4% 5.5% 0.9% The real estate and rental and leasing sector generated the most GDP at about $19.8 billion or 20.3%; followed by government at about $19.1 billion or 19.7%, accommodation and food services at about $8.8 billion or 9.1%, health care and social assistance at about $6.6 billion or 6.8%, and retail trade at about $6.2 billion or 6.4%.9 There is no NAICS code for tourism as an economic industry sector, however, the analysis cites four tourism intensive sectors which comprised about 22.1% of Hawaiʻi GDP: • Retail Trade • Transportation and warehousing • Arts, entertainment and recreation • Accommodation and food services These four tourism intensive sectors comprised about 32.4% of Kauaʻi GDP in 2018: Industry Sector Contribution to Kauaʻi GDP Accommodation and food services 18.1% Retail 6.8% Transportation and warehousing 5.1% Arts, entertainment and recreation 2.4% Thus while the state has been dependent on tourism as a major contributor to GDP, the economy of Kauaʻi is more highly concentrated in this area, creating both risks and opportunities. Pandemic Economy The state is forecasting extreme decreases in visitor arrivals and spending for 2020, with recovery not close to 2019 levels until 2023.10 See Figure B-2. This aligns with the Aloha Theatre Inn project timeline. Construction has been allowed and the projected completion date is January 2023. This project will insure employment both during the construction and upon completion. It will also provide tenants plenty of time to complete their tenant improvements. 9 This information from “Hawaii’s Economic Structure: An Analysis Using Industry Level Gross Domestic Product Data, April 2020 Update” https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/files/2020/04/GDP_Report_Final_April2020.pdf 10 http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourism-forecast/ 8 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure B-2. Tourism History and Forecast Recovery The state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) reported that “The total non-agriculture job loss in the state in April was 121,000. 78,000 jobs were lost in tourism-intensive industries (hospitality, trade, and transportation), and the rest were in the non- tourism intensive industries.”11 For Kauaʻi, emergent effects of the pandemic economy can be seen in the following table, which is based on figures from DBEDT for the first four months of 2020, compared to the same period in 2019.12 Key Measures 2019 Jan-Apr 2020 Jan-Apr Change Number of visitors 440,000 225,457 -48.76% Spending $617.7 million $441.5 million -28.53% Unemployment Rate 2.75% 10.28% 373.8% While these figures are useful to understand the scope and full force of the change, they are understated. 11 http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/qser/outlook-economy/ 12 http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourism-dashboard/by-island/ 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 0M 5M 10M Visitor Arrivals20M 40M 60M 80M Visitor Days5B 10B 15B Visitor SpendingMarket US West Japan US East Others Canada Korea Oceania Europe Cruise 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.9% Visitor Arrivals by Market: 2020 Select Year 2020 Select Market All This dashboard was developed and is maintained by the Research Economic & Analysis Division (READ) at Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. Historical data is from the Hawaii Tourism Authority and the projection is made by READ. 3.4M Visitor Arrivals (million persons) 29.5M Visitor Days (million Days) $5.5B Visitor Spending (billion $) -67.5% % Change of Visitor Arrivals from Prior Year -67.5% % Change of Vistor Days from Prior Year -69.1% % Change of Visitor Spending from Prior Year 9 Aloha Theatre Inn Visitor arrivals and spending: • Were near normal in January and February, 2020 • May and June 2020 were drastically lower than in May and June of 2019 • January through April figures do not reflect the higher seasonal figures for May through August of 2019 Unemployment: • January through March of 2020 experienced near normal unemployment rates • April and May of 2020 average unemployment rate was 31.45% Available economic data has not yet fully caught up with the pandemic economy. Hanapēpē Hanapēpē is a historic, unincorporated community on the south side of the island. The name means "crushed bay" in Hawaiian, which may refer to landslides in the area. For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau defines Hanapēpē as a census-designated place (CDP). The population was 2,638 as of the 2010 census13, up from 2,153 at the 2000 census. History The native people of Hawaiʻi, Kānaka Maoli, inhabited the lush valley of Hanapēpē for centuries before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. Hanapēpē Valley is a fertile area, where many foods such as banana, rice, sugar cane, and sweet potato were grown. Besides growing kalo, from which poi is made, Hawaiians developed salt, cultivated in saltwater ponds for trade with sailors. Salt trading was the earliest entrepreneurial legacy of Hanapēpē. The right to harvest salt, handed down through families, continues today. The sugar industry flourished in the 1880s, bringing Chinese, Japanese and Filipino immigrants to the islands. Most stores and towns on Kauaʻi were built and owned by the sugar plantations. Hanapēpē, however, was built by entrepreneurial immigrants. Many who retired from the sugar plantations or could not adapt to their strict working conditions came to Hanapēpē to grow taro, rice, or begin small farms or businesses to serve the local community.14 Today Hanapēpē is a small town framed by steep cliffs, with the deep shadows of Hanapēpē Valley beckoning in the distance. Its location at the base of the river valley bestows its scenic beauty and unique character. A small number of homes are located in and around Hanapēpē Town, but the majority of the area’s residents live upland in the single-family subdivisions of Hanapēpē Heights or ‘Ele‘ele. Between 1960 and 2010, Hanapēpē-‘Ele‘ele experienced the highest rate of growth in West Kaua'i, primarily due to new subdivision development. These upland neighborhoods have stunning views but are physically separated from the town core. Hanapēpē Town is known for its historic buildings, quirky charm, art galleries, great cafes and restaurants, plus unique features like the swinging pedestrian bridge built in 1911 and the 13http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/Census_2010/demographic/demo_profile_cdp_NI/Hanapepe.pdf 14 http://www.hanapepe.org/#/history-1/ 10 Aloha Theatre Inn cascading bougainvillea that hangs over the cliff as you enter town. The town’s primary activity area is located to the east of the bridge, behind the levee-protected south bank of the Hanapēpē River. The area also hosts Friday Art Night, a successful weekly street fair that has been happening for the past 20 years. Today, Hanapēpē Art Night and the ongoing restoration of several buildings, including the Aloha Theatre, have helped to breathe life back into Hanapēpē Town. There is ample parking as the park in the center of town, which hosts the Farmers Market on Thursday afternoons, has been designated for Friday Night Art Night parking as Art Night attracts many visitors and residents. Restoration and repurposing of the historic theatre aligns with several of the goals of the West Kauaʻi Community Plan, for example: “Maintain the historic character of Hanapēpē Town as a thriving center for residents, artists, craftspeople, farmers, and small businesses.” The following Technical Feasibility section has further details on the suitability of the project site. Project Site Information Category Description Address 3795 & 3801 Hanapēpē Rd, Hanapēpē, HI 96716 TMK 190040130000 Land area 0.5170 acres; 22,521 square feet Land Use Urban Zoning CG Flood Zone X: outside 0.2% annual chance floodplain Tsunami Evacuation Zone Yes (see Appendix A-4) Tax class Commercial Owner of Record Malcom Street Properties LLC Total net Taxable value 2020 $513,700 (see Appendix A-5) Existing Building #1 Theatre, built 1936 Existing Building #2 Art Gallery, built 1936 Existing Building #3 Living quarters, built 1993 See the parcel map in Appendix A-6. 11 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure B-3 - Project Location Southern View with the Hanapēpē River in the Foreground The project site in Hanapēpē is adjacent to Port Allen, which affords visitors access to whale watch tours, snorkelig/diving boats and sunset cruises. See Figure B-3. Zoning The County of Kauaʻi adopted the first General Plan in 1971 (updated in 1984 and 2000). Subsequently, the County of Kauaʻi adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in September 1, 1972. Since its adoption, the County of Kauaʻi has approved several amendments to specific provisions of the CZO. However, the CZO has not been updated in a comprehensive manner since its adoption. The County of Kauaʻi Planning Department is currently updating the CZO and has divided the project into two phases. On December 3, 2012, the County approved the first phase of the CZO Update by adopting Ordinance No. 935. Ordinance No. 935 is the newly adopted zoning code for the County of Kauaʻi and will serve as the official zoning code until the County of Kauaʻi completes the second phase of the project.15 15 https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments-Agencies/Planning-Department/Zoning-and-Land-Use-Permits/Current- CZO-with-Amendments 12 Aloha Theatre Inn According to Ordinance No. 935, permitted uses relevant to the project are:16 Section Use Status 8-2.4 (j)(8) Hotel Permitted use 8-2.4 (j)(19) Restaurant Permitted use 8-2.4 (j)(20) Retail Permitted use 8-2.4 (l)(2) Bar Use Permit required The planned project uses are in compliance with the County of Kauaʻi zoning ordinances, and thus no variances will be sought. However, a liquor license permit application has been submitted for the restaurant. The current permit issued April 2019 has been transferred to Hanapēpē Construction LLC as of June 2020. Further work is on hold until funding is available. All demolition and stabilization has been completed as of September 2019. Once the current permit is completed, a final permit will be requested for the final phase of the project. Aloha Theatre History According to an article written by Hank Soboleski published in The Garden Island newspaper on August 18, 2019, the owners formed the Kauaʻi Amusement Company to showcase films from Japan and the US, to be open for amateur theatrical performances and to bring in vaudeville troupes every few weeks. On Sunday, Oct. 4, 1936, dedication services for the newly constructed Aloha Theater on Hanapēpē Road were conducted by the Rev. Shinkan Tahara, the Shinto priest of the Lawai Shinto Temple (see Figure B-4). And, on the following Saturday, Oct. 10, Aloha Theater opened, with its main attraction being the premiere performance of a one-week engagement of the Franchon & Marco Franchonettes direct from Honolulu — in what was to be the first-ever complete stage show seen on Kauaʻi. The Franchonettes were comprised of a troupe of chorus girls on stage singing, dancing, walking on large balls, riding unicycles, roller-skating, performing acrobatics from a velvet rope, and so forth, and a 40-cent ticket also provided theatergoers with an orchestra, a newsreel, a cartoon, a short subject and a feature film. Designed by Honolulu architect Fred Fujioka and built at a cost of $40,000, Aloha Theater was also the first theater on Kauaʻi equipped for stage performances. 16 https://www.kauai.gov/Portals/0/Planning/CZO/Ord%20%20No%20%20935%20Updated%20CZO%20.pdf Figure B-4. Aloha Theatre circa 1940 13 Aloha Theatre Inn Aloha Theatre, a steel-and-concrete structure with stucco front, featured a seating capacity of 675, an interior completely lined with acoustical material, a balcony, a stage of 19 feet 6 inches by 36 feet, and a moving picture screen, all of which was cooled and ventilated by modern, up-to-date equipment.17 When Ms. Danaher purchased it, the theatre had been abandoned for more than 20 years and had been under condemnation for the previous 3 years. Immediately after the purchase closed, the County of Kauaʻi expedited the building permits for selective demolition, framing for stabilization and partial reconstruction. The cash purchase price was $264,457 from a 1031 exchange sale by Malcom Street Properties LLC. Ms. Danaher agreed to take on the $100,000 liability with the County of Kauaʻi for the fines levied under condemnation. The County forgave the fines as soon as she invested $100,000 in building stabilization. Hanapēpē Construction LLC, which is owned by Ms. Danaher, is the project builder, holding a class “B” General Building contractor license issued by the state (see Appendix A-7). Agor Jehn Architects, a small Honolulu-based firm, were instrumental in obtaining the original permits for demolition, stabilization, and partial reconstruction. A local Kaua‘i architectural firm, Palms Hawai’i Architectural, has been retained for the second phase of the project. Being on island gives them the ability to be more responsive and on site, during this critical phase of the project. The project is supported by the Kauaʻi Historic Preservation Commission, County of Kauaʻi, State of Hawaiʻi, and the non-profit Hawaiʻi Historic Foundation. Aloha Theatre Inn has been permitted for 15+ rooms, which will be built during the initial phase of the project within the Theatre itself. Other elements in the plan include a small event flex space for community use, pop up vendors, restaurant/bar, a café and retail shops. B.2 Availability of Trained or Trainable Labor B.2.1 Labor Pool According to the 2010 American Community Survey (5-year estimates) for the Census Designated Place (CDP) of Hanapēpē18, there were about 1,586 people in the civilian labor force, with about 46 unemployed. This information is dated, and while computing the official unemployment rate is more complicated, it is a rough unemployment rate of 2.9%. This figure is validated by the much more recent and official Kauaʻi county unemployment rate of 2.75% during the first 4 months of 2019. However, this rate does not reflect current conditions. In the pre-pandemic economy, with very low unemployment, finding and retaining qualified labor for the hotel and marketplace would have been an ongoing challenge. However, due to the severe loss of jobs reflected in the sharply increasing unemployment rate in the period of January to April 2020 and presumably beyond, finding qualified and experienced labor will be less of a concern. This condition is expected to 17 https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/08/18/lifestyles/hanapepes-aloha-theater/ 18http://census.hawaii.gov/acs/acs2010/acs2010_5_year/acs_hi_2010_profiles_5_yr_estimate/acs_hi_2010_profiles_cdp_ni/ 14 Aloha Theatre Inn last through the next few years, as noted above, during the gradual recovery as the state opens up the visitor industry. The following Kauaʻi hotels were reported closed as of March 26, 2020: • Club Wyndham Bali Hai Villas • Grand Hyatt Kauaʻi Resort & Spa • Hanalei Colony Resort • Kauaʻi Marriott (hotel) • Kauaʻi Shores • Pono Kai Condos • Princeville Resort • Sheraton Kauaʻi Poipu (hotel)19 Employees who were furloughed or laid off are an excellent local source of trained and experienced employees for the Aloha Theatre Inn, restaurant, spa, retail shops and gallery. B.3 Availability of Infrastructure; Including Utilities, Air and Road Service to the Site The island’s infrastructure, public facilities and transportation network have improved over the years and are expected to support projected growth. Parts of this section adapted from Kauaʻi Kākou - Kauaʻi County General Plan 2018 Final Version.20 A new water system has been installed throughout Hanapēpē Town. The Aloha Theatre Inn has a 2” water meter which will be more than ample for all the projected uses, including a fire sprinkler system. B.3.1 Utilities Potable Water Kauaʻi’s aquifers have sufficient sustainable yields to accommodate future growth. The State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) has not imposed any Ground Water Management Areas on Kauaʻi, which would be required if there were dangers of exceeding sustainable yields in any of our aquifers. The CWRM is expected to issue an updated Water Resource Protection Plan that will have new sustainable yield estimates based on a more cautious approach than previous estimates. The Department of Water (DOW) has 13 service areas with approximately 20,500 customers (as of November 2013). In 2035, the Hanapēpē-ʻEleʻele water district is projectd to have a 0.09 million gallons per day surplus, and thus water supply is not expected to become an issue negatively impacting the business. See Figure B-5 for Public and Private Water Service Areas. 19 https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/03/26/hawaii-news/visitor-industry-is-ready-to-help-with-crisis/ 20https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptm72sqtikcn5kb/Kauai%20Kakou%20General%20Plan%202018%20Online.pdf?dl=0 15 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure B-5. Project Wastewater and Domestic WaterCapacity by District in 2035 Electricity Kauaʻi has become a leader in energy conservation and renewable energy projects. In 2016, the ratepayer-owned electric utility, the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC), generated approximately 40 percent of its energy from renewable sources. KIUC aims to increase this percentage to 70 percent by 2030 through a mix of new biomass, solar, and hydroelectric projects. In 2017, Tesla partnered with KIUC to construct a solar farm on Kaua‘i; outfitted with Tesla Powerpacks, this facility will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 1.6 million gallons per year. This will bring Kauaʻi closer to the ambitious target of 100 percent local energy sustainability set by both the State and the Kauaʻi Energy Sustainability Plan (2010). Electricity availability is therfore not expected to become an issue negatively impacting the business. The ATI plans to install a complete solar generating and storage system, so plans to be mostly independent of the KIUC. One of the projected benefits to the tenants is a reduced rate for their electrical needs. Solid Waste There are significant challenges to managing solid waste disposal on a small island with a growing residential and visitor population. The Department of Public Works (DPW) provides island wide service for collecting and disposing of solid waste generated by residents. This includes a limited number of commercial customers, including Transient 16 Aloha Theatre Inn Vacation Rentals. The majority of businesses requiring dumpster service are collected by private refuse hauling companies. The DPW currently does not have curbside recycling or curbside green waste collection programs. All residential recycling is voluntary, and residents must transport material to various centers located throughout the island. Hanapēpē Refuse Transfer Station This facility is one of 4 operated by the DPW, county of Kauaʻi, and is located at 4380 Lele Road in Hanapēpē. Examples of materials accepted include green waste, tires, motor oil and scrap metal, among others. There are restrictions on both municipal and construction solid waste, however, it has the capacity to handle construction solid waste from the project, as well as any operation need when the project iscomplated. The facility is open from 7:15 AM to 3:15 PM daily except for state holidays.21 Wastewater Kauaʻi’s wastewater treatment and disposal is addressed through a combination of County and private systems. Treated effluent is either disposed of via injection well and ocean outfall or is recycled as R-1 or R-2 water for irrigation. The County’s wastewater treatment plants are located at Waimea, ‘Ele‘ele, Līhuʻe, and Wailuā, and they have a combined design capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to County systems, there are over 35 privately owned wastewater treatment plants serving various developments on Kauaʻi. A large number of homes and businesses are not connected to a regional sewer system and must use a cesspool or septic system. The State no longer allows construction of cesspools. The state offers an incentive program for septic system conversion. In 2035, the Hanapēpē-ʻEleʻele area is projected to have a 0.5 million gallons per day capacity surplus, and thus wastewater treatment is not expected to become an issue negatively impacting the business. Nor is there any risk from existing cesspools or a mandated septic tank conversion. B.3.2 Transportation Air Kauaʻi’s main airport in Līhuʻe Airport (LIH), is managed by the state Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation (HDOT) Airports Division. The location is about 17 miles east of the project site. Līhuʻe Airport provides passenger and aircraft facilities for domestic, overseas and interisland carriers, commuter/air taxi, air cargo, heliport (for tour operators) and general aviation. In calendar year 2018, the aiport served 3,411,476 passengers, and handled 23,524 tons of cargo.22 As a well-established facility, it provides convenient access for visitors and residents, and functions as a key element in the commercial supply chain. In addition, the HDOT operates the Port Allen airport, a general aviation airport, adjacent to Hanapēpē. 21 https://www.kauai.gov/TransferStations 22 https://hidot.hawaii.gov/airports/files/2013/01/annual-air-traffic-statistics-20190715.pdf 17 Aloha Theatre Inn Roads State Department of Transportation, Highways Division: “The mission of the Highways Division is to maximize available resources to provide a safe, efficient, accessible and sustainable State Highway System that ensures the mobility of people and goods, and supports economic vitality and livability.”23 The state Highways Division maintains 12 designated highways, which encircle roughly 75% of the island, providing convenient vehicular access to population centers and visitor sites. See Figure B-6. Figure B-6. Major Kauaʻi State Highways The mission statement of the County of Kauaʻi Division of Roads is: “To maintain County roadways in a manner that will safely convey vehicular and pedestrian traffic. To maintain major drainage facilities. To provide county wide support with equipment and labor.” Approximately 38 miles of county roads were scheduled to be repaved in 2020 in the Waimea district, which includes Hanapēpē. The vehicle bridges on Kauaʻi are subject to damage froom flooding. The most recent example is an update from the Sate of Hawaiʻi, Department of Transportation dated June 2, 2020, reporting that bridge between Kekaha Beach Park and the Kekaha Landfill has reopened. Additional updates incuded The Wailuā River (Mauka) Bridge and the Mayor Bryan Baptiste Memorial Bridge (Cane Haul Bridge).24 Of note was the severe flooding of the North Shore areas surrounding Hanalei in April of 2018. Acess was severly limited at that time due to dangerous conditions and the subsequent repair efforts. In addition to property loss, many small businesses were damaged by a lack of customers. Ports Kauaʻi’s two commercial harbors at Nāwiliwili Harbor and Port Allen are also owned and operated by the State through the HDOT’s Harbors Division. Nāwiliwili Harbor serves as the primary commercial harbor for Kauaʻi with facilities for handling both overseas and inter-island general and containerized cargo. The harbor is also used for charter boat fishing and recreational boating and is a port-of-call for passenger cruise ships. Port Allen is adjacent to Hanapēpē and is a popular port for excursion and charter boat operations but is not currently equipped to accommodate cruise ships. All cruise ship activity has been curtailed by state government executive order, however, whale-watching and other boat tours are currently allowed. The implications for Aloha Theatre Inn (ATI) are that cruise ships will not be a source of customers for now. Further, 23 https://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/home/about/ 24 https://hidot.hawaii.gov/blog/2020/06/02/update-on-kauai-bridges-damaged-in-march-flood/ 18 Aloha Theatre Inn Nāwiliwili Harbor will continue to support the supply of goods necessary to constuct and operate ATI. Public Transit The Kauaʻi Bus operates a public bus service and a paratransit (door-to-door) bus service daily from Hanalei on the North Shore to the Pacific Missle Range Facility Barking Sands in the south west. Rental cars are available at Līhuʻe Airport, and both Lyft and Uber operate on Kauaʻi. B.4 Recommendation The above analysis demonstrates that the project has been approved by the County of Kauaʻi Planning Department. It also found that there is a more than sufficient labor pool, utilities, and transportation infrastructure to support the Aloha Theatre Inn project. Further, while Hawaiʻi’s economy has been currently devastated by the lack of visitors due to the pandemic, the timing of the opening of the hotel coincides nicely with forecasted rates for when tourism levels will return to pre-pandemic levels. The authors thereby conclude that from an economic feasibility perspective, this is a viable project. 19 Aloha Theatre Inn C. Market Feasibility C.1 Sales Organization and Management C.1.1 Sales Organization and Management Ms. Danaher has successfully created, marketed and operated several businesses throughout her career (see her full resume in Appendix A-1). They include: • Creator and Co-Owner Operator with Ryan Bennett of the Friday Harbor Vacation Rentals for historic vacation rentals in San Juan Island, Washington • Creator and Owner Danmoor LLC which owns the 25,000 SF Ace Hardware Building, which also has 5 long term apartments on the 2nd floor • Co-Creator with son, Ryan Bennett, of Malcom Street Properties LLC. Ryan currently manages all the Friday Harbor properties. • Co-Founder and Director of the Friday Harbor Film Festival, an annual event which has grown 12% since its inception in 2013 • Creator of San Juan Excursions in Friday Harbor Washington, operating 2 whale watching excursion vessels since 1994 • Currently Vice President of the Hanapēpē Economic Alliance She has also held other prominent positions including: • Board of Directors of the Friday Harbor Film Festival • Creator and President of the Pacific Islands Research Institute • Former Board of Directors Member for the Explorers Club for 6 years; She is currently serving on 2 committees: • HQ Historic Renovation Committee, implementing and managing a $2M grant from Discovery Communications • 2021 Nomination Committee, for the 3rd year in a row In addition to these accomplishments, Ms. Danaher has sailed from Alaska to Costa Rica for 3 years aboard a 50-foot sailboat, has been to all 7 continents, and also went to school in Hawaiʻi at the University of Hawaiʻi where she majored in psychology and anthropology. Ms. Danaher will also be supported by a professional staff of an administrate assistant who is experienced in marketing, social media and QuickBooks. The job duties and responsibilities of the administrative assistance may include: bookkeeper (using QuickBooks), Invoicing/billing, Payroll, Marketing, Social media, Web site building, and other general support to help Ms. Danaher market and manage the business. Since 2000, Ms. Danaher and Ryan Bennett have been at the helm of the vacation rentals and commercial properties overseeing their operations and marketing activities. Ms. Danaher markets her commercial and residential properties to the visitor market. She promoted the vacation rentals on the website, as well as, TripAdvisor, Expedia, Yelp, Hotels.com, and Facebook, thereby increasing its market reach and ability to increase occupancy rate. 20 Aloha Theatre Inn In 2017, she contracted with San Juan Property Management to oversee all of the vacation rentals management functions including property marketing, tenant screening, rent collection, property maintenance and financial reporting. San Juan Properties brings years of expertise in successfully managing and operating vacation rentals. Ms. Danaher has had a business relationship with the principals since 1994, when Ms. Danaher started their kayak tour business. They have expanded their visitor-based business model into vacation rental management. Today, Ms. Danaher owns and operates, along with her son Ryan Bennett, a Real Estate portfolio consisting of 24 commercial and residential properties in Washington State and Hawaiʻi. All of these properties were renovated and made operational by Ms. Danaher and her son/partner Ryan Bennett. Ryan manages and maintains all the properties in their portfolio. C.2 Nature and Extent of Market and Market Area C.2.1 Nature and Extent of Market and Market Area Hawaiʻi’s economy as discussed earlier is primarily driven by tourism. In 2019, total visitor spending and visitor arrivals to Hawai’i increased compared to 2018, marking the eighth consecutive year of record growth in both categories25. See Figure C-1. 25 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 2 Figure C-1. DBEDT Quarterly Tourism Forecast for 2019 21 Aloha Theatre Inn Hawaiian Islands Prior to the Pandemic, visitor arrivals in the state of Hawaiʻi were increasing (see Figure C-1). From 2018 to 2019, visitors increased 5.4% to 10.4 million26. Most visitors to Hawaiʻi come from the US mainland with about half of the visitors coming from the US West as shown in the DBEDT Quarterly Tourism Forecast. A majority of the visitors to Hawaiʻi come from the US mainland with the top being from US West followed by US East. See Figure C-2. The main reasons for trips continues to be honeymoons, getting married, attending a meeting or convention, or visiting friends and relatives27. 26 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 9 27 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 4 Figure C-2. Visitors to the Hawai’ian Islands has been on the Rise 22 Aloha Theatre Inn Hotel occupancy rates for Hawaiʻi have also steadily risen over the years from 2011 to 2019 (see Figure C-3). Figure C-3. The Monthly Occupancy Rate Has Steadily Increased through 2019 23 Aloha Theatre Inn The monthly average room rate had also been increasing (see Figure C-4). Figure C-4. Hotel Rates On the Rise from 2011 to 2019, Until the Pandemic Total spending by visitors to the Hawaiian Islands gained 1.1 percent to a new high of $17.84 billion. When adjusted for inflation, total visitor spending declined 1.5 percent compared to 2018. A total of 10,386,673 visitors came by air service or by cruise ships to the state, an increase of 5.0 percent from the previous record of 9,888,845 visitors in 2018. Total visitor days were up 2.4 percent. The average spending per day by these visitors ($196 per person) was lower compared to 2018 ($198)28. 28 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 2 24 Aloha Theatre Inn For total spending by category, lodging, the largest spending category by all visitors to Hawaiʻi, increased 2.7 percent to $7.65 billion and comprised 42.8 percent of total visitor spending in 2019 (see Figure C-5). Other areas of spending included: • Food and beverage, the second largest category, rose 2.6 percent to $3.72 billion or 20.8 percent of total visitor spending. • Shopping expenditures of $2.35 billion decreased 2.7 percent from 2018. • Spending on transportation (-2.8% to $1.73 billion) also decreased, while entertainment and recreation expenses (-0.1% to $1.62 billion) were similar to the previous year. Figure C-5. Daily Visitor Spending 25 Aloha Theatre Inn With the start of the Pandemic in 2020, visitor arrivals and occupancy rates have declined. Visitor arrivals at the time of this report are expected to decrease to 2.9M. An astounding drop of 72%. (see Figure C-6). Figure C-6. DBEDT Quarterly Tourism Forecast for 2020 26 Aloha Theatre Inn However, by 2023, experts estimate that visitor arrivals are expected to be almost to the level they were in 2019 (see Figure C-7). Figure C-7. DBEDT Quarterly Tourism Forecast 27 Aloha Theatre Inn Island of Kaua‘i Kaua‘i has also had several records years of increase from 2010 to 2018 in visitors to the island as shown in Figure C-8. Figure C-8. Kaua‘i’s Tourism Forecast There was a slight decline in 2019 as Kaua‘i was impacted by two major storms. The first was a storm in April 2018 and from Hurricane Lane in August 2018 which caused extensive flooding north of Princeville from Hanalei to Ke‘e. Kūhiō Highway, the main roadway to access visitor attractions including Keʻe and Tunnels beaches, Nā Pali Coast State Wilderness Park, and Hāʻena State Park was closed for 14 months and finally reopened in June 201929. Spending by air visitors on Kaua‘i declined 4.3 percent to $1.91 billion in 2019. Arrivals decreased 1.4 percent to 1,370,029 visitors and visitor days dropped 2.7 percent from 2018. Daily spending ($189 per person) was also lower compared to the previous year ($192 per person)30. The average length of stay per person drop from 7.48 days in 2018 to 7.38 in 2019 - a decrease of 1.3%31. In addition, the Kaua‘i hotels’ Revenue Per Available Rooms (RevPAR) decreased to 29 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 22. 30 Ibid. 31 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf, pg. 22. 28 Aloha Theatre Inn $204 (-7.0%), with declines in both ADR to $282 (-3.3%) and occupancy of 72.5 percent (-2.9 percentage points).32. As shown in the table below, the pandemic has drastically reduced the number of visitors to all of Hawaiʻi and also Kauaʻi. In July of 2019, there were 995,210 visitors by air to Hawaiʻi. This is compared to 22,562 visitors in July of 2020. In July of 2019 there were 139,157 visitors to Kauaʻi, compared to 1,397 in July of 2020. Location July 2019 July 2020 % Change Hawaiʻi 995,210 22,562 -97% Kauaʻi 139,157 1,397 -98% C.3 Marketing Plans for Sale of Project Output (Principal Products and By- Products) C.3.1 Marketing Plans for Sale of Project Output ATI will market to the boutique hotel market and to those that seek an authentic Kauaʻi experience. ATI will be marketed as a destination that features the following elements to draw visitors and guests: • 15 Hotel Rooms initially, with approval for up to 19 • Food - Café (downstairs) and Restaurant/Bar (upstairs) • Flex Space for Retail, pop up vendors and for Films, Lectures and Gatherings • The Hotel Office will feature displays related to Polynesian Culture and an art gallery • The entire property will feature historical photographs and displays with story boards • The Atrium and grounds will be stocked with indigenous, canoe and important commercial plants with story boards illustrating the history and importance • Films about Polynesia, Hawai’i and those filmed on Kaua‘i will be featured at special screenings • The Marquee will be installed with programable messaging to announce specials, films and information ATI Marketing Strategies will be focused on implementing the following three key marketing strategies: 1. Branding the hotel and introducing it to its target markets 2. Managing online systems to include the Global Distribution System 3. Branding the additional services in the hotel to the target markets 1. Branding the Hotel to the Target Market ATI plans to brand the hotel as a boutique/destination offering. Boutique hotels have been gaining in popularity over the years due to their anti-standardization with leading hotel chains such as Marriott and Hilton. The boutique hotel initially was focused on just adding a new hotel to a specific location, but as a by-product, it has also added value to the neighborhood it resides 32 Ibid. 29 Aloha Theatre Inn in. Boutique hotels in resort destinations are exotic, small and intimate. These hotels give their guests the chance to explore the local feel without sacrificing luxury33. Most boutique/lifestyle hotels aim to offer the guest some type of ‘experience’. Bjorn Hanson, global hospitality leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that experience is mostly being aimed at younger generations, with more natural materials and fabrics, food geared toward “grazing” rather than dining, a greater emphasis on technology and common areas that offer guests a variety of places to congregate. (Even when tethered to their laptops, Mr. Hanson says, younger travelers seek out social environments more than their elders.) Schrager defines boutique as an approach and attitude. He places the emphasis on entertaining his guests by creating a theatrical atmosphere that attracts all the senses: through architecture, design, color, lighting, art and music34. The ATI will focus its marketing on the middle-class guests who are engaged and curious, unable to afford the high-end hotels of some of the larger resorts but are still looking for that luxury feel while seeking value for their money, coupled with the charm of a historic village, full of art galleries and great restaurants. By offering an educational component with a casual elegance, the hotel seeks to provide guests a richer, more satisfying experience. ATI already has relationships with many nearby visitor attractions. The very close proximity to all the vessel tours at Port Allen will enhance cross promotional opportunities. In addition, Hanapēpē has many great restaurants and a well-liked local bakery. Salt Pond Beach Park is very close, uncrowded, clean and has well protected areas for swimming including for children. Finally, given the location of Hanapēpē on the Leeward side of the island, it has some of the best weather on the island. The historic town of Hanapēpē is small and the Aloha Theatre Inn is already in a prime location in the center of town, on the main street of Hanapēpē. The face of ATI will clearly be Ms. Danaher but also the people who serve their customers. As this is a boutique hotel, the staff will be trained to be friendly staff members who love meeting travelers and offer exceptional customer service and the Hawai’ian Aloha spirit to enhance their experience. The ATI already has both a preliminary Facebook presence (see Figure C-9) and a website (see Figure C-10). ATI plans to expand its Facebook presence with announcements, specials and a reservation link. ATI website is alohatheatreinn.com. One of the first steps will be to seek to expand and fully develop the website to include all tenants, feature each hotel room, the atrium and special events . Potential customers will be able to book rooms and spa/salon services, make dinner reservations on the website once it is fully functional. Other sites, such as Trip Advisor can also provide useful suggestions to visitors to the area. 33 http://hotelanalyst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/BHR%202014%20sample.pdf 34 Ibid. 30 Aloha Theatre Inn ATI will also leverage traditional print and TV media including: • Illuminated historical movie type marquee (a nod to the building’s previous use) programmed to announce specials, films, and room availability • Design die cut rack card to place in all brochure racks; including the vessel tour offices, coffee farm and airports, featuring theatre and all tenants • Island wide direct mailing announcing opening via local news papers • Press releases announcing opening, specials, new tenants, events, • Print ads in visitor magazines with discounts • Ads on the Visitor cable channel 2. Creating the Channel Management to include the Global Distribution System For boutique hotels, such as ATI, on-line travel portals known as “on-line travel agencies” (OTA) have become an essential marketing and sales tool to reaching a wider audience and boost bookings. Today, travelers use OTAs in conjunction with the hotel’s website before making their selection. ATI will use the services of major domestic OTAs such as Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, Hotels.com, Bookings.com, etc. ATI will also list the hotel on the Global Distribution System (GDS) to target international travel markets. GDS is a primary on-line reservation tool for travel agents worldwide whereas OTAs are used mostly by the general retail market. Following its opening, ATI plans to expand its channel management and list it on the GDS such as Sabre, Amadeus, Galileo Figure C-9 - ATI Facebook Site Figure C-10 - ATI Website, Alohatheatreinn.com (Being updated) 31 Aloha Theatre Inn Worldspan, Apollo, etc. Ms. Danaher has successfully used these reservations systems at her other lodging properties. 3. Branding Additional Services to Target Market The additional services and offerings of ATI are value added features of the middle market, those seeking a good value and cultural awareness is the visitor demographic that ATI will be targeting. Offerings such as these can increase the ratings of a hotel and in turn increase bookings. The café and a breakfast with a hotel room is a major draw for travelers. Finally, by featuring local culture throughout the hotel it will provide a historical draw for those looking to experience Hawai’ian history and culture. This will position the hotel as a destination in its own right. Ms. Danaher possesses the knowledge, experience, and ability to execute the foregoing three key marketing strategies. It is clear these strategies will immediately impact the hotel’s occupancy rate and can be implemented quickly as soon as the hotel is operational. For instance, ATI will create reusable shopping bags, note cards and logo wear featuring the Aloha theatre images such as the one shown in Figure C-11. With the implementation of the foregoing marketing strategies coupled with other marketing tools the hotel can employ such as loyalty and advance booking discount programs, advertising on travel sites such as Travelocity, social media, and print advertising in various travel publications. Figure C-11. Example Aloha Theatre Images for Logo Wear 32 Aloha Theatre Inn C.4 Extent of Competition Including other Similar Facilities in the Market Area C.4.1 Competition Kaua‘i is one of the Hawai’ian islands that competes for visitors with the other islands that comprise the State of Hawaiʻi. Hanapēpē, as discussed earlier, is a small town located near the southwest side of the island. See Figure C-12. Hanapēpē Town is surrounded by the Hanapēpē Valley. There is a small number of homes located in and around Hanapēpē Town, but the majority of the area’s residents live upland in the single-family subdivisions of Hanapēpē Heights. The majority of hotels on the southern end of the island are located in the southeast side in an area known as Poipu Beach (see Figure C-13). The circles indicate mileage away from Hanapēpē - 5, 10 and 15 miles. ATI is one of only a few hotels or places to stay on the southwestern side of Kaua‘i as it is the least developed area of Kauaʻi. To the west of Hanapēpē there are 2 small hotels. ATI is well positioned to take advantage of the unique location, great nearby beaches, visitor activities like the vessel tours and coffee farm as well as the best weather on the island. Kauaʻi makes up about roughly 11% of lodging of the total number of units in the State of Hawai’i Visitor Plant Inventory for 2019 which was 80,554 visitor units. This was 0.2 Figure C-12. The Island of Kauaʻi Figure C-13. There are Few Places to Stay on the Southwest Kauaʻi Hanapēpē NAICS Code - 721110: Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels Copyright 2017 Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Map showing the selected businesses colored by the chosen NAICS Codes with the requested trade area(s) around My Site, 3795 Hanapepe Rd, Hanapepe, HI, 96716: Copyright 2006-2018 TomTom. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection, database right protection and other intellectual property rights owned by TomTom or its suppliers. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. Any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material will lead to criminal and civil liabilities. 33 Aloha Theatre Inn percent lower than in 2018. Nearly half (48.7 percent) of the state’s visitor units were located on O‘ahu, with the majority of units located in Waikīkī. Maui had the second most units (26.4 percent) followed by Hawai’i Island (13.0 percent) and Kaua‘i (11.2 percent). Moloka‘i and Lāna‘i had the fewest lodging units and combined totaled less than one percent of all Hawai’i lodging units35. Among the major islands, Kaua‘i and Maui had very little budget lodging inventory, 0.2 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. Those islands also reported the highest shares of Luxury inventory, at 25.3% 2019 and 16.2 percent, respectively. Relatively speaking, Hawai’i Island and O‘ahu offered more low-priced vacation rentals, while the Kaua‘i and Maui inventory is skewed to the higher price categories36. Kauaʻi’s inventory of units is shown in Figure C-1437. Kauaʻi’s Visitor Units consists primarily of Hotels, Timeshares and Rental Units. Also shown in Figure C-14, there are a number of Vacation Rental Units (VRUs) which have been growing in number across Kauaʻi. In 2018 there 1,794 units and in 2019 there were 1,817 units or an increase of 23%. Most of the these are located in the Poipu Beach area or the northern part of the island. Figure C-14. Kauaʻi’s Visitor Units Consists Primarily of Hotels, Timeshares and Rental Units. Individually advertised units - many of which are illegal in Hawaiʻi are growing as well (see Figure C-15). Kauaʻi had 3,774 in 2018 and 5,086 in 2019 for an increase of 34.8%38. Figure C-15. Kauaʻi’s Visitor Units in Comparison to the other Islands 35 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-plant/2019VPI.pdf, pg. 3. 36 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-plant/2019VPI.pdf, pg. 61 37 Ibid. pg. 19 38 Ibid. pg. 59 34 Aloha Theatre Inn As of 2019, there were currently no Individually Advertised Units in Hanapēpē (see Figure C-16)39. ATI will be able to take advantage of this situation as there is a definite need. Of the 9,036 visitor units on the Kauaʻi, the largest percentage of Kaua‘i’s visitor units continued to fall in the Luxury price class (41.8 percent) in 2019, a 0.2 percent increase over the previous year (See Figure C-17). Hotel units made up the largest share of visitor units on Kaua‘i (31.6 percent) followed by Timeshare units (30.5 percent). No Apartment Hotels or Hostels were reported on Kaua‘i in recent years40. 39 Ibid. pg. 64 40 . https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-plant/2019VPI.pdf, pg. 6 Figure C-16. Kauaʻi’s Visitor Units in Comparison to the other Islands Figure C-17. Kauaʻi’s Majority of Unites are in the Luxury Class 35 Aloha Theatre Inn Kauaʻi’s rates across the spectrum of category of hotel’s is predominantly made up of Luxury priced unites at over $500 per night41. (See Figure C-18) As mentioned earlier a number of properties have closed on the island due to the pandemic. In addition, a number of hotels have closed for remodeling (see Figure C-19). Figure C-19. Planned Additions and Developments 41 Ibid., pg. 33 Figure C-18. Kauaʻi’s Percent of Rates by Type of Room 36 Aloha Theatre Inn ATI price point is in line with some its direct competitors and neighbors that offer similar amenities and room accommodations. Rates and other data are from Google Maps on 9/17/2020. Hotel Target ADR Description (provided on Google Maps) ATI $204 N/A West Inn Kauaʻi $249 Unpretentious hotel with a BBQ area Waimea Plantation Cottages $278 Laid back waterfront resort with a pool, grey sand beach Koʻa Kea Hotel & Resort at Poipu Beach $368 Luxe option with fine dining and spa Marriott’s Waiohai Beach Club $335 Upscale beach resort with pools and dining As discussed earlier, Kaua‘i hotels’ Revenue Per Available Rooms (RevPAR) was $204 and an Average Daily Rate (ADR) of $282.42. ATI’s targeted ADR is $204 as shown in the table above. ATI’s room rates are very competitive. Specific room rates, based on season and room size, are provided in Section E - Financial Feasibility. ATI competitive advantages are: • Price point • Historic building in an historic town that has kept its quirky and Hawaiian charm unlike many of the larger resorts • A small selection of rooms, giving the hotel a more “local” flavor and unique hotel feel with 5 spacious river view suites available • Website and direct on-line booking • On-premise office with a gallery with local artists items for sale • Planned on-site café /coffee shop and retail shops • Restaurant, featuring local selections with view of Hanapēpē town • Flex space for retail or group use for film, lectures or other gatherings • Atrium and newly landscaped tropical garden, featuring endemic species, canoe plants and important commercial crops, all with story boards and explanations • Pet friendly room available • An authentic historic experience ATI competitive disadvantages are: • Small number of rooms • Not on the beach and no pool on site ATI realizes it needs to be proactive in ensuring it provides high quality accommodations to its guests to remain competitive in the market. Ms. Danaher has done this with her other vacation rentals which means ATI will also be proactive in being as competitive and focused to their target market. 42 Ibid. 37 Aloha Theatre Inn C.5 Commitments from Customers or Brokers - Principal Products and By- Products C.5.1 Commitments from Customers and Brokers To date, 2 tenants have committed with letters of interest. As the hotel is still in the renovation phase, it is expected that interest will increase once the project if further complete. See Appendix A-8 for Letters of Interest. C.6 Adequacy of Raw Materials C.6.1 Adequacy of Raw Materials This is not appliable to this project. C.7 Projected Total Supply from Members and Non-Members C.7.1 Projected Total Supply from Members and Non-Members This is not appliable to this project. C.8 Projected Competitive Demand for Raw Material C.8.1 Competitive Demand for Raw Materials This is not appliable to this project. C.9 Procurement Plan and Projected Procurement Costs C.9.1 Planned Procurement and Projected Costs This is not appliable to this project. C.10 Form of Commitment of Raw Materials (Marketing Agreements, etc.) C.10.1 Forms of Commitment This is not appliable to this project. C.11 Recommendation Given Ms. Danaher’s experience in owning and marketing similar ventures along with a viable market, it is anticipated that she will be able to successfully compete within this market. While there are many hotels to stay at in Kauaʻi, there are none on the west side of Kauai that offer a unique opportunity to stay in such a robust cultural town and historic building. ATI’s ADR is also one of its main competitive advantages. Once the pre-pandemic tourism levels return, it is anticipated that Ms. Danaher will be able to take full advantage of the ATI’s unique historical features and offerings to attract plenty of clientele to fully book the property. 38 Aloha Theatre Inn D. Technical Feasibility D.1 Suitability of the Selected Site for the Intended Use Including an Environmental Impact Analysis D.1.1 Suitability of the Selected Site for the Intended Use Including an Environmental Impact Analysis Shortly before WWII the Aloha Theatre was built in 1936 in Hanapēpē (see Figure D-1). There was also a sweet shop on the property (see Figure D-2). World War II brought new facilities and population growth to West Kauaʻi. Hanapēpē was the location of a military hospital, training center, and landing strip. A new military reservation was established in Mānā; today it is known as the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF). During the post-war period, sugar production began to wane. Three of the last four sugar plantations in the State of Hawai’i were on Kaua‘i – the Līhu‘e and Kekaha plantations of Amfac closed in 2000 and the Gay & Robinson plantation in Makaweli closed in 2010. Most of the region’s 12,000 residents live in the communities of Hanapēpē, ʻEleʻele, Waimea, and Kekaha – all connected by a 10-mile stretch of Kaumuali‘i Highway. Smaller plantation camp communities, such as Kaumakani, Pākalā Village, and Kaʻawanui Village are nestled within the Makaweli area between Waimea and Hanapēpē. Numila is also a smaller plantation camp located in Wahiawa. In addition, Waimea Valley and Hanapēpē Valley are smaller agricultural communities where some residents live. The Pacific Missile Range Facility inhabits the western end of the region and serves as a major employment facility. Today, West Kauaʻi is growing slowly and shifting demographically. The population of approximately 12,000 is aging and the median age continues to trend upwards. Population growth projections indicate that throughout the next 25 years West Kaua‘i is expected to gain approximately 1,800 additional residents—from a total population of 11,916 in 2010 to 13,660 in 2035. While Figure D-1. Original Aloha Theatre in 1940. Figure D-2 - The Original Aloha Sweet Shop 39 Aloha Theatre Inn population growth is projected to increase, the average annual growth rate is projected to decrease between 2010 and 2035, indicating a slowing growth trend. Agriculture no longer dominates West Kauai’s economy – employing less than 500 people in agriculture research, coffee, cattle, and other small operations. New industries including tourism, military, and health now support most of the West Side workforce. Major employers include the Kaua‘i Veterans Memorial Hospital (KVMH), the PMRF, and the Department of Education (DOE). There are more workers than jobs in the region, and many residents bear the financial burden of commuting elsewhere. The lack of economic opportunities on the Westside, and Kauaʻi in general, has perpetuated a loss of Kaua‘i’s younger generations43. The Westside’s affordable housing and jobs imbalance needs to be remedied in order for the region to become economically self-sustaining. Present Day Aloha Theatre A picture of the current Aloha Theatre is shown in Figure D-3. It had been abandoned since 1993 when the previous owner abandoned it. It was in such disrepair it had a papaya tree growing inside of it and the two side walls on the upper level were collapsing in on themselves. Figure D-3 - Aloha Theatre Upon Purchase in 2019 43 http://westkauaiplan.org/?fbclid=IwAR376_9VtiKQ2tJ0oGJK1bEbNmTO7smfqLIx0mYlGDqqOux8QAYGPuOFmXM, pg. 7 40 Aloha Theatre Inn The Aloha Theatre was formerly just a theatre with a candy store in the front. The original Aloha Theatre Plot Plan is shown in Figure D-4. Figure D-4. Original Aloha Theatre Plan The site is located at 3795 Hanapēpē Road in Hanapēpē. The subject property is situated on the main road in Hanapēpē amongst art galleries and a book shop, among others. To the right of the hotel is the “Talk Story” bookstore and to the right the Puʻuwai Gallery. The subject lot of record is approximately 22,521 square feet in size, and it is located in Hanapēpē Ahupuaʻa, Kona Moku, Kaua'i Island, Hawai’i. It is located within the County of Kaua'i's Commercial General Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District, and General Plan Designation Neighborhood Center. Ms. Danaher has received a permit for select demolition and renovations to the existing theater building. The new renovation and restoration project for the historic theater will be within the same building footprint and will include a center open atrium, commercial shop/gallery space, a flex space for pop vendors, and an area for a restaurant. To date, a permit is in place, plans drawn, and Hanapēpē Construction has begun the initial phase of remodeling. They have invested $668,000 to date and have applied for a liquor license which is in process. A more detailed discussion of zoning is provided in Section B.1.4 - Economy in Brief: Kaua'i; Zoning. 41 Aloha Theatre Inn Ms. Danaher has also renovated the existing 600 sq. ft. dwelling unit (2- bedroom, 1 full bath) to provide housing for an onsite security guard/groundskeeper. According to Real Property Assessment records, the dwelling unit was originally constructed in 199344. The permit was approved by the County of Kaua'i 4/12/2019 (see Appendix A- 9). Hanapēpē Town The town of Hanapēpē has slowly been brought back to life over the years through the Friday Night Art Walk which was started in 1997. It has become a very successful event for the town (See Figures D-5 - D- 8). It hosts a thousand people on a Friday night. It is so popular that it is listed on Trip Advisor with 353 Reviews and 4.5 stars45. Hanapēpē is also host to the Chocolate and Coffee Festival - last held in October of 2019, which was the 5th annual event. Figure D-6. Friday Night Art Walk 44 Ibid. 45 https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60614-d5003892-Reviews-Hanapepe_Friday_Night_Festival_Art_Walk- Hanapepe_Kauaʻi_Hawaiʻi.html Figure D-5. Hanapēpē.org Friday Art Night Web Page 42 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-7. Trip Advisor for Hanapēpē Friday Night Art Festival Figure D-8. Friday Night Art Night 43 Aloha Theatre Inn The town is also close to other attractions (see Figure D-9) including Port Allen and the Salt Pond Beach Park. Figure D-9. Theatre Location in relation to Port Allen and Salt Pond Beach Port Allen Port Allen is just a little over a mile away from the Aloha Theatre Inn. Port Allen is where a number of boat tour companies are located. They offer snorkeling tours and tours of the famous Nā Pali coast (see Figure D-10). Figure D-10. Na Pali Boat Tours Leave from Port Allen 44 Aloha Theatre Inn Salt Pond The Aloha Theatre Inn is less than 2 miles from the Salt Pond Beach Park, a clean and uncrowded beach on the west side of Kauaʻi. See Figures D-11 - D-12 Figure D-11. Salt Pond Beach Park Figure D-12. Salt Pond Beach Park is Never Crowded and is Safe and Clean 45 Aloha Theatre Inn Renovation and Remodeling Figure D-13 shows the current Plot Plan of the existing land that the Aloha Theatre Sits on. Figure D-13 - Restored Aloha Theatre Concept Illustration The architects responsible for the initial plans for phase one of the Aloha Theatre are Agor Jehn Architects. They are located in Honolulu, Hawai’i. Phase 2 will be designed by Palms Hawai’i Architects as they are on Kaua‘i and can provide direct and immediate recommendations and over site. Palmer Hafdahl is a certified architect and licensed in Hawai’i, Colorado and California. He is the owner and founder of Palms Hawai’i. He has a Bachelor’s Degree (1973) and Post Graduate (1986) in Architecture from California Polytechnic State University. Prior to founding Palms Hawaiʻi, he worked with the FEMA Office of Emergency Permitting to advance reconstruction of a devastated Kaua‘i after hurricane Iniki. Kaua‘i has been home since 1992. 46 Aloha Theatre Inn Figures D-14 - D-16, show the Architects renderings of the new space. Figure D-14. Architectural View of the First Floor Figure D-15. Architect View of the Second Floor 47 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-16. Architect Rendering of the Atrium Immediate Repairs Ms. Danaher, along with her crew of the Hanapēpē Construction Company, have removed and rebuilt the collapsing walls, removed the roof, put in all new framing on the second floor and cleaned up all the debris. See Figures D-17 - D-23. Figure D-17. The Walls Were Collapsing 48 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-18. Condition at the Time of Purchase in February of 2019 Figure D-19. Condition at Time of Purchase 49 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-20. Rebuilt Walls and New Framing on Second Floor with Roof Removed as of Sept. 20, 2019 50 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-21. 2nd Floor Reconstructed FigureD-22. Clean Up Completed 51 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-23. Original and New Aloha Sweet Shop - Recreated to Look Like the Original Remaining Restoration and Renovation There is still significant work to be done to the theatre to have it ready to open for full operations. This includes installation of the footings into the existing foundation to level and support the first and second floor and installation of the roof to close out Phase One. Phase Two will include all the necessary framing, stucco of façade, painting, install refurbished sign, building the Atrium center piece with a water feature, plumbing electrical, (includes solar system, rebuilt sign and Marquee install) finishing, furnishing, leasing, tenants’ improvements as needed, and creating a parking area. Management Feasibility Ms. Danaher is currently serving as the Project Manager for the remodeling and reconstruction of the Theatre. She has created a high-level timeline as shown in Figure D-24 and D-25. 52 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure D-24. Project Timeline 1 of 2 Figure D-25. Project Timeline 2 of 2 53 Aloha Theatre Inn Operations Management and Technology Ms. Danaher will maintain well-qualified staff and existing systems to manage the technical aspect of the business. However, hotel technology continues to advance, from reservation systems to in-room technology to enhance guest experience. Given Ms. Danaher’s deep experience in the restoration of historic properties spanning more than 20 years, it is reasonable to assume that she will continue to monitor new technology and make technology deployment decisions based on defensible cost benefit analyses. Ms. Danaher’s other hotel and rental properties already use the following software programs to manage the operations of the hotel: Operations • WebRezPros: a property management software program that serves as the backbone of the hotel. It is used by all departments (front desk, facilities, housekeeping). It will also serve as the booking engine that interfaces with the hotel’s website. • Siteminder: a channel management software program to handle bookings via OTAs such as Expedia. The system interfaces with WebRezPro and the hotel’s email system. When a booking is done via an OTA, it can automatically feed the information to WebRezPro which reserves the room, and it also send an email to the hotel notifying it of the new booking. • Activity Link Aldesk: An activity voucher program for the sale of the island-wide activities the hotel plans to sell Administration • QuickBooks: an accounting software program for financial management and payroll • Microsoft Exchange and Office 365: for Email, Word, Excel, and Power Point • Google Drive: for document management Ms. Danaher’s experience in the hotel industry, will be an asset in assessing and optimizing ATI IT and software programs. Interestingly enough she also completed a hotel management course at Maui Community College several years ago, getting an A++++ with the professor telling her it was the best project he had ever seen in his years teaching. He kept it as an example of how to create a hotel business plan. Staffing The staff profile is expected to start with a total of 5.5 FTEs when operations first begin as shown in the table. The most significant increases in staff will be when the hotel is completely capacity at 19 rooms. This will require 7.5 additional FTEs. ATI staffing plan is based on the projected needs and timeframe for completion of the hotel. All staff will be recruited locally on Kauaʻi. There are plenty of qualified individuals for all areas of need. The plan is to offer competitive wages and benefits. Type of Staff Number of FTEs Needed at Start Number of FTEs Needed at Full Operational Capacity Owner and Manager 1.0 1.0 General Manager 2.5 3.0 54 Aloha Theatre Inn Admin Assistant 1.0 3.0 Housekeeping & Laundry 1.0 2.0 Maintenance 1.0 2.0 Guest Services 1.0 2.0 TOTAL 5.5 13.0 Other Operational Needs Ms. Danaher with her team of competent managers, will need to ensure that they address challenges such as those listed below: • Pre-Operational Needs o Assure construction/renovation is on budget/on time o The creation and successful operation of new facilities, such as the on-site café, shop, etc. o Accounting for rising consumer technology expectations in financial projections o Accounting for rising health care costs of employees in financial projections o Monitoring increasing government regulations and addressing during construction and post construction • Post-Operational Needs o Operating efficiently and profitably at resulting higher occupancy levels o Maintenance and disinfection schedules o Mandated minimum wage increases and reclassification of previously exempt employees o Competing against the fast-growing shared economy, non-traditional lodging sector, such as VRBO, Airbnb and a seemingly growing number of illegal rental locations in Hawaiʻi o Ability to survive during economic downturns which characterize cyclical businesses such as the visitor industry However, given Ms. Danaher’s ability to do this with her current properties and remain financially viable, it is fully expected that she will be able to do this with the ATI. 55 Aloha Theatre Inn Other Hotel Operations The ATI will also include a café, a retail shop, and a restaurant on the upstairs balcony. Figure D-26 shows artists concepts of what some of the retail areas could look like. Figure D-26. Artist Conceptual Designs for Retail Store Interiors From Aloha Theatre Inn - Retail Study D.1.2 Environmental Assessment and Impact Analysis No ESA is necessary as the entire project will be in the original footprint. Therefore, it must be assumed “no known, suspected or potential recognized environmental conditions (REC) were observed during the site reconnaissance or records review for the Site”. Nor were any historical RECs found. Since ATI plans to continue operations of the existing footprint, no major environmental impact to the property is expected. D.2 Technical Feasibility of Achieving Project Income Levels D.2.1 Financial Projections The ATI expected revenue projections and assumptions are discussed in detail in Section E - Financial Feasibility. D.2.2 Assumptions The assumptions for the project as well as the feasibility of achieving the project income levels are discussed in detail in Section E - Financial Feasibility. 56 Aloha Theatre Inn D.3 Constraints or Limitations in Financial Projections and Any Other Facility or Design-Related Factors which Might Affect Enterprise Success D.3.1 Financial Project Constraints and Limitations See Section E - Financial Feasibility, for a discussion of financial constraints and limitations. D.3.2 Other Facility and / or Design Related Factors Which May Affect Enterprise Success The authors are unaware of any other factors which may affect the enterprise as this time. D.4 Project Operation and Development Costs See Section E - Financial Feasibility, for a discussion of project operation and development costs. D.5 Project Engineer or Architect Determination of Project Feasibility D.5.1 Project Engineer or Project Architect The original project architectural firm, Jehn Agor, has provided detailed drawings which support the feasibility of the project. In addition, Palms Hawai’i Architecture will be hired to support Phase 2 which will also include detailed drawings to be created. The County of Kauaʻi recommended in the County of Kauaʻi Directors Report that based on the Ms. Danaher’s and the architect provided detailed plans… “The Planning Department recommends that the Kauaʻi Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT the proposed demolition and renovation … and construction of a new motel”. D.6 Commercial Replication D.6.1 Commercial Replication Aloha Theatre Inn is a historic building as such there will only be one Aloha Theatre Inn. Commercial replication, therefore, will be focused on the key service offerings of the hotel - hotel rooms, café, and retail offerings. D.7 Project Risks D.7.1 Construction There are inherently a number of risks within construction that need to be managed. These risks can be even greater when repairing a building that is almost 100 years old. The risks are many but can be managed and mitigated by having a qualified and experience person, a licensed contractor, who can lead and oversee the project. As Ms. Danaher has managed a number of construction sites, she qualified for and received her state contracting license for Hanapēpē Construction (# 37-359) which oversees the project. Potential risks include: • Occupational risk – an injury which can be fatal to a worker because of behavior, tools that he uses, whether or third party involved 57 Aloha Theatre Inn • Financial risk – Unexpected increases in building supplies, problems with the economy and risking in interest rates • Project risk – lack of proper project management, inadequate company policies and miscalculation of time and recourses required • Natural risk – floods, earthquakes and other natural phenomena that can damage your constructions site and make the work impossible. D.7.2 Production Once construction is completed including interior build out and furnishings, the ATI will be ready for occupancy or production. There are of course, numerous risks with operating any business including a project such as the nature of the ATI. ATI’s largest revenue driver will be hotel occupancy. An analysis was completed on the assumptions for occupancy rates (see the Financial Feasibility Section). Even with a very conservative 50% rate occupancy, ATI will still be a financially viable operation. Of course, the global pandemic has certainly affected the rate of occupancy for hotels around the world. Hawaii’s tourism industry is expected to steadily increase and return to pre-pandemic levels in 2023. Even with this unexpected challenge, the hotel will not be ready to open its doors until early 2022, and vaccines are generally thought to be available by late 2021. Therefore, ATI will be well positioned to take advantage of the anticipated demand in 2023 All of the islands which comprise Hawaiʻi are economically driven by tourism. The natural beauty of the islands is what draws tourists to the islands. If this natural beauty disappears through poor economic development, then Hawaii’s tourism industry will be severely impacted. To that end, then State of Hawaiʻi is working to preserve the islands’ beauty for future generations. D.7.3 Regulation and Government Action It is not anticipated that there will be any regulation or government action other than the oversight currently provided for the lodging industry in the state of Hawai’i. D.8 Recommendation Ms. Danaher has led many successful renovations throughout her career. She has a sound knowledge of renovating and managing historic properties successfully. Her progress to date on the existing theatre has demonstrated her commitment to this project as well as her ability to manage a complex and labor-intensive endeavor. Her plan for the management and staffing of the hotel are realistic and based on the expertise of her architects and proposed team. In addition, the location and access to multiple attractions, leads the Study authors to conclude that this project is technically viable. 58 Aloha Theatre Inn E. Financial Feasibility E.1 Reliability of the Financial Projections The reliability of the financial projections is deemed to be high because they are based on assumptions supported by primary research with local businesses, secondary market research from reliable sources such as the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO), the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), the U.S. Census Bureau, the authors’ economic development expertise, and the owner’s comprehensive experience in the rehabilitation and operation of rental and other commercial businesses. E.2 Ability of the Business to Achieve the Projected Income and Cash Flow As detailed in the Economic Feasibility section, the visitor markets in Hawaiʻi in general, and on Kauaʻi in particular, are expected to strongly recover by the time construction is completed at the end of 2021 and occupancy permits secured. According to DBEDT, both the number of visitors to Hawaiʻi and visitor spending will achieve almost 80% of the peak levels of 2019.46 Income and cash flow in the financial statements are projected based on historical seasonality and occupancy variables. Historical seasonality is based on primary research with existing hotels in the state which rely primarily on the visitor market. While there can be variability from year to year, the following table defines seasonality according to the Hawaiʻi visitor industry rule of thumb: Based on an analysis of the 15 hotel units comprising the property and their daily seasonal rents, the potential annual gross Year 1 room revenue for the hotel is $1,040,675. The commercial lease of the restaurant and the retail space will add $161,544 making total potential annual gross revenue $1,202,219, as shown in the table below. 46 http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourism-forecast/ Year # of Visitors Spending 2022 8.3 million $14.3 billion 2019 10.4 million $17.9 billion 2022 as a % of 2019 79.80%79.90% Season Months Days Low June, July, August 92 Mid April, May, September, October, November, December (first half)166 High December (second half), January, February, March 107 59 Aloha Theatre Inn Potential Seasonal Revenue In 2019, the average daily rate for hotels on Kauaʻi was $282.7347, and the average retail lease asking rate was $3.38 per sq ft48. ATI will monitor rates in the coming months and make appropriate adjustements based on the then current market conditions. The above room and lease rates are below the average daily rate and within reason given the projected recovery rate. The above potential revenue of $1,202,219 is based on 100% occupancy of both the hotel and the commercial lease spaces, which is of course not realistic. Applying a conservative occupancy rate of 50% for both the hotel and commercial lease operations as the base case produces Year 1 projected revenue of $601,109.50 as indicated in the Year 1 Income Statement in Section E.4.1. and is used in the subsequent analyses in this section. It is expected that the projected income and cash flow will be achieved, not only in light of the visitor industry recovery, but in terms of the conservative assumptions as detailed in this section. E.3 Assessment of the Cost Accounting System Currently, the principal’s businesses use QuickBooks accounting software for their financial management and reporting system, and ATI will continue to do so. Judging by the quality of the currently produced income statements and balance sheets, the cost accounting element of the financial reporting system is adequate, although there is always room for improvement. 47 https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourismdata/ 48 https://www.cbre.us/research-and-reports/Hawaii-Market-Outlook-2020 Unit Number Daily Rate Daily Rate Daily Rate Type of Units Low $# Days Total $Mid $# Days Total $High $# Days Total $ Standard 8 159 92 117,024 169 166 224,432 179 107 153,224 Superior 6 199 92 109,848 209 166 208,164 219 107 140,598 De Luxe 1 229 92 21,068 239 166 39,674 249 107 26,643 Subtotal 15 247,940$ 472,270$ 320,465$ Total 1,040,675$ Commercial Square Lease Monthly Annual Leases Feet Rate Revenue Revenue Restaurant 1,440 2.00 2,880 34,560 Retail 3,256 3.25 10,582 126,984 Total $ 13,462 $ 161,544 Revenue Stream Amount Hotel 1,040,675 Commercial Leases 161,544 Total $1,202,219 60 Aloha Theatre Inn E.4 Availability of Short-Term Credit for Seasonal Business With respect to the seasonal aspects of the business, the following table shows the projected revenue pattern as mentioned above: It is conceivable that ATI would at some point need a short-term revolving credit and thus there is a plan to obtain a modest revolving line of credit with a local lender. However, since the lodging business is cash-driven, the hotel will not carry receivables, as evidenced by the projected Balance Sheet. This business model significantly reduces the demand for seasonal short-term revolving financing. However, if the need for cash flow arises due to extenuating circumstances, such as a downturn in occupancy, income or other performance metrics, short term financing may not be an effective tool to help the business recover. A thorough analysis of costs, expenses and marketing efforts, resulting in the creation of a performance improvement plan, and the possible addition of new term debt, would better address such a situation. E.4.1 Financial Projections Projected Income Statement Year 1 Income Statement Year 1 Assumptions • Revenue is projected to follow the seasonal pattern as mentioned above. Season Annual Hotel Annual Lease Total % of Annual Revenue Revenue Revenue Total Revenue Low 247,940 40,718 288,658 24.01% Mid 472,270 73,469 545,739 45.39% High 320,465 47,357 367,822 30.60% 1,202,219$ 100.00% Aloha Theatre Inn Income Statement Year 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL % of Sales GROSS REVENUE Hotel Room Revenue 53,996.17 53,996.17 53,996.17 40,188.98 40,188.98 36,770.52 36,770.52 36,770.52 40,188.98 40,188.98 40,188.98 47,092.57 520,337.50 86.56% Restaurant Lease 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 17,280.00 2.87% Retail Space Lease 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 5,291.00 63,492.00 10.56% TOTAL GROSS REVENUE 60,727.17 60,727.17 60,727.17 46,919.98 46,919.98 43,501.52 43,501.52 43,501.52 46,919.98 46,919.98 46,919.98 53,823.57 601,109.50 100.00% COST OF GOODS SOLD GET 2,861.46 2,861.46 2,861.46 2,210.87 2,210.87 2,049.79 2,049.79 2,049.79 2,210.87 2,210.87 2,210.87 2,536.17 28,324.28 4.71% TAT 5,534.61 5,534.61 5,534.61 4,119.37 4,119.37 3,768.98 3,768.98 3,768.98 4,119.37 4,119.37 4,119.37 4,826.99 53,334.59 8.87% Credit Card Fees 1,821.81 1,821.81 1,821.81 1,407.60 1,407.60 1,305.05 1,305.05 1,305.05 1,407.60 1,407.60 1,407.60 1,614.71 18,033.29 3.00% TOTAL COST OF GOODS SOLD 10,217.89 10,217.89 10,217.89 7,737.84 7,737.84 7,123.81 7,123.81 7,123.81 7,737.84 7,737.84 7,737.84 8,977.86 99,692.16 16.58% GROSS PROFIT (Margin)50,509.28 50,509.28 50,509.28 39,182.14 39,182.14 36,377.70 36,377.70 36,377.70 39,182.14 39,182.14 39,182.14 44,845.71 501,417.34 83.42% EXPENSES General and Administrative 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 84,000.00 13.97% Insurance 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 2,193.33 26,320.00 4.38% Maintenance and Supplies 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 21,000.00 3.49% Hotel/Room Cleaning 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 86,400.00 14.37% Marketing 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 24,000.00 3.99% Property Tax 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 2,397.92 28,775.00 4.79% Utilities 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 38,400.00 6.39% TOTAL EXPENSES 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 25,741.25 308,895.00 51.39% EBITDA 24,768.03 24,768.03 24,768.03 13,440.89 13,440.89 10,636.45 10,636.45 10,636.45 13,440.89 13,440.89 13,440.89 19,104.46 192,522.34 32.03% OTHER EXPENSES Interest Expense 9,778.13 9,766.91 9,755.64 9,744.33 9,732.97 9,721.55 9,710.09 9,698.58 9,687.01 9,675.40 9,663.73 9,652.02 116,586.35 19.40% Depreciation 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 67,964.21 11.31% Amortization 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 5,429.27 0.90% TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 15,894.25 15,883.03 15,871.77 15,860.45 15,849.09 15,837.68 15,826.21 15,814.70 15,803.13 15,791.52 15,779.85 15,768.14 189,979.82 31.60% NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES 8,873.78 8,885.00 8,896.26 -2,419.56 -2,408.20 -5,201.22 -5,189.76 -5,178.25 -2,362.25 -2,350.63 -2,338.97 3,336.32 2,542.52 0.42% Provision for Income Tax 2,662.13 2,665.50 2,668.88 -725.87 -722.46 -1,560.37 -1,556.93 -1,553.47 -708.67 -705.19 -701.69 1,000.90 762.76 0.13% NET INCOME 6,211.65 6,219.50 6,227.38 -1,693.70 -1,685.74 -3,640.86 -3,632.83 -3,624.77 -1,653.57 -1,645.44 -1,637.28 2,335.42 1,779.76 0.30% 61 Aloha Theatre Inn • Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential $1,202,219, which is $601,109.50. • Interest is calculated at 5.25% on the loan principal of $2,235,000, fully amortized over 30 years. Although the loan may allow for interest-only for the first year, it is shown that at 50% occupancy, interest expense can be covered without negative amortization or an adverse effect on financial performance. • Straight line depreciation on the buildings is calculated over 39 years. • Loan costs are amortized over the life of the loan. The average retail occupancy rate in Kauaʻi was 88.9%49 in 2019, so using the DBEDT forecast of about 80% of recovery in 2022, it is not unreasonable to assume retail occupancy rates will be about 71.12%, which is some 42.2% higher than the Scenario 1 rate of 50% used in this Study as the base case. The average occupancy rate for hotels in Kauaʻi was at 76.3% in 201950. As above it is not unreasonable to assume hotel occupancy rates will be about 61%, which is some 22% higher than the Scenario 1 rate of 50% used in this Study as the base case. While occupancy is likely to be higher than 50% for both the hotel and the commercial lease spaces in Year 1 and beyond, this rate was used to show that although Net Profit is slightly higher than break-even, the Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) is a respectable 1.3 for Year 1, as shown below. This indicates the company has a comfortable margin in its ability to cover the cost of debt from the beginning, since most lenders will require a DSCR of a minimum 1.25. It complements the moderate Debt to Equity ratio discussed below, because ATI will be able to generate sufficient return on borrowed capital in this conservative base case model to adequately service the debt. As earnings increase over the next 2 years, the DSCR will increase as the debt service requirement will remain static, assuming no new debt is acquired. Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) Year 1 For every dollar of annual debt service required in Year 1, the company produces $1.30 as shown above. Sensitivity Analysis Because forecasts are based on assumptions about circumstances and events that have not yet occurred, they are subject to unanticipated events that may arise as future operations actually occur. Accordingly, the actual results achieved during the forecast period will vary from the forecast, and the variations may be material. 49 https://www.cbre.us/research-and-reports/Hawaii-Market-Outlook-2020 50 https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourismdata/ Debt Service Coverage Ratio Year 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL EBITDA 24,768.03 24,768.03 24,768.03 13,440.89 13,440.89 10,636.45 10,636.45 10,636.45 13,440.89 13,440.89 13,440.89 19,104.46 192,522.34 Debt Service 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 148,101.03 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.01 2.01 2.01 1.09 1.09 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.55 1.30 62 Aloha Theatre Inn Some events or conditions may occur which would adversely affect the forecast results and affect the company’s ability to meet debt service requirements. Events may include, among others, changes in the assumptions concerning occupancy rates and legislative or economic changes. The sensitivity of changes to critical variables is an important consideration in evaluating the forecasted financial statements. The following analysis contrasts the sensitivity of occupancy rates, assuming that only this variable will change, and all other assumptions or relationships will remain as originally forecasted. The extent of increases or decreases of other variables associated with the ones being considered has not been determined. The following Income Statement Summaries show financial performance under 2 scenarios, the first with hotel occupancy at 50%, with the commercial lease spaces at 75%. The second scenario shows hotel occupancy and the commercial lease spaces all at 75%. Year 2 and Year 3 Income Statements, DSCR and Sensitivity Analysis are adjusted for growth and occupancy and shown in Appendix A-9 and A-10, respectively. Projected Cash Flow Statement Year 1 This Cash Flow Statement and subsequent analysis are based on the conservative model of a 50% occupancy rate of both the hotel and the commercial lease spaces. The cumulative Ending Cash Position is positive and increasing over the projection horizon, indicating more than adequate cash available to support operations, investments, and financing activities. Given the assumptions and research documented in this Study, undercapitalization Year 1 - Income Statement Summary Year 1 - Income Statement Summary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Occupancy Revenue Occupancy Revenue Hotel 50%520,337.50$ Hotel 75%780,506.25$ Restaurant 75%25,920.00$ Restaurant 75%25,920.00$ Retail 75%95,238.00$ Retail 75%95,238.00$ Total 641,495.50$ Total 901,664.25$ Net Profit 27,869.77$ Net Profit 177,275.83$ Net Profit 4.34%Net Profit 19.66% DSCR 1.55 DSCR 2.99 Aloha Theatre Inn Comprehensive Cash Flow Year 1 JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Net Income Before Taxes 6,212 6,219 6,227 (1,694) (1,686) (3,641) (3,633) (3,625) (1,654) (1,645) (1,637) 2,335 1,780 Depreciation 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 67,964 Amortization 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 5,429 - Operating Cash Flow 12,328 12,336 12,344 4,422 4,430 2,475 2,483 2,491 4,463 4,471 4,479 8,452 75,173 Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cash Flow Before Financing 12,328 12,336 12,344 4,422 4,430 2,475 2,483 2,491 4,463 4,471 4,479 8,452 75,173 Long-Term Bank Debt (Pmts)(2,564) (2,575) (2,586) (2,597) (2,609) (2,620) (2,632) (2,643) (2,655) (2,666) (2,678) (2,690) (31,515) Financing Cash Flow (2,564) (2,575) (2,586) (2,597) (2,609) (2,620) (2,632) (2,643) (2,655) (2,666) (2,678) (2,690) (31,515) Comprehensive Cash Flow 9,764 9,761 9,757 1,825 1,822 (145) (148) (152) 1,808 1,804 1,801 5,762 43,659 Beginning Cash 90,000 99,764 109,525 119,282 121,107 122,929 122,784 122,636 122,484 124,292 126,096 127,897 Plus: Operating Cash Flow 12,328 12,336 12,344 4,422 4,430 2,475 2,483 2,491 4,463 4,471 4,479 8,452 Plus: Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - Plus: Financing Cash Flow (2,564) (2,575) (2,586) (2,597) (2,609) (2,620) (2,632) (2,643) (2,655) (2,666) (2,678) (2,690) ENDING CASH 99,764 109,525 119,282 121,107 122,929 122,784 122,636 122,484 124,292 126,096 127,897 133,659 133,659 63 Aloha Theatre Inn should not be an issue. ATI thus may generate options for loan pay down, undertaking additional marketing efforts or investing in capital improvements for the enhancement of the property. Breakeven Analysis Breakeven analysis identifies the minimum revenue a business must generate in order to avoid sustaining a loss. When a business achieves that volume, total sales equals total expenses. The definition of breakeven is "that amount of revenue where all direct costs have been recovered, fixed expenses and fixed overhead absorbed, and at which point profits begin to accrue.” Breakeven analysis can provide ATI the foundation for profit planning, allowing more informed decision making rather than speculative estimates. It can be applied to possible future expansions, purchases or changes in the number of employees. A “what if” breakeven analysis shows how much additional sales revenue must be generated to cover an additional cost, or, conversely, the amount by which costs must be reduced to compensate for a reduction in sales volume. Based on the Year 1 total revenues and costs as detailed above, the before-tax breakeven revenue that ATI will need to achieve is shown in the following table. By adding a predetermined amount for Net Profit as a fixed cost to be covered, breakeven analysis can be used to create monthly and quarterly sales goals. These goals can be supported by employee incentives. The following chart shows the point where Net Profit is zero (read on the left axis), Revenues of $598,061 (read on the right axis), exactly offset Fixed Costs of $498,875, plus COGS (Variable Costs) of $99,186. The data points to the right of the breakeven point represent Net Profit (before tax), for example, to achieve a Net Profit of $20,854, Fixed Costs remain at $498,875, while COGS would be $103,333, making Total Expenses $602,208 and the required Revenue $623,061. Period Break Even Revenue Daily $2,300 Weekly $11,501 Monthly $49,838 Annually $598,061 64 Aloha Theatre Inn Breakeven Chart It is notable that this analysis has been made according to the 50% occupancy base case, and therefore, as occupancy improves, the breakeven analysis will change accordingly. Year 2 and Year 3 Cash Flow Statements are adjusted for growth and occupancy and shown in Appendix A-12 and A-13, respectively. Projected Balance Sheet Year 1 This Balance Sheet and subsequent analysis are based on the conservative model of a 50% occupancy rate of both the hotel and the commercial lease spaces. $602,208 $623,061 $20,854 (250,000) (200,000) (150,000) (100,000) (50,000) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Net Profit $Expense & Revenue $Aloha Theatre Inn Break Even Chart • Year 1 Total Expenses Revenue Net Profit 65 Aloha Theatre Inn Financial Ratios The projected Current Ratio is strong, averaging $15.04 over the period, indicating current assets are more than adequate to cover current liabilities, that is, for every $1 of current liabilities, ATI will have on average $15.04 in assets over the projection horizon. Thus sufficient liquidity exists to support company operations. However, liquidity ratios can be misleading, and therefore an analysis of the type and quality of current assets and liabilities held by the company creates the context in which liquidity can be assessed. Since the company’s business model does not generate trade receivables, current Assets consist of Cash, while Current Liabilities are the Current Portion of Long-Term Debt, and potentially a small amount of Accounts Payables for supplies, etc. So in this case, the Current Ratio is a good indication of more than sufficient liquidity. Debt to Equity Ratio averages 2.55 over the period, which is an indication of moderate leverage. To the extent that ATI is projected to generate returns in excess of the cost of capital, the company will continue to benefit. Further, it is easily conceivable that the company will decide to retire portions of the debt, depending on the then current operational and market conditions. Net Income is projected to be 0.42% in Year 1, 31.40% in Year 2, and rising to 33.73% in Year 3. The average for the projection horizon is 21.85%. Growing numbers of visitors during the Aloha Theatre Inn Monthly Balance Sheet Year 1 31-Jan 28-Feb 31-Mar 30-Apr 31-May 30-Jun 31-Jul 31-Aug 30-Sep 31-Oct 30-Nov 31-Dec CURRENT ASSETS Cash 99,764 109,525 119,282 121,107 122,929 122,784 122,636 122,484 124,292 126,096 127,897 133,659 Other Current Assets 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 262,642 272,403 282,160 283,985 285,807 285,662 285,514 285,362 287,170 288,974 290,775 296,537 FIXED ASSETS Equipment/Land/Buildings 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (6,116) (12,232) (18,348) (24,464) (30,581) (36,697) (42,813) (48,929) (55,045) (61,161) (67,277) (73,393) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 2,644,488 2,638,372 2,632,256 2,626,140 2,620,023 2,613,907 2,607,791 2,601,675 2,595,559 2,589,443 2,583,327 2,577,211 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL ASSETS 2,907,130 2,910,775 2,914,416 2,910,125 2,905,830 2,899,569 2,893,305 2,887,037 2,882,728 2,878,417 2,874,101 2,873,747 ======================================================================================================================== CURRENT LIABILITIES Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 31,653 31,791 31,930 32,070 32,210 32,351 32,493 32,635 32,778 32,921 33,065 33,210 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 31,653 31,791 31,930 32,070 32,210 32,351 32,493 32,635 32,778 32,921 33,065 33,210 LONG TERM LIABILITIES USDA B&I Loan 2,232,436 2,229,862 2,227,275 2,224,678 2,222,069 2,219,449 2,216,817 2,214,174 2,211,519 2,208,853 2,206,175 2,203,485 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LONG TERM LIABILITIES 2,200,784 2,198,070 2,195,345 2,192,608 2,189,859 2,187,098 2,184,325 2,181,539 2,178,742 2,175,932 2,173,110 2,170,276 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,232,436 2,229,862 2,227,275 2,224,678 2,222,069 2,219,449 2,216,817 2,214,174 2,211,519 2,208,853 2,206,175 2,203,485 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OWNER'S EQUITY Capital Stock/Owner's Equity 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 Paid-In Capital 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 Owner Distributions - - - - - - - - - - - - Retained Earnings 6,212 12,431 18,659 16,965 15,279 11,638 8,005 4,381 2,727 1,082 (556) 1,780 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OWNER'S EQUITY 674,694 680,913 687,141 685,447 683,761 680,120 676,487 672,863 671,209 669,564 667,926 670,262 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 2,907,130 2,910,775 2,914,416 2,910,125 2,905,830 2,899,569 2,893,305 2,887,037 2,882,728 2,878,417 2,874,101 2,873,747 ======================================================================================================================== Financial Ratios Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Average Current Ratio 8.93 14.92 21.28 15.04 Debt to Equity 3.29 2.46 1.91 2.55 Net Income 0.42%31.40%33.73%21.85% Operating Cash Flow/Sales 12.51%47.31%51.70%37.17% 66 Aloha Theatre Inn recovery, as well as the increasingly effective execution of the marketing strategies drive revenue growth, while fixed costs remain stable. Revenue figures above are conservative, with Net Income increasing as the occupancy forecast becomes robust, so profitability should be seen in this light. Combined federal and state income taxes are estimated at 30% of pre-tax income. Operating Cash Flow/Sales shows that ATI will be able to consistently turn sales into cash flow. It would be worrisome to see the company's sales grow without a parallel growth in operating cash flow, however, this is not the case, as the ratio increases from 12.51% in Year 1, to 47.31% in Year 2, and to 51.7% in Year 3. Positive and negative changes in the company’s operations will affect this ratio. Year 2 and Year 3 Cash Flow Statements are adjusted for growth and occupancy and shown in Appendix A-12 and A-14, respectively. E.5 Risks Related to the Project E.5.1 The Offering See Section D.7 Project Risks for a discussion of related risks. E.5.2 Applicant Financing Plan This project is financed by a USDA guaranteed Business & Industry Loan with a principal amount of $2,235,000 amortized over 30 years with a fixed interst rate of 5.25%. Sources and Uses of Funds The following table shows the estimated sources and uses of funds at the time of this writing, and which are subject to change. The principal’s initial equity of $668,482 consists of a contribution of $404,025, and $264,457 in land value, and represents 23% of tangible balance sheet equity of the total project cost of $2,903,482. 67 Aloha Theatre Inn E.5.3 Operational Units This section is not applicable to this study. E.5.4 Tax Issues Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) is a state tax collected on hotel room gross revenue. The current rate is 10.25%. General Excise Tax (GET) is a 4% state value added tax (with a Kauaʻi county surcharge of .5%) collected on all gross business revenue from doing business in Hawaiʻi.51 It important to note that the GET and the TAT should be shown separately on the hotel bill. The GET (including a county surcharge if applicable) and the TAT that are visibly passed on to the guest are excluded from gross rental proceeds subject to the TAT. The TAT that is visibly passed on to the guest or tenant is exempt from the GET. However, the GET that is visibly passed on is included in taxable income subject to the GET. If guests are charged a flat fee without separately stating the GET and the TAT, then the hotel becomes liable for GET (including a county surcharge if applicable) and TAT on the entire amount. Visibly passed on means guests should be informed that the hotel will will pass on the 51 https://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/taxfacts/tf2015-37-1.pdf Line Item Costs Loan Amount ATI Land acquisition 264,457 0 264,457 TMK: (4) 1-9-004-013-0000; 22,521 sq ft Renovation Soft and hard costs paid to date 404,025 0 404,025 Architect, Permits, Admin Asst, Mkt & Insurance 150,011 150,011 0 Demo, Construction Supplies, Labor, Contractors, etc.1,573,573 1,573,573 0 Construction Hard and Soft Cost Contingency 258,538 258,538 0 Subtotal 2,650,604 1,982,122 668,482 Interest Reserves during construction @ 57% of Avg Bal 90,000 90,000 0 Lender Loan fee at 1.0% of Loan Amount 22,350 22,350 0 USDA RD B&I Guaranty Fee @ 3.00% of Loan Amount 53,640 53,640 0 MAI Appraisal Report - Rehkemper & Co., Inc.10,000 10,000 0 Phase I Environmental Report 4,000 4,000 0 Construction Monitoring 50,000 50,000 0 Loan Closing Costs including Attorney Fees 10,000 10,000 0 ALTA Title Policy Fees & Endorsements 4,500 4,500 0 Escrow Fee/UCC Search Fees/Filing Fees, etc 3,000 3,000 0 Contingency 5,388 5,388 0 Subtotal Soft Costs 162,878 162,878 0 Totals 2,903,482$ 2,235,000$ 668,482$ Project cost allocation 100.00%77.00%23.00% 68 Aloha Theatre Inn GET and the TAT whenever the price is quoted. GET and the TAT must be separately stated and identified on the bill. Following is an example of hotel charges on a bill with visible pass-on of GET and TAT: Room Rate: $100 TAT: $10.25 GET: $4.50 Total Charge: $114.75 Because the taxes were visibly passed on, the $10.25 TAT and the $4.50 GET from the gross room proceeds subject to the TAT are excluded. The taxable income subject to the GET and the county surcharge is $104.50. The state also charges GET on the hotel’s receipt of the $104.50, making the effective GET rate (with the county surcharge) 4.712% (the tax stated as a percent of the price is 0.047120 or 4.712%, that is, 4.5% divided by 95.5%). Therefore, most if not all hotels will use a GET rate of 4.712%, which is the maximum allowable pass-on rate, in order to recover the GET paid on the original GET amount. In this case the bill with visible pass-on of GET and TAT will be: Room Rate: $100 TAT: $10.25 GET: $4.71 Total Charge: $114.96 The Income Statements above reflect that GET at 4.712% is charged on both the hotel room gross revenue and the commercial lease spaces, while TAT at 10.25% only applies to the hotel room gross revenue. E.6 Financial Feasibility Recommendation A thorough review of the assumptions made by the principal shows them to be reasonable given the macro and micro economic climates in which she will operate. The business model has clearly demonstrated value creation for well-defined market segments. The financial risks have been identified and analyzed through a sensitivity analysis, showing that this project is viable even at 50% occupancy of both the hotel and the leased commercial spaces. First year revenue is project to be over $1 million at the conservative 50% occupancy rate. While we cannot of course predict the future, the company has been conservative in its projections of revenues and costs, has prudent contingency plans in place, and has engaged professional guidance where necessary. Taken together, these factors lead us to conclude that barring any serious natural disaster or other unforseen serious failure, this is a financially sound project. 69 Aloha Theatre Inn F. Management Feasibility F.1 Adequacy of Management (Experience, Training and Education of Management) F.1.1 Introduction Successful managers must be able to oversee staff, direct various aspects of daily business operations, and in general, ensuring that a business runs, such as the ATI runs smoothly. Managers must have a knowledge of the industry, good communication skills, ability to direct people, time management, and problem-solving abilities. Ms. Danaher has these qualifications which will help to guide her as she builds and runs the ATI. A copy of Ms. Danaher’s resume is provided in Appendix A-2. With over 20 years of relevant experience, Ms. Danaher has the ability to lead the to make the ATI a successful operation. F.1.2 The ATI Management Team Ms. Danaher has established both the Hanapēpē Construction Company LLC (License No. 37359) and Malcom Street Properties LLC doing business as (dba) Aloha Theatre HUI LLC (see Appendix A-15 and A-16). The first phase, which includes demolition and remodel of the original theatre, will be led by the Hanapēpē Construction Company. Once construction is completed and the hotel is operational, the Aloha Theatre Hui LLC will manage day to day operations of the project. Hanapēpē Construction Company Ms. Danaher leads the Hanapēpē Construction Company. She will oversee the entire project through every phase, design, purchasing, budgeting and hiring sub-contractors. The company will include 6 personnel. Ms. Danaher’s son, Ryan who has helped her lead other projects will lead the onsite activities. Jeff Hamm who has worked with Lynn and Ryan for over 16 years will be the lead construction supervisor. The team also includes 2 builders/carpenters and an administrative assistant for invoicing, ordering, payroll, insurance payments etc. The Aloha Theatre Hui The Aloha Theatre Hui (ATH) company has been created but is just that at this point. When the theatre renovation is complete, the ATH will take over ownership of the hotel and all of the day to day operations. Company Name Role Owner Team Hanapēpē Construction LLC Builder Lynn Danaher Lynn and her son Ryan along with an experienced, construction crew and sub contractors Malcom Street Properties LLC dba Aloha Theatre Hui Owner Theatre Owner and eventually Operator Lynn Danaher Ryan Bennett Lynn Danaher Ryan Bennett 70 Aloha Theatre Inn F.1.3 Experience This project will require many different kinds of experience and skills sets throughout each of its phases - purchase, design, renovation and remodeling, and leasing and ongoing management. The purchase and design have both been completed. The next most important phase will be the renovation and build out / construction of the theatre which is currently underway. ` Ms. Danaher, the driving force behind this project brings the following skills and experience: • 20 years of project management skills / construction experience • Received coveted Stewardship Award for conscientious redevelopment in 2009 • 14 projects built with 8 being restoration of historic buildings with a commitment to keep architectural / historic integrity while making them cash flow positive, thus guaranteeing their preservation • Supervised the successful move of three historic houses, 2 in WA and one in HI • A commitment to Hawaiʻi with 2 residential projects completed, currently resides in Kauaʻi • Commitment to repurposing not only buildings, but materials as well, insuring less landfill waste, especially with Hawaii’s limited land area for dumps • Financially / commercially successful buildings generated approximately $440,000 annually since 2000 • Relevant technology skills related to property management and hotel management Since 2000, Ms. Danaher has been the Project Manager and Supervisor for a series of 10 renovations into adaptive reuse of older historical structures and under-utilized commercial buildings in both Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi and Friday Harbor, a small town in the San Juan Islands in Washington state, where she resided previously since 1994. Each renovation required different skills. See the following table, for a summary of these projects. No. Project Name Key Attributes Key Updates 1 Churchill House - 468 Argyle Suites, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 (also known as Argyle Suites) Historic Property Purchased 2009 Completed 2009 Commercial • Was built in 1893 • Slated to be torn down • Moved to new location • Restored and created 4 offices • Winner of 2009 Stewardship Award • Cash flow positive while maintaining historical integrity 2 Carter House -468 Argyle Suites, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 (also known as Argyle Suites) Historic Property Purchased 2009 Completed 2009 Commercial & Residential • Was originally built as a wedding present • Was previously a rental property for decades • Was in terrible state of disrepair when purchased in 2008 • Ms. Danaher fully restored it in 2009 • It now houses 1 apartment and 2 offices • Cash flow positive while maintaining historical integrity 3 Ace Building – Ace Hardware Building 340 Argyle Avenue Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Foreclosure property Purchased 2008 Purchased 2008 Completed 2009 Commercial 25,000 Sq. ft. • The building was relatively sound but was grossly underutilized and not attractive • Needed a facelift and an interior redesign • Supervised the entire project from the purchase, all phases of design, renovation and remodeling to leasing. • The upstairs was a huge unused storage area. • Converted to 5 affordable apartments 71 Aloha Theatre Inn No. Project Name Key Attributes Key Updates • This required managing an electrician, plumber and carpenters. I had to design for updating of the sprinkler system a secure locking system for the residences with an intercom and magnetic locks. • The entire interior design was all my ideas and drawn by a local draftsman. • Contracted with a local artist to do an exterior mural as a gift to the Town of Friday Harbor. 4 380 Argyle Avenue, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 “Old Bike Shop” Purchased 2018 Completed 2020 Commercial 1,600 Sq. ft. • In 2018 we bought a historic structure built in 1920. commercially zoned • Created 4 commercial spaces • Ryan has been in charge of supervising the complete redesign and build out of the building • This included foundation repair, new wiring and, new plumbing, new heating system, new windows, framing and interior finishing. 5 60 Malcom Street Purchased 2009 Completed 2010 Commercial 2800 Sq. ft. • In 2010 I Supervised the move of this old house that was made completely from old growth fir. • Slated to be torn down so moved it to save it. • I was the Project Manager in charge of designing and building a new foundation, it was re plumbed, rewired, painted, remodeled to create 3 offices and a vacation rental. • Once completed we completely landscaped it and provided pervious parking. SOLD 6 20 Malcom St., Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Purchased 2001 Completed 2006 Residential/commercial • Building was uninhabitable • Supervised project which required planning and design, foundation repair, a new roof, plumbing, wiring, framing and finishing. 7 3888 Gallo Place, Kalaheo, HI 96741 Purchased 2004 Completed 2010 Residential Located in Kauaʻi • Supervised project which required planning and design, foundation repair, a new roof, re plumbing, rewiring, framing and finishing. 8 3690 Akea Road, Hanapēpē, 96716 Moved from Waimea to Hanapēpē Purchased 2013 Completed 2015 Residential Located in Kauaʻi • Supervised project which required planning and design, foundation repair, a new roof, re plumbing, rewiring, framing and finishing. • Ms. Danaher’s current personal residence • 85% rebuilt from repurposed materials 9 Surina Business Park Friday Harbor Purchased in 2001 Sold in 2014 80-unit storage and incubator business park. 16,000 SF • Grossly unkept, underutilized and mismanaged for years. • Set up a new accounting/billing system. • Created a small park in the middle where old cars and junk had set. Installed watering system • Remodeled the onsite manager apt 10 Acanthus Suites at 460 Argyle Avenue Friday Harbor Classic Craftsman style home with completely unused 2nd floor • Zoned commercial so created 6 vacation rental suites, by adding new walls and doors. • Included finishing the 2nd floor into 3 suites, and the ground floor into 3 more suites. • New wiring and plumbing installed throughout, upgraded heating system. • Furnished, set up reservation system & web site Ms. Danaher currently resides in a property she renovated which located at 3690 Akea Road in Hanapēpē (shown later in this section). 72 Aloha Theatre Inn Ms. Danaher - Construction and Project Management Experience Commercial Projects Over the past several years, Ms. Danaher has been dedicated to preserving historic buildings in the small island town of Friday Harbor, WA. She has applied adaptive reuse, demonstrating that it can create a positive cash flow insuring the building’s historic preservation. Two of the structures she supervised being moved to a new site. This required foundation design and installation. Several of the structures required foundation repair as well. Throughout each project, Ms. Danaher supervised all the design and planning as well as re-wiring re- plumbing replacing windows, painting, framing, cabinet install and repairing or replacing the roof. Once the remodel and renovation were completed, she was responsible for coordinating all of the landscaping and paving to finish the project. Ms. Danaher purchased and co-owns with Ryan Bennett a group of 9 desirable commercially zoned studios and apartments which can also be used as vacation rentals. Ms. Danaher was responsible for setting up the management system, QuickBooks, web reservations, VRBO and created the web site (see Figure F-1). She has managed all aspects of the units and operated it for 3 years. She then transferred the day to day management of the properties to San Juan Property Management for the last 4 years. Ms. Danaher’s most ambitious project was purchasing the 25,000 square foot Ace Building in 2009. She bought the bad debt from the bank and foreclosed. The building was relatively sound but was grossly underutilized and not cosmetically pleasing. It needed a facelift and an interior redesign. Ms. Danaher supervised the entire project from the purchase, all phases of design, renovation and remodeling to leasing. The entire upstairs was a huge unused storage area. Ms. Danaher converted it into 5 affordable apartments. This required managing an electrician, Figure F-1. Website Ms. Danaher created for her rental properties 73 Aloha Theatre Inn plumber, and carpenters. When updating the sprinkler system, Ms. Danaher had to take into account a secure locking system for the residences with an intercom and magnetic locks. The entire interior design was the idea of Ms. Danaher and was drawn by a local draftsman. Ms. Danaher also contracted with a local artist to do a mural on the exterior. See Figure F-2 for a before and after. Figure F-2. Renovation Project for Ace Hardware 74 Aloha Theatre Inn Historic Preservation - Many of the buildings that Ms. Danaher purchased and renovated in Washington State were historic buildings. She received the Stewardship Award for her work in San Juan, Washington. See Figure F-3 for a mural created for the ACE Hardware building. In Ms. Danaher’s words “I think it is an important distinction to make sure that property can be developed, and historic structures can be moved and restored in good taste, all the while maintaining the historic character. All this is possible by using sound environmental and economic principals. Parking areas do not need to be non-pervious asphalt, they can be lovely green areas when not being used for parking by using grasscrete, and soil. The parking area is further complimented by good design in landscaping Careful thought went into adapting the historic homes into useable contemporary professional spaces. This was accomplished through the use of adequate sound proofing, new energy efficient, weather resistant doors and windows, insulation blown in the old walls, and new electric wiring and plumbing throughout. Most units have an outside deck or porch tastefully adapted from the original structure, so there is an opportunity to enjoy some outside space during good weather. Painting is important to get it right, with the correct colors. I used a lot of recycled material. I abhor waste of any kind and if something can be adapted to a new use, I will use it. Brick used in the parking and landscaping is from the original Churchill House chimney. Many light fixtures, the architectural details and most of the tile is from the RE store. The upper porch railing turned pieces on the Carter House were from an old Victorian from San Francisco, they were donated in case I could use them, I found a great place for them and they add so much to the character of the Carter House upper deck. I thank all the subs who worked with me to bring this vision to fruition. Both houses are virtually new structures. Adapting them into commercial offices insures their continued use and preservation for another 100 years. In 2010, Ms. Danaher Supervised the move of an old house that was made completely from old growth fir. It was slated to be torn down and so Ms. Danaher purchased it in order to save it and Figure F-3. ACE Hardware building mural 75 Aloha Theatre Inn then had it moved to a new location. Ms. Danaher was the Project Manager in charge of designing and building a new foundation, it was replumbed, rewired, painted, and remodeled to create 3 offices and a vacation rental. Once completed, Ms. Danaher also led that team that landscaped it and provided pervious parking. She was awarded the Island Stewardship Award. In 2018, Ms. Danaher and Ryan Bennett bought another older structure commercially zoned at 380 Argyle Avenue in Friday Harbor. Ms. Danaher’s son, Ryan Bennett was in charge of supervising the complete redesign and build out of the building into 4 vacation rentals, this included foundation repair, completely new wiring and electrical system, new plumbing throughout, install of a new heating system, new windows, framing and interior finishing Surina Business Park 2001 & 2013, SOLD This project included installing landscaping with sprinklers, exterior design, installed a complete water and sewer system. See Figure F-4 for the before and after photos. Figure 5 shows the before and after for the Malcom Street property. Figure F-4. Surina Business Park Figure F-5. 20 Malcom Street Before and After 76 Aloha Theatre Inn Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the historic Churchill house before, during the move and after. Figure F-6. Historic Churchill House Before and During Move Figure F-7. Historic Churchill House Before 77 Aloha Theatre Inn Residential Projects Ms. Danaher has led several residential remodeling projects primarily between 2006 and 2018. She has supervised each project which required planning and design, foundation repair, a new roof, replumbing, rewiring, framing and finishing. Two of the projects have been located in Hawaiʻi and one of these in Hanapēpē (see Figures F-8 and F-9). Figure F-8. 3888 Gallo Place, Kalaheo, HI Before and After Figure F-9. 3690 Akea Road, Hanapēpē Before and After; Ms. Danaher’s Current Residence Project Management and Inspection Team On all building projects, Ms. Danaher engages or assigns a Project Manager, Project Architect, Construction Manager, and Project Inspector. On smaller projects some of these roles may be done by the same individual. On larger projects these roles are done by different individuals. For the ATI Project, the construction management and project inspection team will be consisted of the following individuals (“Project Team): 1. Project Manager (“PM”) -Lynn Danaher and Ryan Bennett 2. Co-Construction Manager/Project Inspector(“CM”) - Palms Hawai’i 3. Project Inspector - Palms Hawai’i 4. Project Engineering/Design Consultants -Palms Hawai’i 78 Aloha Theatre Inn F.1.4 Training Ms. Danaher has several formal training and certifications including: • Certifications - Hanapēpē Construction LLC Currently hold a State of Hawaiʻi General Contractors License # 37359, she grew up in the trades her Father was a contractor. • USCG Licensed Master 100-ton Sail and Motor • Fellow of the Explorers Club, in charge of the renovation of the HQ building in NYC • Expedition Leader for 6 expeditions throughout Oceania. www.islandexplorer.org F.1.5 Education of Management Ms. Danaher attended the University of Hawaiʻi, majoring in Psychology and Anthropology. Her father was a contractor, so she was raised in the trades. She has imparted all her knowledge and expertise by on the job training for her son Ryan Bennett. See table below. Name Role Education Lynn Danaher Owner and Project Lead • University of Hawaiʻi attended classes in Psychology and Anthropology. • Maui Community College, Hotel Management Ryan Bennett Project Supervisor • On the job Jeff Hamm Lead builder • Former WA State Contractor Toni Michele Head housekeeper • Worked for Principal in FH since 2009 F.2 Continuity of Management F.2.1 Continuity of Management Plan Ms. Danaher continues to lead most of the properties she has purchased, renovated and leased for the last 20 years. See Appendix A-2 for Ms. Danaher’s resume which includes a summary of her background, experience and training. Ms. Danaher will continue, after the construction is complete of the ATI to oversee the day-to-day operations of the ATI. Due to the nature of the project, once construction and renovation is complete, Ms. Danaher will need to staff and run the ATI. Ms. Danaher will initially act as GM, and she will have plenty of time to interview and decide on a General Manager of the ATI. The employees to be hired will all be new to the company but not new to Kauaʻi or the tourism industry. Her plan is to hire all locally for all jobs and offer full benefits and no less than $15 per hour. Ms. Danaher and Ryan Bennett have managed all their properties and keep many of the same staff since purchasing them. They leased their vacation rentals to San Juan Property Management to enable them to pursue the ATI project. F.2.2 Depth of Management By definition, management work pertains to the work that managers and partners perform in the six functions of management, and their corresponding segment of activities: strategy, planning, organizing, leadership, teamwork and control. Depth of management in these areas can pertain to 79 Aloha Theatre Inn their level of expertise - most usually indicated by years of experience. In this case, Ms. Danaher and her team have a combined 87 years of experience (see table below). Name Role Years of Experience Lynn Danaher Owner and Project Lead 20 Ryan Bennett Construction Supervisor 16 Jeff Hamm Lead Builder (have worked together on several projects for over 20 years) 40 Toni Michele Head Housekeeper 11 F.3 Motivation and Character of Management F.3.1 Motivation A person’s motivation can be demonstrated through their initiative. An entrepreneur, such as Ms. Danaher, must be a self-starter by definition. She has had to figure things out along the way, learn on her own time, in order to get the job done. Ms. Danaher is motivated to do all of this for her passion and purpose - as she defines it: I am an independent, self-employed woman with a very diverse background. My expertise is commercial construction and business start-ups. I am also a USCG Licensed Master & Fellow of the Explorers Club, Member Board of Directors for 6 years. I am a problem solver, skilled in logistics and coordination. I am creative, organized, energetic, and possess excellent financial and communications skills. I have managed construction crews on a variety of projects. Plus, I have created many successful business starts-ups, from conception, set up, marketing and management. F.3.2 Character Character can be defined differently depending on the person defining it. However, most people can agree that some of the key aspects include making commitments, honesty, reliability, consistency in actions, loyalty and helpful to others. Ms. Danaher’s character can be externally validated by the letters of support summarized in the following table. The complete letters and documents can be found in Appendix A-17. They include both approved support from State and Local organizations for the Aloha Theatre proposed demolition and renovation. The letters also contain 2 from Islander Bank who Ms. Danaher worked with to finance projects in Washington State and finally a letter of support from the current present of the Explorer’s Club where Ms. Danaher served for 6 years on the board (the maximum allowed). An excerpt from the Hanapēpē Economic Alliance which is responsible for the Beautification, Revitalization and Historic Preservation of Hanapēpē. Ms. Judith Page, the President wrote: “Lynn Danaher’s version for the building includes a café, retail / commercial space on the ground floor with food and hotel rooms above…. This fits well with the HEA’s vision for Hanapēpē Town… 80 Aloha Theatre Inn HEA and the community have sadly watched this iconic building slowly deteriorate over the years. Most have about given up on it ever being rescued and returned to the community. We are thrilled that Lynn is willing and able to save it and bring it back as a central piece of the Hanapēpē’s historic business district.” Organization Summary of Type of Support Hanapēpē Economic Alliance 3/20/2019 Letter of Support • “Heartily supports the renovation of the Aloha Theatre” - Judith Page, President State of Hawaiʻi - Dept. of Commerce and Consumer Affairs 10/03/2020 • Certificate of Good Standing for the Aloha Theatre Hui LLC Hawaiʻi Historic Foundation 3/21/2019 Email from Kiersten Faulkner, Executive Director • Letter of Support that HHF supports this project County of Kaua‘i - Historic Preservation Review Commission 3/21/2019 Director’s Report • Recommending the Commission SUPPORT the proposed demolition and renovation of the Aloha Theatre and the demolition and construction of a new motel on the property County of Kaua‘i - Historic Preservation Review Commission 5/7/2019 Memorandum signed by Aubrey Summers, Chair of the Commission • Letter memorializing the action to support the proposed demolition and renovation of the Aloha Theatre Scott S, Senior Loan Officer, Islanders Bank, VP 10/22/2019 Letter of Recommendation for Lynn Danaher as a potential borrower • Lynn has banked with them since 2000 and has had loans which have always been in good standing and paid loans as agreed David Moorhouse, Board Member for Islanders Bank in Friday Harbor, WA for over 30 years 3/11/2019 Email letter of Character stating that he has personally witnessed Lynn invest in and operate several successful real estate ventures. • Personally invested in successful real estate ventures with Lynn Richard Wiese, President, the Explorers Club 4/14/2020 Letter of Recommendation Lynn served on the Board of Directors for 6 years • Initiated, along with other members, evaluated the historic headquarters building for repairs and renovations, reviewing and evaluating bids, currently serves on the HQ Renovation committee. F.4 Risks Related to Applicant as a Company and Conflicts of Interest F.4.1 Risks Related to the Hanapēpē Construction LLC as an Applicant Ms. Danaher is the owner and operator of the Hanapēpē Construction LLC. Although it is a newly-formed entity, it is led by Ms. Danaher who has been leading remodeling and construction projects of historic properties for the last 20 years. So, while many start up organizations face 81 Aloha Theatre Inn certain challenges, Ms. Danaher is well versed in the key aspects of all stages of the project from purchase, remodeling, and sales / ongoing management. Ms. Danaher has not only started, but has successfully led (and continues to do so) companies in this real estate business model. She understands the financial aspects of arriving quickly at a viable business model, attracting, and retaining reliable staff and happy tenants over several years, thereby building and an adequate capital structure. F.4.2 Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest We have identified no issues related to the applicant with regard to conflicts of interest or appearances thereof. F.5 Recommendation Ms. Danaher’s experience renovating other properties and generating a positive revenue stream is a strong indicator of her ability for future success. Her knowledge of and ability to closely monitor finances, her ability to successfully leverage technology, and built a team that she has worked with for many years is another indication of her potential for future success. She has a commitment to a moral and ethical approach to the way she manages and operates her properties as well as a commitment to the environment. Her recommendation letters also provide external validation of her abilities. It is recommended that this project is feasible from a management perspective. 82 Aloha Theatre Inn H. Social Feasibility H.1 Social Feasibility H.1.1 Introduction In this section, we will address the assessment of the project’s impact on the lives of people that live and work in Kauaʻi and, in particular, the Hanapēpē area - the main area of influence of the project. This social impact analysis seeks to demonstrate both the positive and negative impacts of the project on the communities in and around the site of the ATI. We have identified and analyzed various data sources to understand the scale and reach of the project’s social impacts. H.1.2 Scope of Social Impact Analysis The social impact analysis was conducted by seeking out a variety of sources of information with the intent to understand as broad a set of issues related to changes in the social, economic, and cultural condition of those who live and work in the surrounding community. Every project has its own set of unique social issues. By identifying these and then seeking to understand their impact can help mitigate these issues. The impact analysis was based on a review of a number of multiple sources of data available, including: • Letters of Reference and Support • Zoning and Planning board documents (Public records) o Kaua‘i county General Plan - 2018 o West Kauaʻi Community Plan - Draft, 2020 • Population demographics • News articles We have categorized our findings into the following areas: • Community Organization Support • Historical Character • Cultural Preservation and Propagation • Population Demographics • Business Owners and Traffic Community Organization Support Ms. Danaher understands the value of social support for the project to reduce the overall risks of the project, reduce resistance, strengthen support and allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the costs and benefits of the project. Most importantly, she has a deep connection to Hawaiʻi having studied at the University of Hawaiʻi, self-studied Polynesian cultures for over 30 years and now has returned to live in Kauaʻi. Ms. Danaher has worked on several historic and architecturally significant properties in her past as discussed previously. She recognizes the value of community support and has met with several organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and recently become the VP of the Hanapēpē Economic Alliance. Letters of support from her work in Washington State and organizations in Hawaiʻi were discussed earlier in Section F. 83 Aloha Theatre Inn Ms. Danaher purchased the Aloha Theatre in February 2019. The building was uninhabitable as it had been abandoned by the previous owner, had over $100,000 in liens and was a general eye sore to the community of Hanapēpē. To date, the transfer of ownership, has allowed her to shore up the building and clean it up. Historical Character The Draft 2020 West Kaua‘i Community Plan is a comprehensive document which details a similar approach for the development plan for all of West Kauaʻi for the next 20 years. The document followed a structured approach seeking input from citizens in the area as well as many other sources of data. One of the sections of the document, Part II. Regional Policies, A. Town Design52 states: “Value Statement - West Kaua‘i’s towns embody the region’s rich and storied past. Each town’s historic buildings and built environment lay the groundwork for future development. By retaining the character and well-defined edges of each small town, we also protect the region’s open spaces and rural heritage53.” The ATI renovation will restore a cultural icon to the community and retain the character of the existing structure - including painting it the same pink that it was originally painted when built. This renovation is in alignment with the WKCP plan, which states: “Vision The vision for Hanapēpē is to protect the existing historic buildings and develop supportive infrastructure and facilities to enhance the commercial environment. Small-scale development, along with additional shared spaces, will produce a more walkable, mixed-use environment.”54 Cultural Preservation Ms. Danaher, as someone who has a long history with Hawaiʻi, seeks to promote the history of properties she has worked on. Given her past history, Ms. Danaher will absolutely seek to, as part of this project, celebrate Hawaiian history as well as support ongoing cultural awareness. For instance, Ms. Danaher will have in the gallery portion of the hotel, a rotating display of historical artifacts and photos on display at all times. Ms. Danaher also plans to have lectures regarding the history of the area and Polynesia as well as other cultural lectures, films and events. Many long-time residents have a cultural connection to the theatre - as evidence by some of the comments on the Civil Beat Article. 52 http://westkauaiplan.org/?fbclid=IwAR376_9VtiKQ2tJ0oGJK1bEbNmTO7smfqLIx0mYlGDqqOux8QAYGPuOFmXM, pg. 11 53 Ibid. pg. 11 54 Ibid. pg. 41 84 Aloha Theatre Inn Population Demographics Hanapēpē and West Kauaʻi have been inhabited for over one thousand years. In 1835 sugar plantations were established…. drastically changing its people and landscape. World War II brought new facilities and population growth to West Kauaʻi. During the post-war period, sugar production began to wane. The last plantation closed in 2010. Agriculture once dominated the West Kauaʻi economy but no longer. It now employs less than 500 people in agriculture research, coffee, cattle, and other small operations. New industries including tourism, military, and health now support most of the West Side workforce55. Today, West Kauaʻi is growing slowly and shifting demographically. The population of approximately 12,000 is aging and the median age continues to trend upwards. Population growth projections indicate that throughout the next 25 years West Kaua‘i is expected to gain approximately 1,800 additional residents—from a total population of 11,916 in 2010 to 13,660 in 2035. While population growth is projected to increase, the average annual growth rate is projected to decrease between 2010 and 2035, indicating a slowing growth trend56. Prior to the pandemic, there are more workers than jobs in the region, and many residents bear the financial burden of commuting elsewhere. The lack of economic opportunities on the Westside, and Kauaʻi in general, has perpetuated a loss of Kaua‘i’s younger generations. The Westside’s affordable housing and jobs imbalance needs to be remedied in order for the region to become economically self-sustaining57. The ATI will eventually be a 15+ room hotel that will need a number of staff to help run it. The ATI is expected to create 13 jobs and affordable commercial rental spaces. Economic Feasibility, there should be plenty of existing and trained labor available given the current conditions with the pandemic. It is not expected that new people will move into the area to work for the hotel, thereby not impacting the affordability of housing. Business Owners and Traffic Hanapēpē’s Friday Art Night has been a success for the town. However, some business owners have expressed concerns about the increase in traffic, more street vendors and the need for more parking and clean restrooms that are needed as shown in an excerpt from the West Kauaʻi Community Plan: 55 http://westkauaiplan.org/?fbclid=IwAR376_9VtiKQ2tJ0oGJK1bEbNmTO7smfqLIx0mYlGDqqOux8QAYGPuOFmXM, pg. 15 56 Ibid. pg. 5 57 Ibid. pg. 5 85 Aloha Theatre Inn Hanapēpē Town is known for its historic buildings, quirky charm, and unique features like the swinging pedestrian bridge built in 1911. The town’s primary activity area is located to the east of the bridge, behind the levee-protected south bank of the Hanapēpē River. The area also hosts Friday Art Night, a successful weekly street fair popular with locals and tourists. Today, Hanapēpē Art Night and the ongoing restoration of several buildings, including the Aloha Theatre, have helped to breathe life back into Hanapēpē Town. The Art Night has attracted many visitors and residents but has increased traffic. This problem was solved by allowing parking in the town’s park for Friday Night Art Night. Plus, 20 parking spaces will be part of the overall plan on the site of the ATI. Business owners in the town have complained about the lack of parking and clean restrooms needed to stimulate economic development on Friday nights. The additional restrooms planned in the ATI will help relieved this situation, plus by being placed towards the back of the ground floor will encourage traffic to the shops and pop up vendors. As Friday Night Are has drawn larger crowds and in turn has increased the number of street vendors coming on Friday night. Clearly, the parking and restroom plan for the ATI will help relieve this issue. Further an article appeared in Civil Beat Article58, Hanapēpē, This is the Town that Keeps Refusing to Die. “Art Night helped save the town. But some townspeople wonder if the event’s success is now undercutting local businesses. Amy-Lauren Lum Won, an artist and gallery owner, said the street fair used to be a boon to her business. Not anymore. “I don’t sell so much art on Art Night anymore,” she said. “But I do get more people through the door.” Those people, however, tend to be more focused on what’s happening in the streets — slack key guitar, an ‘awa bar, plates of bubbling hot Thai red curry — than the paintings for sale on her walls. “Honestly, it kind of turned into a bit of a circus,” she said. “I personally don’t really like the direction it’s gone because it used to be a little bit more of an elegant event and the people would come down for art. Now it’s like the street vendors took over with their tents and now the people just come down for street food. The art is kind of an afterthought.” Art Night outgrew itself, agrees Mark Jeffers, who runs the nonprofit Storybook Theatre for children out of a rehabilitated 1930s Chinese restaurant. 58 https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/hanapepe-this-is-the-town-that-keeps-refusing-to-die/ 86 Aloha Theatre Inn “We started with a stage and a tent and a sound system and invited all of our friends to play music, and all the galleries just stayed open til 9 p.m.,” he said. “And then over time that grew. And then there’s a rift between the vendors and the stores because the vendors are taking all the stores’ business. “And then the food comes in. And then the guy who brings his car, opens up his trunk and starts selling hot DVDs comes in. You know, people that don’t have any idea what the hell cultural experiences are.” The West Kauaʻi Community Plan has a plan to address traffic issues and improve the restrooms. Specifically, the plan includes: • Improving transit with a shuttle between Hanapēpē neighborhoods to the mainline to Port Allen. • Hanapēpē road improvements along with parking and sidewalk improvements to support safety and economic development59. • The County also plans to “reconstruct the restroom at Hanapēpē Town Park and locate it close to Hanapēpē road, in the near future, • The town is addressing the issue of increased street vendors by issuing a permit to Hanapēpē Economic Alliance to controls and manage this activity. • The County is allowing the Park which is used for the Farmers Market on Thursday PM to also be used for Friday Night Art Night parking. The ATI will obviously bring more traffic, but the need for parking for the ATI has been taken into account in the WKCP, the ATI will have at least 20 parking spaces off street parking spaces available on the remainder of the lot East of the ATI. H.2 Recommendation There are a number of social factors to be considered with the renovation of the Aloha Theatre. All of these social factors have been addressed and addressed positively. This project has the support of Kaua‘i and Hanapēpē community planners and is well aligned to their vision of the future of Kaua‘i. The ATI will be an overall positive addition to the town of Hanapēpē. It is projected to be a profitable enterprise, an asset to the state of Hawai’i as it relates to contributing to the visitor industry of Hawai’i, will provide jobs and contribute to retaining the history of Kaua‘i. Is it is recommended that from a social feasibility perspective the ATI is a viable project. 59 http://westkauaiplan.org/?fbclid=IwAR376_9VtiKQ2tJ0oGJK1bEbNmTO7smfqLIx0mYlGDqqOux8QAYGPuOFmXM, pg. 46 87 Aloha Theatre Inn G. Qualifications of Authors G.1 Joseph Burns JOSEPH BURNS, MBA, CMC 808.945.1430 • joseph.burns@hisbdc.org SENIOR BUSINESS LEADER Accomplished results-driven leader recognized for spearheading positive change in private and non-profit organizations by optimizing operations, increasing employee engagement and delivering improved stakeholder outcomes. Expert at assessing and determining areas of underperformance and achieving buy- in to create and deploy performance improvement strategies positioning organizations for improved value creation and mission accomplishment. Skilled at leveraging intangible assets and creating strategic partnerships, conversant in Chinese language. Key areas of expertise: Strategy Development and Execution Financial Planning and Analysis • Financially-driven Decision Systems • Managerial Accounting Sales and Marketing Strategies • Market Trends/Customer Behaviors • Business Model/Plan Creation Value Stream Mapping • Continuous Process Improvement • Project and Program Management Presentation and Training Skills • Human Capital Management • Transformation Management Survey Techniques • Budgeting and Resource Allocation PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE HAWAI’I SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (SBDC) • 2011 – present Economic development and management consulting through national federal/state/university partnership As the Associate State Director, responsible for leading a team of consultants in diverse projects in the visitor industry, value-added agriculture products, and financial reporting system improvements among many others, which significantly contribute to the building of Hawaiʻi’s economy. Economic Impact: • Consistently exceed SBA goals for capital infusion, business starts, and long-term clients • Consistently exceed internal goals for client sales revenue and job creation • Continuing engagement with more than 30 government, non-profit and private organizations Awards: Small Business Administration (SBA) Minority Business Champion, City and County of Honolulu, 2011; State Star, Hawaiʻi, Association of Small Business Development Centers, 2013 Certifications: Export Certification, SBA Other Key Accomplishments: • Internal Projects: Leading Balanced Scorecard implementation; creation of comprehensive marketing plan; Improved internal processes (Intake, data capture and resource allocation, etc.); website Business Events Calendar; “How to Start a Business” and other regular training classes • Successful USDA rural development projects: Pa’ina Irradiator ($4.5 million), South Maui Charter Schools ($17.7 million), among others • Strategic Partnerships: SBA, HEDCO, USDA, the US Commerce Department’s Export Assistance Center/Foreign Trade Zone 9, Pacific Business News • Other partnerships: Banks, University of Hawai’i Shidler College of Business • Public Speaking/Teaching: Rebuild Hawai’i Consortium, HFMA, HEDCO, HCRC, KCC, DOT, US Census, ABWA, SBA, Export U 88 Aloha Theatre Inn • Boards and Committees: Small Business Advocacy and Entrepreneurship Committee (Hawai’i Chamber of Commerce); Small Business Advocacy Committee (Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce); Hawai’i Food Manufacturer’s Association; Small Business Fair Planning Committee Chairman; Impact Investment Planning Committee; Lemonade Alley Planning Committee, OHA Income Initiative Committee, among others • Publications: Articles in Pacific Business News THE MARLIN ALLIANCE, INC • 2010 Organizational Transformation and IT/Systems Engineering Support Services and Consulting Balanced Scorecard Program Manager in the Strategic Management Office of a US Government military client. Responsible for performance improvement at the headquarters level, including regional business unit alignment, developing more effective metrics, and cascading scorecards to functional competencies; aligning objectives, metrics and initiatives across multiple perspectives to drive strategy into action. Assessed program effectiveness and applied lessons learned. Key Accomplishments: • Revitalized existing governance by implementing a strategic theme-based reporting cycle. • Developed new scorecards for competency aligned business units, contributing to measurable progress. • Enhanced participation by engaging senior leaders. CPSPHERE, LLC, Los Angeles, California • 2008-2010 Management consulting firm specializing in strategy execution and business performance improvement As a veteran Performance Management Consultant, position small business clients for double-digit revenue gains; partner with stakeholders to streamline and optimize operations. Spearhead performance improvement implementations including strategy mapping, objectives, performance metrics, initiative budgeting and resource allocation, maintaining accountability and continuous plan adjustment inclusively employing proprietary BSC software. Create and implement business training programs. Key Accomplishments: • Realized an average of 10.4% net revenue growth at client companies during the year directly following project period through performance improvement initiatives. • Played key role in developing a Recession Action Marketing Program to respond to current economic conditions affecting clientele. Representative Projects: • Manufacturing Defense Contractor: Improved parts rejection rate from 6% to 2.5%; increased on- time shipments by championing staff training and operational enhancements. Worked with on-site Department of Defense contract administrator for quality, process innovation, and required budgetary reporting/compliance with government agencies. • Agricultural Processor/Packer: Lead consulting team to develop customer strategy partly via survey; positioned company to enhance value proposition through new product development and pricing model; improved cross-functional communication; streamlined supply chain processes ensuring shipment reliability; consolidated off-site production facility to improve accountability and positively impact quality. FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Irving, Texas • 2005-2008 Financial and management systems consulting firm focusing on small business As a Senior Project Manager, directed multiple, simultaneous projects for clientele, leading consultant and client teams. Targeted areas of poor performance by utilizing proprietary analysis tools. Interpreted results to build tactical plans. Deliver client satisfaction through effective communication and reporting. Representative Projects: • Food Service Equipment Supplier and Servicer (MacDonald’s regional contractor): Reorganized company to align structure and procedures with 3 lines of business, reformatted financials to reflect the profit centers for cost capture and pricing strategy, resulting in a return to profitability. 89 Aloha Theatre Inn • Specialty Retailer: Created supply-chain and warehouse procedures, consolidating import and domestic purchasing activities. Improved customer service fulfillment by average 1.5 days, and doubled inventory turnover over 12 months. ADDITIONAL POSITIONS IPA-IBA, INC., Chicago, Illinois Management consulting company improving small businesses nationally and in Canada As a Senior Business Consultant, collaborated with client C-Level executives, management and field employees on-location in 29 different states and provinces. Guided ethnically diverse clients in transition from entrepreneurial stages to sustainable, managerial models with growth trajectory. Assessed customer behaviors and tailored value creation strategies to align with market needs. Architected/deployed sales, marketing, and public relations strategies. Developed original assessment tools. Representative Projects: • Manufacturing Startup: Established international distributor network positioning firm for export market; wrote/implemented marketing plan, evaluated markets and forged strategic relationships. • Canadian Oil Well Services Company: Cut turnover 55%, stabilized volatile cash flow and facilitated qualification for $500,000 unsecured line of credit through organizational re-structuring. AMERICAN PACIFIC CORPORATION: Built manufacturing/exporting startup, negotiated intellectual property licensing agreement with Disney Japan. Forged trading company relationships; developed Asian Pacific distributor networks. Created innovative supply chain, leading to increased sales and profit. EDUCATION Master of Business Administration in International Management (Honors) Thunderbird School of Global Management, Glendale, Arizona Bachelor of Arts in Chinese-Liberal Arts (Departmental Honors) Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & DISTINCTIONS Certificate in Manufacturing Management, American Management Association Hawai’i Pacific Export Council CMC - Certified Management Consultant Certificate in Technology Commercialization Ongoing professional development classes through the ASBDC US Department of Defense Security Clearance: Secret State Star, ASBDC SBA Minority Business Advocate 90 Aloha Theatre Inn G.2 Sarah Shell 91 Aloha Theatre Inn 92 Aloha Theatre Inn 93 Aloha Theatre Inn 94 Aloha Theatre Inn H. Appendices Appendix A-1 - Kauai County Planning Department, Historic Preservation Review Commission Reports 95 Aloha Theatre Inn 96 Aloha Theatre Inn 97 Aloha Theatre Inn 98 Aloha Theatre Inn 99 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-2 - Lynn Danaher Resume 100 Aloha Theatre Inn 101 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-3 - Ryan Bennett Resume 102 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-4 - Tsunami Evacuation Zone 103 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-5 - Total Net Taxable Value 104 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-6 - Parcel Map 105 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-7 - Lynn Danaher Contracting License 106 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-8 - Tenant Letters of Intent 107 Aloha Theatre Inn 108 Aloha Theatre Inn 109 Aloha Theatre Inn 110 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-9 - Building Permits 111 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-9 - Financial Statements; Year 2 Projected Income Statement Year 2 This projection assumes a hotel revenue growth rate of 7% based on the improving visitor market and the establishment of ATI as a desired vacation destination, and a commercial lease revenue growth rate of 3%, per the terms of the lease. The annual expense growth rate is 3%. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue of $1,279,912.57, which is $639,956.29. DSCR Year 2 Sensitivity Analysis Year 2 The following Income Statement Summaries show financial performance under 2 scenarios, the first with hotel occupancy at 50%, with the commercial lease spaces at 75%. The second scenario shows performance with hotel occupancy and the commercial lease spaces all at 75%. Aloha Theatre Inn Income Statement Year 2 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL % of Sales GROSS REVENUE Hotel Room Revenue 57,775.90 57,775.90 57,775.90 43,002.20 43,002.20 39,344.45 39,344.45 39,344.45 43,002.20 43,002.20 43,002.20 50,389.05 556,761.13 87.00% Restaurant Lease 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 1,483.20 17,798.40 2.78% Retail Space Lease 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 5,449.73 65,396.76 10.22% TOTAL GROSS REVENUE 64,708.83 64,708.83 64,708.83 49,935.13 49,935.13 46,277.38 46,277.38 46,277.38 49,935.13 49,935.13 49,935.13 57,321.98 639,956.29 100.00% COST OF GOODS SOLD GET 3,049.08 3,049.08 3,049.08 2,352.94 2,352.94 2,180.59 2,180.59 2,180.59 2,352.94 2,352.94 2,352.94 2,701.01 30,154.74 4.71% TAT 5,922.03 5,922.03 5,922.03 4,407.73 4,407.73 4,032.81 4,032.81 4,032.81 4,407.73 4,407.73 4,407.73 5,164.88 57,068.02 8.92% Credit Card Fees 1,941.26 1,941.26 1,941.26 1,498.05 1,498.05 1,388.32 1,388.32 1,388.32 1,498.05 1,498.05 1,498.05 1,719.66 19,198.69 3.00% TOTAL COST OF GOODS SOLD 10,912.37 10,912.37 10,912.37 8,258.72 8,258.72 7,601.72 7,601.72 7,601.72 8,258.72 8,258.72 8,258.72 9,585.55 106,421.44 16.63% GROSS PROFIT (Margin)53,796.45 53,796.45 53,796.45 41,676.41 41,676.41 38,675.66 38,675.66 38,675.66 41,676.41 41,676.41 41,676.41 47,736.43 533,534.84 83.37% EXPENSES General and Administrative 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 86,520.00 13.52% Insurance 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 2,259.13 27,109.60 4.24% Maintenance and Supplies 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 1,802.50 21,630.00 3.38% Hotel/Room Cleaning 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 7,416.00 88,992.00 13.91% Marketing 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 2,060.00 24,720.00 3.86% Property Tax 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 2,469.85 29,638.25 4.63% Utilities 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 3,296.00 39,552.00 6.18% TOTAL EXPENSES 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 26,513.49 318,161.85 49.72% EBITDA 27,282.97 27,282.97 27,282.97 15,162.92 15,162.92 12,162.18 12,162.18 12,162.18 15,162.92 15,162.92 15,162.92 21,222.94 215,372.99 33.65% OTHER EXPENSES Interest Expense 9,778.13 9,766.91 9,755.64 9,744.33 9,732.97 9,721.55 9,710.09 9,698.58 9,687.01 9,675.40 9,663.73 9,652.02 116,586.35 18.22% Depreciation 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 67,964.21 10.62% Amortization 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 5,429.27 0.85% TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 15,894.25 15,883.03 15,871.77 15,860.45 15,849.09 15,837.68 15,826.21 15,814.70 15,803.13 15,791.52 15,779.85 15,768.14 189,979.82 29.69% NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES 11,388.72 11,399.93 11,411.20 -697.53 -686.17 -3,675.50 -3,664.03 -3,652.52 -640.21 -628.60 -616.93 5,454.81 25,393.17 3.97% Provision for Income Tax 3,416.62 3,419.98 3,423.36 -209.26 -205.85 -1,102.65 -1,099.21 -1,095.76 -192.06 -188.58 -185.08 1,636.44 7,617.95 1.19% NET INCOME 7,972.10 7,979.95 7,987.84 -488.27 -480.32 -2,572.85 -2,564.82 -2,556.76 -448.15 -440.02 -431.85 3,818.36 17,775.22 2.78% Debt Service Coverage Ratio Year 2 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL EBITDA 27,282.97 27,282.97 27,282.97 15,162.92 15,162.92 12,162.18 12,162.18 12,162.18 15,162.92 15,162.92 15,162.92 21,222.94 215,372.99 Debt Service 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 148,101.03 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.21 2.21 2.21 1.23 1.23 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.72 1.45 Year 2 - Income Statement Summary Year 2 - Income Statement Summary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Occupancy Revenue Occupancy Revenue Hotel 50%556,761.13$ Hotel 75%835,141.69$ Restaurant 75%26,697.60$ Restaurant 75%26,697.60$ Retail 75%98,095.14$ Retail 75%98,095.14$ Total 681,553.87$ Total 959,934.43$ Net Profit 44,647.92$ Net Profit 204,512.41$ Net Profit 6.55%Net Profit 21.30% DSCR 1.71 DSCR 3.26 112 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-10 - Financial Statements; Year 3 Projected Income Statement Year 3 This projection assumes a revenue growth rate of 5% based on the improving visitor market and the establishment of ATI as a desired vacation destination, and a commercial lease revenue growth rate of 3%, per the terms of the lease. The annual expense growth rate is 3%. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue of $1,340,580.39, which is $670,290.20. DSCR Year 3 Sensitivity Analysis Year 3 The following Income Statement Summaries show financial performance under 2 scenarios, the first with hotel occupancy at 50%, with the commercial lease spaces at 75%. The second scenario shows performance with hotel occupancy and the commercial lease spaces all at 75%. Aloha Theatre Inn Income Statement Year 3 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL % of Sales GROSS REVENUE Hotel Room Revenue 60,664.69 60,664.69 60,664.69 45,152.31 45,152.31 41,311.68 41,311.68 41,311.68 45,152.31 45,152.31 45,152.31 52,908.50 584,599.18 87.22% Restaurant Lease 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 1,527.70 18,332.35 2.73% Retail Space Lease 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 5,613.22 67,358.66 10.05% TOTAL GROSS REVENUE 67,805.61 67,805.61 67,805.61 52,293.23 52,293.23 48,452.59 48,452.59 48,452.59 52,293.23 52,293.23 52,293.23 60,049.42 670,290.20 100.00% COST OF GOODS SOLD GET 3,195.00 3,195.00 3,195.00 2,464.06 2,464.06 2,283.09 2,283.09 2,283.09 2,464.06 2,464.06 2,464.06 2,829.53 31,584.07 4.71% TAT 6,218.13 6,218.13 6,218.13 4,628.11 4,628.11 4,234.45 4,234.45 4,234.45 4,628.11 4,628.11 4,628.11 5,423.12 59,921.42 8.94% Credit Card Fees 2,034.17 2,034.17 2,034.17 1,568.80 1,568.80 1,453.58 1,453.58 1,453.58 1,568.80 1,568.80 1,568.80 1,801.48 20,108.71 3.00% TOTAL COST OF GOODS SOLD 11,447.30 11,447.30 11,447.30 8,660.97 8,660.97 7,971.11 7,971.11 7,971.11 8,660.97 8,660.97 8,660.97 10,054.13 111,614.20 16.65% GROSS PROFIT (Margin)56,358.31 56,358.31 56,358.31 43,632.27 43,632.27 40,481.48 40,481.48 40,481.48 43,632.27 43,632.27 43,632.27 49,995.29 558,676.00 83.35% EXPENSES General and Administrative 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 7,426.30 89,115.60 13.30% Insurance 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 2,326.91 27,922.89 4.17% Maintenance and Supplies 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 1,856.58 22,278.90 3.32% Hotel/Room Cleaning 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 7,638.48 91,661.76 13.67% Marketing 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 2,121.80 25,461.60 3.80% Property Tax 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 2,543.95 30,527.40 4.55% Utilities 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 3,394.88 40,738.56 6.08% TOTAL EXPENSES 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 27,308.89 327,706.71 48.89% EBITDA 29,049.42 29,049.42 29,049.42 16,323.37 16,323.37 13,172.59 13,172.59 13,172.59 16,323.37 16,323.37 16,323.37 22,686.40 230,969.29 34.46% OTHER EXPENSES Interest Expense 9,778.13 9,766.91 9,755.64 9,744.33 9,732.97 9,721.55 9,710.09 9,698.58 9,687.01 9,675.40 9,663.73 9,652.02 116,586.35 17.39% Depreciation 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 5,663.68 67,964.21 10.14% Amortization 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 452.44 5,429.27 0.81% TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 15,894.25 15,883.03 15,871.77 15,860.45 15,849.09 15,837.68 15,826.21 15,814.70 15,803.13 15,791.52 15,779.85 15,768.14 189,979.82 28.34% NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES 13,155.17 13,166.39 13,177.65 462.92 474.29 -2,665.08 -2,653.62 -2,642.11 520.24 531.85 543.52 6,918.26 40,989.47 6.12% Provision for Income Tax 3,946.55 3,949.92 3,953.30 138.88 142.29 -799.53 -796.09 -792.63 156.07 159.56 163.06 2,075.48 12,296.84 1.83% NET INCOME 9,208.62 9,216.47 9,224.36 324.05 332.00 -1,865.56 -1,857.54 -1,849.48 364.17 372.30 380.46 4,842.78 28,692.63 4.28% Debt Service Coverage Ratio JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL EBITDA 29,049.42 29,049.42 29,049.42 16,323.37 16,323.37 13,172.59 13,172.59 13,172.59 16,323.37 16,323.37 16,323.37 22,686.40 230,969.29 Debt Service 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 12,341.75 148,101.03 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.35 2.35 2.35 1.32 1.32 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.84 1.56 Year 3 - Income Statement Summary Year 3 - Income Statement Summary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Occupancy Revenue Occupancy Revenue Hotel 50%584,599.18$ Hotel 75%876,898.77$ Restaurant 75%27,498.53$ Restaurant 75%27,498.53$ Retail 75%101,037.99$ Retail 75%101,037.99$ Total 713,135.70$ Total 1,005,435.29$ Net Profit 56,371.51$ Net Profit 224,229.23$ Net Profit 7.90%Net Profit 22.30% DSCR 1.83 DSCR 3.45 113 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-11 - Balance Sheet Year 2 This projection is based on the Year 2 Income Statement. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue, as above. Sensitivity Analysis Year 2 The following Year 2 Balance Sheet Summaries show financial performance under 2 scenarios, the first with hotel occupancy at 50%, with the commercial lease spaces at 75%. The second scenario shows performance with hotel occupancy and the commercial lease spaces all at 75%. Aloha Theatre Inn Monthly Balance Sheets Year 2 31-Jan 28-Feb 31-Mar 30-Apr 31-May 30-Jun 31-Jul 31-Aug 30-Sep 31-Oct 30-Nov 31-Dec CURRENT ASSETS Cash 145,045 156,428 167,807 170,698 173,584 174,366 175,144 175,919 178,789 181,655 184,518 191,618 Accounts Receivable - - - - - - - - - - - - Notes Receivable - - - - - - - - - - - - Inventory - - - - - - - - - - - - Other Current Assets 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 307,923 319,306 330,685 333,576 336,462 337,244 338,022 338,797 341,667 344,533 347,396 354,496 FIXED ASSETS Equipment/Land/Buildings 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (79,510) (85,626) (91,742) (97,858) (103,974) (110,090) (116,206) (122,322) (128,439) (134,555) (140,671) (146,787) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 2,571,094 2,564,978 2,558,862 2,552,746 2,546,630 2,540,514 2,534,398 2,528,282 2,522,165 2,516,049 2,509,933 2,503,817 OTHER ASSETS Marketable Securities (Long-Term)- - - - - - - - - - - - Intangibles (Start-Up Costs/Goodwill/Etc.)- - - - - - - - - - - - Less: Accumulated Amortization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OTHER ASSETS - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL ASSETS 2,879,018 2,884,284 2,889,547 2,886,322 2,883,092 2,877,758 2,872,420 2,867,078 2,863,832 2,860,583 2,857,329 2,858,313 ======================================================================================================================== CURRENT LIABILITIES Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 34,996 35,149 35,303 35,457 35,612 35,768 35,924 36,082 36,239 36,398 36,557 36,717 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 34,996 35,149 35,303 35,457 35,612 35,768 35,924 36,082 36,239 36,398 36,557 36,717 LONG TERM LIABILITIES USDA B&I Loan 2,200,784 2,198,070 2,195,345 2,192,608 2,189,859 2,187,098 2,184,325 2,181,539 2,178,742 2,175,932 2,173,110 2,170,276 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LONG TERM LIABILITIES 2,165,788 2,162,922 2,160,043 2,157,151 2,154,247 2,151,330 2,148,400 2,145,458 2,142,502 2,139,534 2,136,553 2,133,559 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,200,784 2,198,070 2,195,345 2,192,608 2,189,859 2,187,098 2,184,325 2,181,539 2,178,742 2,175,932 2,173,110 2,170,276 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OWNER'S EQUITY Capital Stock/Owner's Equity 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 Paid-In Capital 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 Owner Distributions - - - - - - - - - - - - Retained Earnings 9,752 17,732 25,720 25,231 24,751 22,178 19,613 17,057 16,608 16,168 15,737 19,555 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OWNER'S EQUITY 678,234 686,214 694,202 693,713 693,233 690,660 688,095 685,539 685,090 684,650 684,219 688,037 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 2,879,018 2,884,284 2,889,547 2,886,322 2,883,092 2,877,758 2,872,420 2,867,078 2,863,832 2,860,583 2,857,329 2,858,313 ======================================================================================================================== Year 2 - Balance Sheet Summary Year 2 - Balance Sheet Summary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Occupancy Occupancy Hotel 50%Hotel 75% Restaurant 75%Restaurant 75% Retail 75%Retail 75% Assets 3,060,681$ Assets 3,220,546$ Liabilities 2,170,276$ Liabilities 2,170,276$ Equity 890,406$ Equity 1,050,270$ Liabilities + Equity 3,060,682$ Liabilities + Equity 3,220,546$ 114 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-12 - Cash Flow Year 2 This Year 2 projection is based on the Year 2 Income Statement and Balance Sheet. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue, as above. Aloha Theatre Inn Comprehensive Cash Flow Year 2 JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Net Income Before Taxes 7,972 7,980 7,988 (488) (480) (2,573) (2,565) (2,557) (448) (440) (432) 3,818 17,775 Depreciation 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 67,964 Amortization 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 5,429 - Operating Cash Flow 14,088 14,096 14,104 5,628 5,636 3,543 3,551 3,559 5,668 5,676 5,684 9,934 91,169 Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cash Flow Before Financing 14,088 14,096 14,104 5,628 5,636 3,543 3,551 3,559 5,668 5,676 5,684 9,934 91,169 Long-Term Bank Debt (Pmts)(2,702) (2,713) (2,725) (2,737) (2,749) (2,761) (2,773) (2,785) (2,798) (2,810) (2,822) (2,834) (33,210) Financing Cash Flow (2,702) (2,713) (2,725) (2,737) (2,749) (2,761) (2,773) (2,785) (2,798) (2,810) (2,822) (2,834) (33,210) Comprehensive Cash Flow 11,387 11,383 11,379 2,891 2,887 782 778 774 2,870 2,866 2,862 7,100 57,959 Beginning Cash 133,659 145,045 156,428 167,807 170,698 173,584 174,366 175,144 175,919 178,789 181,655 184,518 Plus: Operating Cash Flow 14,088 14,096 14,104 5,628 5,636 3,543 3,551 3,559 5,668 5,676 5,684 9,934 Plus: Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - Plus: Financing Cash Flow (2,702) (2,713) (2,725) (2,737) (2,749) (2,761) (2,773) (2,785) (2,798) (2,810) (2,822) (2,834) ENDING CASH 145,045 156,428 167,807 170,698 173,584 174,366 175,144 175,919 178,789 181,655 184,518 191,618 191,618 115 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-13 - Balance Sheet Year 3 This projection is based on the Year 3 Income Statement. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue, as above. Sensitivity Analysis Year 3 The following Year 3 Balance Sheet Summaries show financial performance under 2 scenarios, the first with hotel occupancy at 50%, with the commercial lease spaces at 75%. The second scenario shows performance with hotel occupancy and the commercial lease spaces all at 75%. Aloha Theatre Inn Monthly Balance Sheets Year 3 31-Jan 28-Feb 31-Mar 30-Apr 31-May 30-Jun 31-Jul 31-Aug 30-Sep 31-Oct 30-Nov 31-Dec CURRENT ASSETS Cash 204,096 216,569 229,038 232,593 236,145 237,486 238,822 240,153 243,686 247,213 250,736 258,708 Accounts Receivable - - - - - - - - - - - - Notes Receivable - - - - - - - - - - - - Inventory - - - - - - - - - - - - Other Current Assets 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 162,878 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 366,974 379,447 391,916 395,471 399,023 400,364 401,700 403,031 406,564 410,091 413,614 421,586 FIXED ASSETS Equipment/Land/Buildings 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 2,650,604 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (152,903) (159,019) (165,135) (171,251) (177,368) (183,484) (189,600) (195,716) (201,832) (207,948) (214,064) (220,180) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 2,497,701 2,491,585 2,485,469 2,479,353 2,473,236 2,467,120 2,461,004 2,454,888 2,448,772 2,442,656 2,436,540 2,430,424 OTHER ASSETS Marketable Securities (Long-Term)- - - - - - - - - - - - Intangibles (Start-Up Costs/Goodwill/Etc.)- - - - - - - - - - - - Less: Accumulated Amortization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OTHER ASSETS - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL ASSETS 2,864,675 2,871,032 2,877,384 2,874,824 2,872,259 2,867,484 2,862,704 2,857,919 2,855,336 2,852,747 2,850,154 2,852,010 ======================================================================================================================== CURRENT LIABILITIES Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 36,878 37,039 37,201 37,364 37,527 37,692 37,857 38,022 38,188 38,356 38,523 38,692 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 36,878 37,039 37,201 37,364 37,527 37,692 37,857 38,022 38,188 38,356 38,523 38,692 LONG TERM LIABILITIES USDA B&I Loan 2,167,429 2,164,570 2,161,698 2,158,814 2,155,917 2,153,007 2,150,085 2,147,150 2,144,202 2,141,241 2,138,267 2,135,280 TOTAL LONG TERM LIABILITIES 2,130,551 2,127,531 2,124,497 2,121,450 2,118,389 2,115,315 2,112,228 2,109,127 2,106,013 2,102,885 2,099,744 2,096,588 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,167,429 2,164,570 2,161,698 2,158,814 2,155,917 2,153,007 2,150,085 2,147,150 2,144,202 2,141,241 2,138,267 2,135,280 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OWNER'S EQUITY Capital Stock/Owner's Equity 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 264,457 Paid-In Capital 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 404,025 Owner Distributions - - - - - - - - - - - - Retained Earnings 28,764 37,980 47,204 47,528 47,860 45,995 44,137 42,288 42,652 43,024 43,405 48,248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OWNER'S EQUITY 697,246 706,462 715,686 716,010 716,342 714,477 712,619 710,770 711,134 711,506 711,887 716,730 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 2,864,675 2,871,032 2,877,384 2,874,824 2,872,259 2,867,484 2,862,704 2,857,919 2,855,336 2,852,747 2,850,154 2,852,010 ======================================================================================================================== Year 3 - Balance Sheet Summary Year 3 - Balance Sheet Summary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Occupancy Occupancy Hotel 50%Hotel 75% Restaurant 75%Restaurant 75% Retail 75%Retail 75% Assets 3,241,922$ Assets 3,409,780$ Liabilities 2,135,280$ Liabilities 2,135,280$ Equity 1,106,642$ Equity 1,274,500$ Liabilities + Equity 3,241,922$ Liabilities + Equity 3,409,780$ 116 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-14 - Cash Flow Year 3 This Year 3 projection is based on the Year 3 Income Statement and Balance Sheet. Occupancy of both the hotel and commercial lease spaces is calculated at 50% of the potential total revenue, as above. Aloha Theatre Inn Comprehensive Cash Flow Year 3 JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Net Income Before Taxes 9,209 9,216 9,224 324 332 (1,866) (1,858) (1,849) 364 372 380 4,843 28,693 Depreciation 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 5,664 67,964 Amortization 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 5,429 - Operating Cash Flow 15,325 15,333 15,340 6,440 6,448 4,251 4,259 4,267 6,480 6,488 6,497 10,959 102,086 Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cash Flow Before Financing 15,325 15,333 15,340 6,440 6,448 4,251 4,259 4,267 6,480 6,488 6,497 10,959 102,086 Long-Term Bank Debt (Pmts)(2,847) (2,859) (2,872) (2,884) (2,897) (2,910) (2,922) (2,935) (2,948) (2,961) (2,974) (2,987) (34,996) Financing Cash Flow (2,847) (2,859) (2,872) (2,884) (2,897) (2,910) (2,922) (2,935) (2,948) (2,961) (2,974) (2,987) (34,996) Comprehensive Cash Flow 12,478 12,473 12,469 3,556 3,551 1,341 1,336 1,332 3,532 3,528 3,523 7,972 67,090 Beginning Cash 367,114 379,592 392,065 404,534 408,090 411,641 412,982 414,318 415,649 419,182 422,709 426,232 Plus: Operating Cash Flow 15,325 15,333 15,340 6,440 6,448 4,251 4,259 4,267 6,480 6,488 6,497 10,959 Plus: Investing Cash Flow - - - - - - - - - - - - Plus: Financing Cash Flow (2,847) (2,859) (2,872) (2,884) (2,897) (2,910) (2,922) (2,935) (2,948) (2,961) (2,974) (2,987) ENDING CASH 379,592 392,065 404,534 408,090 411,641 412,982 414,318 415,649 419,182 422,709 426,232 434,204 434,204 117 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-15 - Aloha Theatre HUI LLC Documents 118 Aloha Theatre Inn 119 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-16 - Aloha Theatre Hui LLC State Registration 120 Aloha Theatre Inn Appendix A-17 - Reference Letters / Letters of Support 121 Aloha Theatre Inn 122 Aloha Theatre Inn 123 Aloha Theatre Inn 124 Aloha Theatre Inn 125 Aloha Theatre Inn STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS This is to Certify that has been duly licensed as a/an in the State of Hawaii on This license shall be in full force and effect only as long as it is supported by a current license identification card. No. Chairperson No. CONTRACTOR May 29, 2020 CONTRACTORS LICENSE BOARD 37359 THIS LICENSE MUST BE DISPLAYED AT PLACE OF BUSINESS AND IS NOT TRANSFERABLE OR ASSIGNABLE. HANAPEPE CONSTRUCTION LLC DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JOPI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTi'DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR Kaua'i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) DIRECTOR'SREPORT I.SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: a.Nomination to the Hawai'i State Historic Register 1)A vote to support for the nomination;or 2)A vote to not support the nomination (not to support OR receiving the nomination for the record) II.PROJECT INFORMATION III.TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW AND HISTORIC PROFILE Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)§6E-2 defines Historicproperty"as "any building, structure,object,district,area,or site,including heiau and underwater site,which is over fifty years old." 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer Parcel Location:5470 Weke Road Hanalei,Hawaii Tax Map Key(s):(4)5-5-004:006 Area:0.3857 Acres/16,801 sq.ft. Ageof Structures Princeville Ranch Manager's House Year Constmcted:1941 Age of Stmcture:80 years old Caretaker's Cottage Year Constmcted:1960 Age ofStmcture:61 years old LAND USE DESIGNATIONS &VALUES Zoning:Open State Land Use District: Urban General Plan Designation: Natural and Parks and Recreation Owner(s):Hanalei House LLC c/o Jones Jr,Robert T/Claibome S Stephen Long (Authorized Agent) Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager's House and Caretaker's Cottage .TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 Page2 Hawai 'i Administrative Rules Title 13 defines "Significant Historic Property "as "any historic property that meets the criteria "for listing on the Hawai 'i Register ofHistoric Places under HAR 275-6ft)or HAR 2846(b). 36 CFR 60 andPart 800.16:Buildings,structures,sites,objects,and districts that meet the eligibility criteriafor listing on the National Register o/Historic Places, inclvding those which any Native Hawaiian organization might attach religious and cultural significance. IV.EVALUATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION ON THE STATE REGISTER a.Criteria for Nominations to the State Register ofHistoric PIaces under HRS §6E-5.5 and Hawai'i Administrative Rules §13-198-8. In deciding whether a property should be entered and ordered into the Hawaii Register ofHistoric Places,KHPRC shall evaluate whether the property meets or - possesses,individually or in combination,the following criteria or characteristics: 1)The quality of significance in Hawaiian history,architecture,archaeology, and culture,which is present in districts,sites,buildings,structures,and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association,and: A.That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our American or Hawaiian history; a.Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the subject property is generally associated and representative of the plantation and post-World War II era on Kaua'i.During the early to mid-1900s,Hanalei Bay became the popular location site for beach houses that were constmcted for wealthy sugar plantation owners and their families (Harrington,2008;Wilcox, 1981).The existing historic structures on the subject property were constmcted during this time period presumably for the LThu'e Plantation Company managers. B.That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager's House and Caretaker's Cottage TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 Page3 a.Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the existing structures and property itselfis not associated with the lives ofany significant persons in our past. Although the nomination form mentions the subject property as a vacation house that former Vice President Al Gore and former First Lady Hilary Clinton stayed in,their association with the property is not significant enough to meet the criteria ofthe Hawai'i State Register Criteria B. C.That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of construction,or that represent the work of a master,or that possess high artistic value,or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;or a.Based on Planning Department's records,the existing stmctures maintain distinctive characteristics ofHawaiian plantation style homes constructed between the early to mid-1900s.In particular,the existing stmctures are architecturally compatible to other historic,plantation-style beach homes located on Weke Road and throughout Hanalei Town.Although the structures are smaller in scale to the larger summer homes along Weke road,the structures retain its historic integrity. b.Manager's House (1941) The manager s home was one ofthree homes that were built on adjacent ocean-front lots owned by the LIhu'e Plantation Company.The three homes were presumably similar in size, scale,and style.As represented in the nomination form,the manager's house is a one-story single wall constmction built with original redwood board and batten siding.The roof profile is a simple hip roof with modem asphalt shingles that were installed after Hurricane Iniki.As noted in the nomination form,the interior floor plans ofthe house have been retained with original doors and jalousie windows.The three bedroom and two bathroom house also includes a lanai that was enclosed in 1953.After Hurricane Iniki,several minor improvements were made to the manager's house under OEP Permit Rl 03443 including the addition ofan exterior counter,shower enclosure,and concrete steps with landing. c.Caretaker's Cottaee (1960) Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager's House and Caretaker's Cottage TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 Page4 Similarly,the caretaker cottage is a one-story,single wall constmction built with redwood T&G plank siding with vertical battens.The two bedroom and one bathroom house, which also includes an enclosed lanai and carport,maintains jalousie windows throughout the home.In contrast to the manager's house,the roofofthe cottage house consists of2 gable sloped roofs that are perpendicular to one another. As represented in the nomination form,the cottage house had minimal damage from the tsunami of 1957,Hurricane Iwa (1982),and Hurricane Iniki (1992).According to the Planning Department records,an OEP permit was applied for to conduct repairs and alterations from Hurricane Iniki damage to the roof ofthe existing cottage.The OEP permit repairs to the cottage included repairing the roof for the living room,storage,and lanai area.In addition to repairs,new alterations to the cottage included enlarging the living room and deck,rebuilding the storage and existing carport,and adding a new storage. As represented in the nomination form,both the manager and the cottage house have retained its historic integrity of location, setting,design,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association.Despite improvements made to the property,the improvements have not detracted from the historic integrity and have been conducted in a historically sensitive manner in conformance to the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore,both the Manager's House and the Cottage House meets the Hawai'i State Register Criteria C. D.That have yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history; a.Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, it is not likely that the existing structures,as it stands today,will yield information important in history or prehistory. E.(Hawai'i Register Only).Important value to Native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out,or still carried out,at the property;or due to associations with traditional beliefs,events or Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager's House and Caretaker's Cottage TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 PageS oral accounts -these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. a.Based on information researched by the Planning Department, Hanalei Bay was the gathering place for hukilau events that took place during the mid-1900s (Harrington,2008).Many people participated in the hukilau in hopes to catch akule and opelu (Harrington,2008). Although hukilau events can be considered as a cultural practice ofNative Hawaiians,it is not clear ifthe existing historic structures and or occupants may have had a direct association with the hukilau events in Hanalei Bay.Due to the location and proximity ofthe subject property to Hanalei Bay,it could be presumed that the subject property may have held some direct or indirect association.Therefore,the subject property may, upon further information,broadly meet the criteria ofHawai'i State Register Criteria E. 2)Environmental impact,i.e.,whether the preservation ofthe building,site, stmcture,district,or object significantly enhances the environmental quality ofthe State; A.The preservation ofthe building would benefit the enviromnent by creating less of an environmental impact than altemative plans for demolition or substantial repairs. 3)The social,cultural,educational,and recreational value ofthe building, site,stmcture,district,or object,when preserved,presented,or interpreted, contributes significantly to the understanding and enjoyment ofthe history and culture ofHawaii,the pacific area,or the nation. A.The preservation ofthe house will perpetuate the understanding and enjoyment ofthe history and culture ofHawai'i.As mentioned earlier, the existing historic structures are representative ofthe plantation and post-World War II era on Kaua'i. 4)Period of Significance.The period of significance is likely to have occurred between 1940-1960,during the years ofconstruction. b.Additionallnformation Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager s House and Caretaker's Cottage .TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 PageS 1)Zoning Permit History 2)GeneralHistoryoftheArea A.Hanalei bay holds important value for Hawaiian history as a rich agricultural region,port ofcommerce,and a destination spot for Hawaiian Royalty and other wealthy,prominent figures (Harrington, 2008;Wilcox,1981).Furthermore,Hanalei bay was the location site ofthe 1824 sinking ofHa'aheo o Hawai'i-a ship that belonged to King Kamehameha II (Liholiho)(Harrington,2008). c.Works Cited Harrington,D.(2008).Hanalei:A Kaua 'i River Town.Mutual Publishing. Wilcox,C.(1981).The Kaiia'i Album.Kaua'i Historical Society. V.RECOMMENDATION llMjlJUIililUiiiliUULinffI 1969 'R-187.'•-.;...Interior Renoyations to the Smgle-Family Residehee (Permit Missing) 1972 S-73-28 Planning Commission Approval for Subdivision: Consolidation ofLots 18 and 19 ofWaioli Beach Lots and Resubdivision into Lots A and B at Waioli,Halelea,Kaua'i, Hawai'i Subdivision Letter from Donn Carswell to the Planning Department,dated September 15,1972,explaining that the main dwelling on the subject property was moved by the tsunami of 1946. 1993 OEP (InikiPemits) R103443 DamagelOeXistingToofonfheeXisfingcottage. / Repairrodfatlivingr00i'n,storage,andlana'i. Ghangesfrom the original buiiding include an alteration of size by enlargmg the livirig room,rebuilding storage at existing carport.^New Storage will be smaller. Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) February 18,2021 Meeting Nomination for Princeville Ranch Manager's House and Caretaker's Cottage .TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 Page7 Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion,the Planning Department recommends that the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT the proposed project involving the nomination to the Hawai'i State Historic Register on the subject parcel. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making.The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a.Govemment agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The land owner's response. By MARISA VALENCIANO Planner Approved &Recommended to Commission: <^ cj>^ "JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA Deputy Djrector ofPlanning :^-/5/2.1Date DAVID Y.IGE GOVERNOROF HAWAH 's-^'-s-y. ,^i..5-'~''S-St •^feritW^ STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE mSTORIC PRESERVAT10N DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD,STE 555 KAPOLEI,HAWAII 96707 SUZANNE D.CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND ANDNATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION OW WATER EESOURCE MANAOEMENT ROBEKT K.MASUDA FIRSIDEFOTY M.KALEO MANUEL DEFUTy DIRECTOR.WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOAT1NO AMD OCEAN RECREAT10N BUREAU OF CQNVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MATTAOEMENT CONSERVAT10NANDCOASTALLANDS CONSERVATtON AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENOINEERINO FORESTRY ANDWILDLiFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE 1SLAND RESERVE CQMMISSION LAND STATEFAEKS January 25,2021 Stephen W.Long,President Stephen W.Long &Associates,b-ic. P.0.Box 2234359 Princeville,ffl 96722 ViaEmaU:slong808@gmail.com Dear Mr.Long: SUBJECT;Princeville Ranch Manager's House &Caretaker's Cottage State Register Nomination 5470 Weke Road,Hanalei,HI 96819 Wai'oU Ahupua'a,Halele'a Moku,Island ofKaua*i TMK:(4)5-5-004:006 IN REPLY REFER TO: LOG:2020.02937 DOC:2001TGM14 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)receive the nomination for the Princeville Ranch Manager's House &Caretaker's Cottage to the State Register of Historic Places.SHPD would like to place this nomination on the agenda for the March 5,2021 Hawai'i Historic Places Review Board (HHPRB)Meeting. The board will render a decision on the nomination to the Hawai'i Register of Historic Places,may recommend the property for consideration to the National Reglster of Historic Places,and may ask for additional infomiation.The State Historic Preservation Division requests the following revisions to ensure that the nomination meets documentation standards set forth by the National Park Service. Please complete the State Inventory ofHistoric PIaces Request Form (http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/shpd/review- compliance/fonns/)and provide the SIHP Request Form to Tanya.Gumapac-Mcguire@hawaii.gov. Section 7:Description Summary Paragraph:Paragraph 4,please indicate which historic integrity,in terms of location,design,setting materials,workmanship,feeling and association,the property possesses. Section 8:Statement of Significance:Applicable National Criteria Register Criteria:Please fix the formatting ofthe boxes for Criteria B and C so that they are on the same page. Nomination Submittal: Please resubmif the revised nomination by February 12,2021 so SHPD may place this nomination on the HHPRB meeting agenda.PIease resubmit revisions to DLNR.Intake.SHPD@hawaii.gov and copy Tanya.Gumapac-Mcguire@hawaii.gov. Please note,the HHPRB requested that all nominations meet National Park Service Documentation Standards for nominations.Please ensure that all requested revisions are completed by the date stated above so that this nomination can go before the HHPRB for consideration to the Hawai'i Register ofHistoric Places. S.Long Page2 01/25/21 As a reminder carefully review the formatting of this document.Do not add or delete lines from the form, double check any added bolding,and use standard paragraph formatting in narrative sections. Review National Register Bulletin 1 5 and 16A for guidance.The National Park Service has sample nominations for reference:https://www.nps.gov/nr/sample_nominations.htm Please contact Tanya Gumapac-McGuire,Architecture Branch Chief at Tanya.Gumapac- Mcguire@hawaii.gov for any questions regarding this letter,or Chandra Hirotsu,at (808)692-8021 or at Chandra.H.Hirotsu@hawaii.gov regarding questions about the review board meeting. Mahalo, ^lan IIOW/KSI' AIan S.Downer,PhD Administrator,State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation OfRcer cc:Marisa Valenciano,mvalenciano@kauai.gov Alex Wong,awong@kauai.gov Trent Jones,roberttrentjones@me.com Claibome Jones,claibomej@me.com