March 18, 2021 KHPRC Agenda Packet reducedNational 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
Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawaii Historic Bridge Projects
Statement of Purpose, Approach and Abbreviated Outline
August 17, 2020
Revised October 15, 2020
Statement of Purpose
The Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawaiʻi Historic Bridges Projects (PA) will set
forth a process by which the FHWA will meet, with the assistance of the HDOT, SHPD
and Counties, its responsibilities for historic bridges that: (l) achieves safe and efficient
transportation operations; (2) avoids, minimizes, and mitigates adverse effects on historic
bridges; and (3) makes efficient use of federal aid in historic bridge maintenance, repair
and minor rehabilitation by developing a Section 106 process that: (a) simplifies
procedural requirements, and (b) reduces the project-by-project review role of SHPD by
focusing time and attention on projects that warrant their oversight and attention.
Approach
The PA will address a range of historic bridge maintenance, repair and minor
rehabilitation activities (i.e., undertakings) not currently covered by the HDOT
Comprehensive Exemption List. The goal is to streamline the Section 106 review
process and regularize it so as to facilitate the use of federal aid for minor historic bridge
projects. The PA will be in alignment and supportive of the goals set out in the Hawaiʻi
Statewide Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP).
These activities will be divided into tiers/categories. The lowest tier will be activities that
may be treated as having no potential to cause effects. Higher tiers will be activities
where certain approved treatments may be applied to achieve a no adverse or where
higher levels of review and approval are needed (abbreviated Section 106 process)
leading up to but not including full Section 106.
The PA will not address major rehabilitation or replacement projects. Agreement on how
to handle full Section 106 review for historic bridges undergoing major rehabilitation or
replacement is not part of the PA.
The Section 106 Minor Historic Bridge Project PA will be aligned to meet HDOT, SHPD
and County requirements in compliance with the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)
Chapters 6E-8 and 6E-42 and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-275 for
review of historic properties. It is proposed to handle 6E requirements in a separate
document that will be referenced and appended to the PA.
The Minor Historic Bridge Project PA will reference, support and avoid conflicts with
other existing agreements such as the Kauaʻi Emergency MOA and proposed agreements
such as the Minor Federal Aid Highway Projects PA currently also in development.
The PA will not cover activities beyond the footprint/physical fabric of existing bridges
or their immediate roadway approaches. A process may be included to cover archaeology
reviews for minor ground disturbances, temporary easements or staging areas. These
reviews will need to be handled by qualified archaeologists and follow standard Section
106/Chapter 6E processes of archaeological assessment.
It is not intended for the PA to pertain to other historic property types (non-bridges),
however some participants in initial discussions expressed interest in applicability to
bridges on historic highways, traditional stacked stone walls, tunnels and culverts (i.e.,
short-span bridges not meeting the federal definition of 20' span). This requires further
exploration.
Other federal agencies (e.g. USACE, USCG), Counties, Native Hawaiian Organizations,
Historic Hawaii Foundation and other state/local preservation organizations, public and
local agencies, state representatives, municipalities and planning organizations will be
notified and solicited for their views on the PA. Some may be identified or request to be
concurring parties to the PA. This will be explored in upcoming tasks, consultation and
outreach.
MINOR HISTORIC BRIDGE PROJECTS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT –
ABBREVIATED OUTLINE
PREAMBLE [cites applicable laws and process followed to create the PA]
STIPULATIONS
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
II. APPLICABILITY
A. Broadly defines types of minor historic bridge projects covered (those using
certain funds, requiring certain permits, doesn’t include those on federal lands,
does not apply to projects that have completed Section 106 prior to PA, etc.)
III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. References applicable FHWA and ACHP policies and guidelines
B. Defines FHWA, ACHP, HDOT, SHPD, County and Concurring Party roles and
responsibilities in overseeing and/or carrying out provisions of PA
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF HAWAII HISTORIC BRIDGES
A. State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation, the Program Comment on
Common Post-1945 Bridges and Interstate Highway Exemption as the basis for
Section 106 identification and historic bridge eligibility (see Appendix A)
B. Inventory Updates and Revisions
Commentary: Our recommendation is that a best practices Historic Bridge PA
rests on a foundation of understanding which bridges are historic or not, and how
that may evolve over time, particularly as historic bridges are
reconstructed/rehabilitated, more bridges become 50 years old or there is
attrition in certain historic bridge types. The idea is that HDOT and SHPD reach
an understanding of how and where this fits in this PA so that this ground doesn’t
start shifting and limit the effectiveness of the PA. These stipulations will not be
about methods/scope-of-work of any future inventories or about which individual
bridges from past, current or future inventories are actually eligible or not. It is
an understanding of how the inventory is used to guide the PA and how it will be
kept up-to-date going forward and what to do if there is a need to consult on
eligibility. Basically, this covers where all users of the PA can find the “official
list” of historic bridges and how it is maintained so that everyone can use this PA
and be on the same page.
C. New or Additional Information impacting eligibility status
V. TREATMENT OF HAWAII HISTORIC BRIDGES
A. Definition of Treatment Tiers/Categories (see Appendix B)
1. Activities not requiring review (No Historic Properties Affected)
2. Accepted activities if performed in compliance with Approved Treatment
Guidelines and Best Practices (Historic Properties Affected with No Adverse
Effect)
3. Accepted activities if performed in compliance with Approved Treatment
Guidelines and Best Practices and reviewed/approved by qualified historic
preservation professional (Historic Properties Affected with Conditional No
Adverse Effect)
4. Covered activities with minimal adverse effect and abbreviated consultation
or review by a SOI qualified professional (Historic Properties Affected with
Adverse Effect and Pre-Approved Treatment to Minimize/Mitigate)
5. Non-conforming Activities (full Section 106 consultation for all activities not
conforming to Tiers/Categories 1-4)
B. Procedures for Application of PA
1. Training
2. Minor Bridge Project Cultural Resources Review Process (see Appendix C)
3. Determining Area of Potential Effects and Applicability of PA
4. Application of Treatments to the Tiers/Categories (see Appendix D)
5. Documentation and Certification Requirements
C. Coordination and Existing Agreement Documents
1. Chapter 6E (see Appendix E)
2. Minor Federal Aid Highway Projects PA
3. HDOT Emergency PA
4. Kauaʻi Emergency MOA
5. Other related cross references to be identified during consultation
Commentary: This stipulation will identify existing agreement documents and
describe how the Minor Historic Bridge PA relates to them.
D. Potential Effects to Other Historic Properties from Bridge Projects
1. Application of Standard Consultation Requirements of 36 CFR 800
2. Archaeological Review for Minor Ground Disturbances, Temporary
Easements and Staging Areas
E. Stewardship, Public Outreach and Education
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
VI. REPORTING AND MONITORING OF ACTIVITIES (see Appendix F)
A. Regular reporting of projects undertaken under the PA
B. Monitoring of completed work for adherence to Approved Treatment Guidelines
and Best Practices
C. Consequences of using PA for non-conforming/non-compliant activities
VII. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Commentary: This will likely be a cross-reference to the Section 106 Emergency PA
currently being developed, however, this requires further discussion.
VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY
Commentary: This section may or may not be needed and would mainly apply to
archaeological resources. This needs to be discussed. Here is some sample language: -
“All parties to this PA acknowledge that information about historic properties, potential
historic properties, or properties considered historic for purposes of this PA are or may
be subject to the provisions of Section 304 of NHPA. Section 304 allows FHWA to
withhold from disclosure to the public, information about the location, character, or
ownership of a historic resource if FHWA and HDOT determine that disclosure may 1)
cause a significant invasion of privacy; 2) risk harm to the historic resource; or 3)
impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Having so acknowledged,
all parties to this PA will ensure that all actions and documentation prescribed by this
PA are, where necessary, consistent with the requirements of Section 304 of the NHPA.”
IX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Resolution of Objections by the Signatories
B. Resolution of Objections by the Public
X. AMENDMENTS
XI. TERMINATION
XII. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
APPENDICES
A. HISTORIC BRIDGES LIST
Commentary: A list of eligible or potentially eligible bridges based on 2013 inventory
and the post-1945 common bridge types programmatic comment and subsequent updates
as they become available.
B. MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND MINOR REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES
TIERS/CATEGORIES BASED ON SECTION 106 EFFECTS PER STIPULATION V
Commentary: To be developed through consultation process. The following minor
activities have been preliminarily identified but not placed in tiers/categories as yet.
Minor activities that have been tentatively identified for potential inclusion in the PA are:
• Vegetation Removal
• Graffiti Removal
• Emergency Repairs Back to Original Condition
• Spall Repairs
• Adding Riprap
• Repairs to Bridge Railings
• Attaching Approach Guide Rails to Railings
• Installing Guide Rails in Front of Existing Railings
• Laydown Yards
• Expansion Joint Replacement or Sealing
• Stone Masonry Repairs and Repointing
• Upgrading Railing Systems to AASHTO
• Cleaning and Painting Steel Members
• Replacing Members In-Kind
• Deck Paving/Sealing
• Adding Girders to Superstructure
• Seismic Retrofits
• Sidewalk Reconstruction or Crosswalk Install
• Stream Diversion or Channel Lining for Scour Protection
• Utility Maintenance
• Carbon Fiber Wraps
• Structural Foundation Upgrades
• Steel Sheet Pile Installation
• Enlarging Girders
• Geotechnical Borings for Engineering Analysis
• Replacing Rivets with Bolts
• Non-Destructive Testing: Concrete Coring – Deck, Pile Cap, Piles, Columns, etc.
• Others to Be Identified Through Consultation?
C. DECISION PROCESS FLOW CHART
Commentary: Step-by-step chart to determine applicability of PA to minor maintenance,
repair and rehabilitation activities. Will have “off ramps” for activities not covered by
the PA. To be developed by consultant team and to share similarities with the Minor
Federal Aid Highway Projects PA.
D. APPROVED TREATMENTS GUIDELINES
Commentary: This will be a “Best Practices” document (approximately 50 pages with
illustrations) covering each activity in the PA and treatments for historic bridges in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to Treatment of Historic
Properties. The guidelines will serve as the basis for a common understanding of
approved non-adverse treatment approaches among the PA's signatories and consulting
parties. It will serve as general guidance in designing and performing maintenance,
repairs, and minor rehabilitations so as to meet operational and structural requirements
and maintain historic integrity of the bridge. It will be organized by historic bridge types,
materials and activities but will not be specific to individual bridges. It will reference
various applicable FHWA, ASSHTO and NPS historic bridge and materials guidelines,
etc.
E. CHAPTER 6E FOR MINOR HISTORIC BRIDGE PROJECTS
Commentary: Per FHWA, 6E can be incorporated into the Section 106 PA by reference
but the 6E process must be handled in a separate appended document. The 6E appendix
will align the Section 106 PA and 6E review processes, and acknowledges those areas
where there are some differences in 6E definitions and procedures and additional steps
must be taken to fulfill 6E. This will be a document that addresses compliance with 6E
for minor historic bridges projects that are federal undertakings and those that are not
federal undertakings (i.e., not involving federal aid or permits).
F. FORMS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING
Commentary: Forms/tables for regular record keeping and reporting on minor historic
bridge activities to create documentary record of compliance with the PA and Section
106/6E. Consultant team will create easy to complete forms/tables that will facilitate
yearly follow-ups and regular reviews.
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I. SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC:
a. A Section 106 request to become a consulting party through the federal 106
review process.
b. Ask the consultant questions about the project overview that was presented
at the Feb. 18, 2021 KHPRC Meeting.
c. Provide comments on the draft outline for the Programmatic Agreement
Process.
KHPRC actions may include the following:
d. Provide comments on the draft outline and/ or the project to date.
e. Withhold comments until future drafts of the programmatic agreement
becomes available.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawaiʻi Historic Bridges Projects (PA) will
set forth a process by which the FHWA will meet, with the assistance of the HDOT,
SHPD and Counties, its responsibilities for historic bridges that: (l) achieves safe
and efficient transportation operations; (2) avoids, minimizes, and mitigates
adverse effects on historic bridges; and (3) makes efficient use of federal aid in
historic bridge maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation by developing a
Section 106 process that: (a) simplifies procedural requirements, and (b) reduces
the project-by-project review role of SHPD by focusing time and attention on
projects that warrant their oversight and attention.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation
Review Commission withhold comments until future drafts of the
programmatic agreement becomes available.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
Section 106- HDOT Programmatic Agreement for Minor Repairs of Historic Bridges
Page 2
The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department’s final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing
process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making.
The entire record includes but is not limited to:
a. Government agency comments;
b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and
c. The land owner’s response.
By _________________________________
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved & Recommended to Commission:
By _________________________________
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date: ___________________
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
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
1HanapēpēAntenna ProjectMission and PurposeProject OverviewRegulatory GuidanceSite OverviewWeather ImpactsSite ViewshedsConclusion
2The Hawaiʻi National Guard and Kauaʻi1992 - Hurricane ‘Iniki2018 - Flash Floods and Landslides2020 – COVID19 Pandemic Support
3Mission and Purpose•Federal MissionThe Hawaiʻi National Guard provides fully-manned, operationally-ready, and well-equipped units that can respond to any national contingency ranging from war and peacekeeping missions to nation-building operations •State MissionThe Hawaiʻi National Guard provides organized, trained units to protect Hawaii’s citizens and property, preserve peace, and ensure public safety in response to natural or human-caused disasters•PurposeThe purpose of this project is to provide emergency communications for all-hazard domestic emergencies and disasters; provide non-commercial communications; provide inter-island emergency communications; communicate with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and inter-agency partners for all-hazard domestic preparedness, response, and recovery communications
4Project Overview• Project is the direct result of the impacts of Hurricane ‘Iniki and Senator Inouye’s calls for better systems of communications and the need for a technology center to improve disaster safety in Hawai‘i in support of Hawai‘i State Civil Defense and to “use the high-technology we have set aside to prevent wars…to prevent disasters.” • Based on the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) site surveys and internal assessments, the HanapēpēArmory site met the most operational requirements and was the preferred alternative chosen• The safety and security of the people of Hawai‘i is a primary concern and this project will provide the residents of not only Kaua‘i, but of all the Hawaiian islands, a communications asset capable of communicating in an all-hazards environment• The island of Kaua‘i will benefit by having a no cost, long-range communication system available before, during or after natural or manmade disasters• Enhances the Hawai‘i National Guard (HING) role in support of the community during times of crisis• Provides additional full-time HING members to the community
5Project Overview Continued• Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Office has provided concurrence • Visual assessments conducted show impacts are minimal from a historical, cultural and viewshed analysis due to the location, surrounding area light and power poles and actual antenna material• Antenna bases will be buried, providing a more aesthetic view near the site• No guyed (guy) wires or lights on the antenna, reducing the likelihood of strike impacts and fallouts of the Newell’s Shearwater (‘A‘o), Hawaiian Petrel (‘Ua‘u), and Band-rumped Storm Petrel (‘Akē‘Akē)• The site is located outside of the 100 year flood zone and protected by Hanapēpē Bay• There is extremely low risk of radio frequency exposure due to the location, height, power output and frequency range (2.0 – 30.0 MHz) of the system
6Regulatory GuidanceHomeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 5: Management of Domestic Incidents• Mandates a resilient and redundant communications capability to support all levels of government to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8: National Preparedness Goal• Recognizes that preparedness and Operational Coordination requires resilient and redundant communications capabilitiesDepartment of Defense Directive (DODD) 5105.77: National Guard Bureau (NGB)• Mandates that the Chief, NGB, supervises the NGB’s functions as the channel of communications on National Guard matters with the States, in accordance with section 10501 of Title 10 United States Code• Mandates that the Chief, NGB, provides liaison, coordination, assistance, and support to the National Guard Joint Force Headquarters-State, pursuant to DODD 5105.83Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5105.83: National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters (JFHQ) –State• Establishes a JFHQ-State in each of the 54 states and territories of the United States composed of the NG leadership of that State, to support Federal missions and State missions when appropriate• Requires the maintenance of capabilities to extend interoperable communications for command and control, shared situational awareness, and unity of effort to a domestic incident site
7Site Overview
8Weather ImpactsCategory 1 Hurricane Storm Surge Map
9Weather Impacts ContinuedCategory 4 Hurricane Storm Surge Map
10Weather Impacts Continued100 Year Flood Zone (Blue) and 500 Year Flood Zone (Tan)
11Site Viewshed Overview
12View 1
13View 2
14View 3
15View 4
16View 5
17View 6
18Conclusion• The Hawai‘i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau request the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) provide preliminary comments pursuant to the Section 106 process based on the information provided to add an emergency communications capability to support the island of Kaua‘iand state of Hawai‘i in an all-hazard environment• The project is no cost to the State - All equipment, manning and maintenance will be the responsibility of the National Guard• The HING and NGB will ensure all natural and cultural resource compliance requirements are completed (Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and State Historic Preservation Office)• The Hawai‘i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau look forward to continuing to foster the relationship of working with the people of Kaua‘i and providing the support and security that the National Guard has excelled at providing in the past, present and the future• Updated architectural drawings and further information are available upon request
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//^/^/%>
1
GAY & ROBINSON, INC.
P.O. BOX 156 KAUMAKANI, HI 96747-0156
Main Office Telephone: 1-808-335-3133
January 25, 2021
Ka`āina Hull
Director of Planning
County of Kaua`i
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473
Lihu`e, Hawai`i 96766
Previously Existing Houses at Kaumakani Village
Houses 73, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94.
The below photos of the subject uninhabitable houses were taken in 2006. Due to vandalism,
illegal activity, and squatting, each of these uninhabited houses was substantially leveled down
to their concrete slab on grade foundations. The attached Drawing Number P01 shows a side by
side architectural comparison of the previously existing and proposed rebuild plan and elevation.
Original architectural characteristics were preserved to the maximum extent possible. All 200
houses in Kaumakani Village are of the same design, with approximately half having a reverse
floor plan. The attached Map of Kaumakani Village, Drawing P02, shows locations of each of
these houses. The remaining 192 houses in Kaumakani are habitable with near 100% occupancy.
For your reference, I have also attached the map “New Olokele Village As Built Drawing Utility
Layout”.
House #88
2
House #89
House # 90
3
House #90
House #91
4
House #92
House #92
5
House #93
House #93
GAY & ROBINSON, INC.
P.O. BOX 156 KAUMAKANI, HI 96747-0156
Main Office Telephone: 1-808-335-3133
February 26, 2021
Marisa Valenciano
Planner
County of Kauai Planning Department
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473
Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii 96766
Kaumakani Village Eight House Rebuild Project
HISTORY
Olokele Sugar Company (OSCo), (a C. Brewer Company), built a complete new village, consisting of 200
houses, with all necessary appurtenances during 1946 and 1947, completing the project in August 1947
(Gilmore Sugar Manual, 2007). It was considered impractical to renovate the older dwellings in which
the company’s employees had been living throughout the war years (Gilmore Sugar Manual, 2007). They
also built a store and community hall, a network of improved roads in the village, a sewage disposal
system, domestic water supply, electrical lighting and other conveniences for the benefit of the workers
occupying the area. This is believed to be one of the largest building programs undertaken at any one
time by any plantation in the Islands (Gilmore Sugar Manual, 2007). On December 17, 1967, Kaumakani
was hit by a tornado, the worst and most destructive that Hawaii has ever seen. The catastrophe caused
over $300,000 worth of damage to crops and houses and Kaumakani had a difficult time trying to recover
from the staggering blow. Unfortunately, the damage to their economy was found to be difficult to deal
with, and Kaumakani fell into hard times. In 1994, when G&R purchased OSCo, located in
Kaumakani, extensive repairs were made to the damaged plantation and the town was cultivated back to
functioning, while its history was preserved. G&R hired old plantation workers and was able to produce
sugar to help revive the waning Kaumakani economy.
Kaumakani Village 1947
2
Olokele Sugar Companys’ 1946 President report highlights the Kaumakani Village Housing Project:
3
Kaumakani Village 1946 – Construction nearly complete
Kaumakani Village was constructed on former
sugar cane lands. It is suspected that this area
was chosen by OSCo due to the poor sugar
yields that the underlying Nonopahu Clay soils
provided. Nonopahu Clay is highly expansive. It
is very poor for structural foundations. It is
unknown why OSCo choose to deviate from
traditional post and pier construction and go
with poured on grade concrete slabs. This
continues to be major problem with maintaining
the Houses. Settling and expansion damages the
foundations and pipes.
Portion of Soil Conservation Service Map 1939
4
The photos below show the effects of the expansive Nonopahu Clay soils on the foundations. Buttressing,
grinding and even removal are regular repairs we conduct. It is particularly problematic to the in-slab
plumbing.
House 88 -Note foundation cracks and repairs.
House 71- Failing foundation
5
REBUILD PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The new houses will have the same overall square footage and be located in the exact footprint of the
original house. Every effort was made in the design to keep the architecture of the original houses. The
floor plans will reflect original lay out with some minor modifications. Each house will be 3 bedroom/2
bath. House numbers 73, 89, 91, and 93 will have bath/kitchen/ utilities on the right (East) side of the
house. House numbers 88, 90, 92 ad 94 will have a mirrored floor plan with bath/kitchen/utilities on the
left (West) side of house.
See attached Drawing P01 for a comparison of the original houses to the new construction.
The table below shows comparison of key features:
Material/Constructin Original 1946 House Proposed House
Exterior Siding 1 x 5 T&G T111 no grooves, saw cut like
T&G
Exterior Trim 1x3 1x3/As much like as possible
Windows Double hung Double hung vinyl
Doors Most original doors have been
replaced
Plantation style
Roofing Corrugated metal roof Corrugated metal roof
Foundation Slab on Grade Post & Pier/ Grade Beam
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Kaumakani has nearly 100% Occupancy, with the exception of the eight houses slated for rebuild and a
handful that are undergoing repairs/maintenance before being inhabited by new tenants. A few remain for
consideration of demolition or repair (See FUTURE below).
In October 2019 the Kaumakani Villages’ Wastewater Treatment Plant was upgraded to a state of the art
secondary treatment plant. It consists of 10 cell fixed membrane aeriated bio-reactor with a finishing
clarifier. The project cost was approximately $1.3M.
One of Gay & Robinson, Inc.s Mission Statements is:
Renovate, restore, and expand the historic plantation camps for housing and supporting
community uses. Provide affordable housing to employees, retirees, agricultural workers and to
the community as a whole. Seek appropriate land use approvals and infrastructure to support the
long-term vitality of these neighborhoods.
6
G&R’s housing policy is below:
7
Many of the Tenants have lived in Kaumakani for decades. These “old timers” take great pride in their
dwellings. Here are a few pictures of existing homes:
House # 44
House # 116
8
House # 133
Kuamakani Hawaiian Church
9
FUTURE
G&R’s desire is to continue improvements and upkeep in Kaumakani Village. This includes future plans
for the renovation of the Commercial area. With the new Plantation Zoning District designation many
more houses will be considered for rebuild. With the newfound assurance of County support, long term
investment will be forth coming. This includes things like the water system, roads and community
infrastructure.
House # 64 - a candidate for demolition and rebuild
Respectfully submitted:
Howard Greene
Project Manager
Gay & Robinson, Inc.
1 Kaumakani Avenue
Kaumakani, Kauai, Hawaii 96747
ORDINANCE NO.1086 BILL NO.2800,Draft 1
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8,KAUA’I COUNTY
CODE 1987,AS AMENDED,BY ESTABLISHING A NEW PLANTATION
CAMP (PC)DISTRICT AND AMENDING ZONING MAP ZM-200
(County of Kaua’i Planning Department,Applicant)(ZA-2020-1O)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I,STATE OF
HAWAI’I:
SECTION 1.Findings and Purpose.The purpose of this Ordinance is
to:(1)allow for the establishment of a new “Plantation Camp (PC)Zoning District”
that will provide greater nonconforming flexibility to accommodate the repair and
rebuilding capacity of those structures that currently exist within the proposed
Plantation Camp Zoning District,and (2)amend Zoning Map ZM-200 (in the
Hanapëpê Planning Area)from Agricultural District (A)to Plantation Camp
District (PC)for a portion of Tax Map Keys (4)1-7-006:001 and (4)1-7-006:003
located in Makaweli,and a portion of Tax Map Key (4)2-2-001:001 located in
Numila.
The County of Kaua’i finds that our historic plantation camps continue to
provide valued housing for residents,as it has for well over a hundred years.These
camps are thriving,dynamic communities that remain integral to Kaua’i and
Ni’ihau.
Although functioning for decades as an urban land use,Kaua’i’s historic
plantation camps are all located within the Agriculture Zoning District.Pursuant
to the Kaua’i County Code 1987,as amended,all structures within these camps are
legally nonconforming.Currently,Chapter 8,Article 3,Kaua’i County Code 1987,
as amended (Nonconforming Structures and Uses)prohibits “non-conforming”
structures from being reconstructed or substantially repaired.
Furthermore,the County of Kaua’i recognizes that these plantation camps
are currently located within the State Land Use Urban District and that the
landowner,through the County,may seek for further zoning amendments to
masterplan these areas at a future date.Until that time,the Plantation Camp
Zoning District accommodates the existing and historical use of these areas and
ensures that they can continue in perpetuity.
SECTION 2.Chapter 8,Kaua’i County Code 1987,as amended is
hereby amended by adding a new Article 8A to be appropriately designated,
inserted following Article 8 (Agriculture Districts (A)),and to read as follows:
“ARTICLE 8A.
PLANTATION CAMP DISTRICTS (PC)
Sec. 8-8A.1 Purpose.
The Plantation Camp District is established to ensure that the historic
use of these sites can continue in perpetuity by allowing the continued use,
maintenance,repair,and rebuild of existing structures to occur.
1
Sec. 8-8A.2 Plantation Camp District Development Standards.
(a)New buildings and structures in the Plantation
Camp (PC)District shall be subject to the development standards
established in Section 8-4.3 and 8-4.5 of this Chapter.
(b)Nonconforming buildings and structures in the Plantation
Camp (PC)District.
(1)Buildings and structures that do not conform to the
regulations established by this Chapter and that lawfully
existed prior to ~may be maintained,transferred,and sold,
provided that the Planning Commission may,after hearing,
order the removal of a nonconforming structure that creates
substantial danger to public health or safety.
(2)Any nonconforming structure,except as otherwise
regulated,may be repaired,maintained,demolished,and rebuilt
insofar as the following requirements are met:
(A)The rebuild does not expand or enlarge the
structure;and
(B)The repair or rebuild are subject to the
requirements of Chapter 8,Article 27,Kaua’i County
Code 1987,as amended and Chapters 12 through 15A,
Kaua’i County Code 1987,as amended.
(3)The Director may allow the rebuild of a
nonconforming structure in a different location from where it
originally occupied if the following requirements are met:
(A)The applicant can demonstrate how the new
location will better mitigate the structure’s vulnerability
to environmental hazards; and
(B)The proposed rebuild structure is not an
expanded or enlarged version of the original structure;
and
(C)The repair or rebuild are subject to the
requirements of Chapter 8,Article 27,Kaua’i County
Code 1987,as amended and Chapters 12 through 15A,
Kaua’i County Code 1987,as amended.
(c)Nonconforming uses in the Plantation Camp
District (PC).A nonconforming use of land,building,or other structure
may continue to the extent that the use lawfully existed prior to ~as
provided in this Section,provided that the Planning Commission may,
after hearing,order the termination of a nonconforming use that
creates substantial danger to public health or safety.
(d)Residential Density.No new or additional residential
density shall be permitted beyond,or in addition to,the existing
residential density established by the existing nonconforming
residential structures.
2
Sec.8-8A.3 Limitations on Subdivision of Parcels in Plantation
Camp Districts.
(a)Subdivision in the Plantation Camp (PC)District shall be
subject to the subdivision standards established in Section 8-8.3 of this
Chapter.
(b)For the purposes of subdivision,and the application of
Section 8-8.3,the portion of the subject lot that is within the
Plantation Camp (PC)District shall be considered as within the
Agriculture Zoning District.
Sec.8-8A.4 Permits Required.
(a)The permits required for repair or rebuild of any new
structures located in the Plantation Camp (PC)District shall be the
same as those in Section 8-8.4.
(b)The permits required for repair or rebuild of any
nonconforming non-residential structures located in the Plantation
Camp (PC)District shall be the same as those in Section 8-8.4.
(c)The permits required for repair or rebuild of
nonconforming residential structures located in the Plantation
Camp (PC)District shall be the same as those in Section 8-4.7.”
SECTION 3.Designation of Zoning Map ZM-200 for Plantation Camp
Districts.The zoning map ZM-200,attached to this Ordinance as Exhibits 1-2 and
on file with the Planning Department,County of Kaua’i,shall carry out the
purposes of this Ordinance,and are by reference incorporated herein and made a
part hereof.
SECTION 4.The Planning Department is directed to note the changes
on the official zoning maps on file with the Department.
SECTION 5.Severability.If any provision of this Ordinance or
application thereof to any person,persons,or circumstances is held invalid,the
invalidity does not affect the other provisions or applications of this Ordinance
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,and to this
end,the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 6.All SECTION 2 material is new.When revising,
compiling,or printing this Ordinance for inclusion in the Kaua’i County Code 1987,
as amended,the adoption date of this Ordinance shall be substituted for the
placeholders.
3
SECTION 7.This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
Introduced by:Is!MASON K.CHOCK
(By Request)
DATE OF INTRODUCTION:
August 5,2020
Lihu’e,Kaua’i,Hawai’i
V:\BILLS\2018-2020 TERM\BiII No.2800 Draft 1 (Plantation Camp)MC_AAOJy.doc
4
MapShowingProposedAmendment toZoningMap ZM-200fromAgricultural District(A)toPlantationCampDistrict(PC)•PCDistrict Boundary~i.•.•Makaweli,Kaua’i,Hawai’ipI,II‘I‘IF,‘I‘I”,4,1/‘~/‘I.‘I//\‘—//I,”IF1~•~44~——/—•1~Ic4F,,40‘II,—~:~4%’~——~~~~•‘-~~——~~=~=——280.1•1~.•.‘II411/1///14,//4,‘I======~~==“/Ii/1PRIVATE.4,IIif,•1I//ii•••~.••‘.••.•HHHH/44I~::‘1.:H.~QU•~.•~,II.•1~HIIH%U.‘IHHH/A(I‘I‘I,.30•II•1,,~:•:1111—11IIIIIIIL..-:420~‘~‘~‘~,j..c~(%W~N,~i1j‘~tb03060II07501,500Feet
11I..~,I—~ii~1~~ii•___n~MapShowingProposedAmendment to ZoningMap ZM-200fromAgricultural District(A)toPlantationCampDistrict(PC)....•PCDistrictBoundary...10250 500Feet11Up.4.4I.!11ii•~I•I4~.•4’44IiUI-a,...-Numila,Kaua’i,Hawaii
CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
I hereby certify that heretofore attached is a true and correct copy of
Bill No.2800,Draft 1,which was adopted on second and final reading by the Council of
the County of Kaua’i at its meeting held on November 25,2020,by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION:Chock,Cowden,Evslin,
Kagawa,Kuali’i,Kaneshiro TOTAL —6,
AGAINST ADOPTION:None TOTAL -0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING:Brun TOTAL -1*,
RECUSED &NOT VOTING:None TOTAL -0.
LIhu’e,Hawai’i
November 25,2020 Jade ~4?’ountain~Tanigawa
County Clerk,County of Kaua’i
*Beginning with the March 11,2020 Council Meeting and until further notice,
Councilmember Arthur Brun will not be present due to U.S.v.Arthur Brun et al.,
Cr.No.20-00024-DKW (United States District Court),and therefore will be noted as
excused (i.e.,not present).
ATTEST:
OnAi1~Q ~J~L~1t~
Arryl Ka6~shiro
Chairman & Presiding Officer
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL TO MAYOR:
November 25,2020
Approved this 34 day of
.Q.i34,~4 2020.
Derek S.K.Kawakami,
Mayor
County of Kaua’i
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I. SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC:
a. Consideration of the design review standards as part of the Class I Zoning
Permit Application for the rebuild of eight (8) plantation camp housing units
located in Kaumakani Village.
1) Support for the project; or
2) A recommendation to the Planning Department that its approval of
any zoning permit should incorporate conditions of approval; or
3) A recommendation to the Planning Department to consider denial of
the permit(s); or
4) A recommendation to defer action on the permits.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
Parcel
Location:
Kaumakani Village, Hawaii
Tax Map
Key(s):
(4) 1-7-006:001
Area: 1,077.5300 Acres/
46,937,207 sq. ft.
Age of
Structures
Kaumakani Village Plantation Camp
House Numbers 73 and 88-94
As represented by the applicant, the Kaumakani Village plantation camp
homes were constructed between the years of 1946-1947 and estimated
to be at least 75 years old.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES
Zoning: Plantation Camp (PC) Zoning District
State Land Use
District:
Urban
General Plan
Designation:
Plantation Camp
Owner(s): Robinson Family Partners
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. The applicant is proposing to rebuild eight (8) plantation camp housing units
in Kaumakani Village for affordable housing. The original eight housing units,
constructed between 1946-1947, were previously demolished due to
foundation issues and illegal activities. As represented by the applicant, the
new housing units will have the same overall square footage and will be
placed in the exact location and footprint of the original housing units. A
summary of the similarities and differences between the original and new
housing units is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary Comparison of the Original Housing Units vs. the New Housing Units
Key Similarities Key Differences
• Same Square Footage
• Same Footprint
• Same Location
• Similar architectural features
• Addition of a second bathroom
• Mirroring floor plans
• Different foundation (concrete
vs. Post-pier)
Interior Floor Plans
The interior layout of the new housing units will be similar to the original 3
bedroom and 1 bathroom floor plan except for the addition of a second
bathroom. In addition, the new housing units will have a mirrored floor plan
with bath/ kitchen/ utilities either on the right side or the left side of the
housing unit.
Exterior Features
The applicant intends to construct the new housing units to be in keeping with
the historic design and character of the original plantation camp homes built
in 1946-1947. As represented by the applicant, the new housing units will
include architectural features of the original housing units using similar in-kind
materials as listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Comparison of Exterior Architectural Features
Material/ Construction
Type
Original House
(1946-1947)
Proposed House
Exterior Siding 1 x 5 T&G T111 no grooves, saw cut
like T&G
Exterior Trim 1X3 1x3 as much like as
possible
Windows Double Hung Double Hung Vinyl
Exterior Doors Most original doors have
been replaced
Plantation rear- ½ view/ 2
panel front -2 panel sq. top
Roofing Corrugated metal roof Corrugated metal roof
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 3
Foundation Slab on Grade Post & Pier/ Grade Beam
IV. TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW AND HISTORIC PROFILE
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-2 defines “Historic property” as “any
building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater
site, which is over fifty years old.”
Hawai‘i Revised Statues (HRS) §6E-42.2 excludes activities for privately-
owned single-family detached dwelling units and townhouses.
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.
V. EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
a. Site/Building/Structure/Object is NOT Listed on Register – State and/or
National Register
b. The property is NOT located in a Historic District
c. The property IS over 50 years old and defined as a “historic property,”
but is EXEMPT under HRS 6E review pursuant to HRS 6E-42.2 as a
privately-owned single-family detached dwelling unit.
d. The property IS included on the KHPRC Inventory List
1) Kaumakani Camp is identified on the KHPRC inventory list,
along with other resources on the same TMK that include the
Kaumakani Store, Kaumakani Public Buildings, Olokele
Supervisor’s Row, and Olokele Secondary Supervisor’s Row. In
1994, a reconnaissance survey was conducted for KHPRC that
provided observations about the integrity and architectural features
of the Kaumakani Camp. Such observations included a new
corrugated metal roof and gable-roofed houses with tongue and
groove siding.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 4
e. Evaluation Under the Criteri for listing to the National or State Register
of Historic Places
Under the criteria for listing a property on the State and National Registers of
Historic Places, the historic nature or significance of the
site/building/structure/object may be assessed as follows:
• Criteria A. The property is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department,
Kaumakani plantation camp is associated with the plantation era and
represents one of the last remaining examples of plantation camps on
Kaua‘i that is actively used for affordable housing. The plantation style
architecture, culture, and local traditions have contributed to the broad
patterns of our history and may have been associated with significant
events. Therefore, the historic property may meet the National Register
Criteria A.
• Criteria B. The property is associated with the lives of significant persons
in our past;
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
property is owned by the Sinclair and Robinson families. While these
families are significant, they are not directly associated with Kaumakani
plantation camp and are unlikely to qualify under the National Register
Criteria B.
• Criteria C. The property/structure/building embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction;
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
plantation camp housing units at Kaumakani Village are strongly
associated with a specific type, period, or method of distinctive Hawaiian
plantation style construction. Therefore, this historic property does meet
the National Register Criteria C.
• Criteria D. The property has yielded or may be likely to yield, information
important in history or prehistory.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 5
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department,
Kaumakani plantation camp may yield information important in history or
prehistory as the existing housing site is approximately 75 years old.
Therefore, this historic property may meet the National Register Criteria D.
• Criteria E. (Hawai‘i Register Only). Important value to native Hawaiian
people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with
cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property; or
due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts – these
associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity.
Based on the information gathered by the Planning Department, the
subject property is unlikely to meet the requirements of Criteria E.
• Based on the Department’s review, Kaumakani plantation camp is
“historically significant” and eligible for listing on the National and/ or State
Historic Register.
f. Seven Aspects of Historic Integrity
1) The Kaumakani Village Plantation Camp retains all seven
aspects of Historic Integrity: location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
g. As part of the West Kaua‘i Community Plan, the Kaua‘i County Council
passed a zoning amendment to create a new Plantation Camp Zoning
District. Under this new zoning district, historic plantation camps can continue
to provide housing to Kaua‘i residents with the flexibility to repair and rebuild
its existing structures.
h. Kaumakani Village is zoned within the Plantation Camp Zoning District.
Under this new zoning district, the applicant is applying for the proper permits
to reconstruct their existing structures. As represented by the applicant, the
current proposal for rebuild is only limited to the eight plantation camp
housing units that have been previously demolished.
i. The applicant intends to reconstruct the new eight housing units in the same
exact location and in the same footprint of the original units. As reflected in
the applicant’s plans, the goal is to be in keeping with the historic character of
the surrounding area and to construct the new units in a manner that
maintains the same architectural look and feel of the 1940s original design.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 6
j. The applicant has thoughtfully considered the use of in-kind materials for
significant architectural features such as the roof, exterior siding, exterior,
trim, and windows.
k. One of the major differences between the old and new design is the
foundation construction. When the original units were constructed in the
1940s, the structure was placed on concrete slabs. According to the
applicant, Kaumakani Camp sits on former sugar cane lands with a clay soil
type that is highly expansive and damaging to the foundation and pipes of the
original homes. To compensate for the soil type, the applicant is proposing
that the new units be constructed with a post and pier design.
l. Although Kaumakani Village is eligible for listing on both the National and
State Register of Historic Places, the proposed rebuild of the eight units
should not jeopardize the historic significance of the subject property.
Instead, the new units will fill in the areas where the original homes would
have been located. Many of the plantation camp housing units remain today
in its original form and the camp as a whole still retains a high level of
integrity.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
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 rebuild of eight plantation camp housing units
located in Kaumakani Village with the following conditions:
1) Any repairs, rehabilitation, and/ or reconstruction shall
preserve and utilize the design elements of the original historical
structure including but not limited to the roof, fenestration, trim, and
exterior siding.
2) The Applicant shall be cognizant that KHPRC review and
approval shall not obviate the Applicant or permit application
submittal from the standard regulatory permitting review process
and the permitting requirements set forth in the applicable State
and County laws, including but not limited to the County of Kaua‘i
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department’s final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing
process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making.
The entire record includes but is not limited to:
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
G&R Kaumakani Village- Rebuild of Plantation Camp Housing Units
TMK: (4) 1-7-006:001
Page 7
a. Government agency comments;
b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and
c. The land owner’s response.
By _________________________________
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved & Recommended to Commission:
By _________________________________
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date: ___________________
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
I. SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC:
a. Consideration to amend and significantly reduce the scope of work that was
previously approved at the November 2018 KHPRC Meeting.
b. Consideration to withdraw the zoning permits and building permits that are
no longer relevant to the revised scope of work.
c. Consideration of a new Class I Zoning Permit for the new scope of work
involving the renovation of the historic structure and the replacement of the
existing open lanai with a covered lanai.
KHPRC actions may include the following:
1) Support for the project; or
2) A recommendation to the Planning Department that its approval of
any zoning permit should incorporate conditions of approval; or
3) A recommendation to the Planning Department to consider denial of
the permit(s); or
4) A recommendation to defer action on the permits.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
Parcel
Location:
5242 Weke Road
Hanalei, Kaua‘i
Tax Map
Key(s):
(4) 5-5-002:107
Area: 1.2630 Acres/
55,016 sq. ft.
Age of
Structures
According to the Real Property Tax Assessment, there is one structure
on the property that was built in 1928 and is estimated to be
approximately 93 years old.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES
Zoning: Open
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House
TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107
Page 2
State Land Use
District:
Urban
General Plan
Designation:
Natural
Owner(s): 3 Palms, LLC
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Description
The Douglas Baldwin Beach House is an ocean-front, single-story, and rectangular
frame house located along Weke Road. The current floor plan consists of three
bedrooms, 1 bathroom, an enclosed lanai, and an outdoor deck. The property also
has a detached garage structure.
Project Description
The Applicant is revising its original scope of work that was previously presented
and approved at the November 2018 KHPRC Meeting.
Applicant Proposal- November 2018
At the November 2018 meeting, the Applicant proposed a total of seven changes
under a zoning permit application involving the following: 1) Construction of a new
dwelling unit 2) Construction of a new guest house 3) Addition of a new hot tub
4) Construction of a new 6 foot wood fence (not to enter 100’ from the Certified
Shoreline) 5) Installation of a new outdoor shower 6) Conversion of the existing
dwelling unit (the historic Baldwin Beach House) to an Accessory Structure (with
entry landing) and 7) Installation of related site utilities.
In summary, the Applicant was primarily interested in converting the historic beach
house into an accessory structure in order transfer the density and use it to
construct the new dwelling unit and guest house.
The KHPRC voted to ACCEPT the proposed conversion and construction as
presented and the Applicant proceeded in applying for the proper zoning, building,
and SMA/ Shoreline permits.
Applicant Proposal- March 2021
The Applicant has now decided to not move forward with the original scope of work
that was originally presented before the KHPRC in November 2018. The Applicant
intends to retain the use of the historic beach home as a dwelling unit and will no
longer construct a new dwelling unit and a guest house on the property. In
addition, the previous plans to demolish the garage will be replaced with future
plans to renovate and restore it.
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House
TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107
Page 3
To proceed with the revised scope of work, the Applicant is seeking the KHPRC
approval to amend existing permits, withdraw permits, and apply for a new permit.
1) Request to Amend a Permit
The Applicant is requesting to amend zoning permit Z-74-2019 which allowed for
the original seven improvements that were presented in November 2018. Under
the amended zoning permit, four items, related to the construction of new units and
the conversion of the historic beach home, will be eliminated. The only three
improvements that will be implemented include the new hot tub, outdoor shower,
and fence, which will not be attached to the historic beach home. Table 1 below
provides a summary of the amendments to zoning permit Z-74-2019.
Table 1. Amended Permit
Permit Requested
Action
Original Permit
Description
(2019)
Amended Permit
Description
(March 2021)
Z-74-2019 Amend
Permit
New Dwelling Unit New Dwelling Unit
Guest House Guest House
Hot Tub Hot Tub
6 ft. Wood Fence 6 ft. Wood Fence
Outdoor Shower Outdoor Shower
Conversion of Existing
Historic Dwelling Unit to an
Accessory Structure
Conversion of Existing
Historic Dwelling Unit to
an Accessory Structure
Related site utilities Related site utilities
2) Request to Withdraw Permits
The Applicant is also proposing to formally withdraw the zoning permits and
building permits related to the garage demolition and other improvements that are
no longer relevant to the revised scope of work. A list of permits to withdraw are
provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Withdrawn Permits
Permit Requested
Action
Permit Description
Applicant Justification
(March 2021)
Z-275-2020 Withdraw 1) Garage Demolition
2) Removal of the Deck,
Ramp, Walls, Doors,
Cabinetry, Fixtures,
etc.
1) Keeping the garage
2) Plans for the
removal of the deck
and interior
renovations have
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House
TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107
Page 4
changed. See new
permit plans.
BP-19-504 Withdraw Removal of the Deck,
Ramp, Walls, Doors,
Cabinetry, Fixtures, etc.
Plans for the removal of the
deck and interior
renovations have changed.
See new permit plans.
BP-19-509 Withdraw Garage Demolition
Keeping the garage with
future plans for renovation.
3) Request for a New Permit
Finally, the Applicant is seeking approval for a NEW Class I Zoning Permit to
renovate the existing historic beach home and to construct a covered lanai
extension. As represented in the new plans, the Applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing open lanai and install a new covered lanai on the makai
side of the property. Other improvements include the replacement of existing
windows and doors with in-kind replacement materials. A summary of the new
permit is provided in Table 3 below.
Table 3. New Permit
Permit Requested
Action
Permit Description
Z-XX-21 Approval Renovation to the Historic Beach Home including:
• Demolition of the existing open lanai and stairs
• Construction of a new covered lanai and stairs
• Replacement of windows and doors
IV. TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW
a. This project triggers the KHPRC review as the structure is over fifty years old
and is listed on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places.
V. EVALUATION
a. The Douglas Baldwin Beach House was listed on the State Register of
Historic Places in August of 1987 (SIHP No. 30-03-9386). It is not listed on
the National Register or located in a Historic District.
b. According to the State Register of Historic Places Registration form, the
historic beach home is architecturally significant and representative of the
beach homes that were constructed along Hanalei Bay during the early to mid
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House
TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107
Page 5
1900s. The nomination form highlighted specific features of the historic beach
home including the corrugated iron hip roof, large enclosed lanai, and double
hung windows. In addition, the subject property is associated with a
significant person- Douglas Baldwin, who was a manager of Alexander &
Baldwin’s Hawai‘i Sugar Company from 1928 to 1942.
c. As represented by the applicant, the revised scope of work will preserve and
restore the historic beach home. Furthermore, the improvements will be
limited to the outdoor deck and the replacement of windows and doors with
in-kind materials.
d. The Applicant asserts that the existing outdoor deck was a modern addition
and not synonymous with the large, enclosed lanai that was mentioned in the
nomination form. According to the Applicant, the enclosed lanai may have
been part of the original design of the beach home but was later converted to
its current use as a living room.
e. The Department does not have any zoning permits that confirm the original
footprint of the historic beach home or any modifications related to the
enclosed lanai or outdoor deck. In reviewing the features listed in the
nomination form, the Department does not believe that the outdoor deck was
part of the original home nor part of the large enclosed lanai. Therefore, the
Department does not believe the removal of the existing deck and the
addition of a new deck will affect the historic significance of the existing beach
home.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, the Planning Department
recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT
the deck and window improvements with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall ensure that the architectural form, style, and material used for
the proposed improvements is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of Interior
Standards & Guidelines, and does not detract from or significantly alter the
historic integrity of the existing property and the historic beach house.
2. Applicant shall be cognizant that KHPRC review and approval shall not obviate
the Applicant or permit application submittal from the standard regulatory
permitting review process and the permitting requirements set forth in the
applicable State and County laws, including but not limited to the County of
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18, 2021 Meeting
3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House
TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107
Page 6
Kaua‘i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
3. Applicant shall be cognizant of the HRS 6E-10 review process as it pertains to
privately owned properties listed on the Hawai‘i or National Registers of Historic
Places. The Applicant shall formally contact SHPD and comply with any
conditions or agency comments.
4. Prior to issuance of the new permit, the applicant shall submit a letter to the
Department to confirm compliance with any EIS/ EA requirement pursuant to
HRS 343.
5. Prior to issuance of the new permit, the applicant shall do the following:
a. Formally withdraw all zoning and building permits that are no longer
relevant to the revised scope of work.
b. Formally amend or withdraw the existing Z-74-2019 zoning permit.
c. Apply for all necessary shoreline or SMA permits based on the
revised scope of work.
The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department’s final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing
process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making.
The entire record includes but is not limited to:
a. Government agency comments;
b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and
c. The land owner’s response.
By _________________________________
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved & Recommended to Commission:
By _________________________________
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date: ___________________
Ele‘ele Baptist Church (EBC)
Proposed Improvements to Church Building
The primary purpose of the project is to expand and renovate the existing Church Building only.
It was built in 1965 and its most recent improvement involved interior renovations in 2011 that
was processed through Building Permit 11-964. Currently, the Church has been able to provide
its parishioners with religious services. The secondary purpose is to improve the community
outreach to service the hungry in the area, by working with Foodbank to distribute food to those
in need. The work includes:
• A side Entry/Lanai for outdoor gatherings after services
• Expansion of Meeting Space, Storage and Pantry
o Current Church area 2,387 sq. ft.
o New Side Entry/Lanai 1,456 sq. ft.
o New Meeting Space 447 sq. ft.
o New Storage Room 259 sq. ft.
o New Pantry 550 sq. ft.
o New Breezeway 333 sq. ft.
New Total Church area 5,432 sq. ft.
Background History
The ‘Ele’ele Baptist Church was started in 1964 with a lease agreement between the Port Allen
Mission and McBryde Sugar Company (aka. Alexander & Baldwin). The property was sold to
the Hawai‘i Baptist Convention in 1975 to be used as a church.
The existing church/sanctuary building was built in 1965, by contractor James Izumi. The
parsonage was also built in 1965 and was destroyed by Hurricane Iniki in 1992. In 1993, an
Emergency Permit was granted to the ‘Ele‘ele Baptist Church to rebuild the new Parsonage
Building as well as the damaged Church/Sanctuary Building. In 2011, the Sanctuary’s interior
was renovated to add partitions for a meeting room, restrooms and a classroom.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR
JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR
MICHAELA.DAHILIfi,MANAGING DIRECTOR
Kaua'i County hlistoric Preservation Review Commission
(KHPRC)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by KHPRC:
a.Consideration of a Class IV Zoning Permit and a Use Permit to expand and
renovate a portion ofthe existing church building.KHPRC actions may
include the following:
1)Support for the project;or
2)A recommendation to the Planning Commission that its approval of
any zoning permit should incorporate conditions of approval;or
3)A recommendation to the Planning Commission to consider denial of
the permit(s);or
4)A recommendation to defer action on the permits.
II.PROJECT INFORMATION
III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •Uhu'e,Hawai'i 967G6 •(808)241 -4050 (b)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Parcel
Location:
339 Mehana Rd.'Ele'ele,Kaua'i
Tax Map (4)2-1-001:041 Area:0.6890 Acres/
30,013sq.ft.
Age of
Structures
The subject property has two main structures—achurch sanctuary and a
single-family residence.According to the Real Property Tax
Assessment records,the two structures were both constructed in 1965
and is estimated to be at least 56 years old.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS &VALUES
Zoning:R-4/ST-P
State Land Use
District:
Urban
General Plan
Designation:
Neighborhood General
Owner(s):'Ele'ele Baptist Church
Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18,2021 Meeting
'Ele'ele Baptist Church
TMK:(4)2-1-001:041
Page2
a.The scope ofwork is limited to the main sanctuary building located closest to
Kaumuali'i Highway.The applicant is proposing to expand both sides ofthe
main sanctuary with a new covered lanai on the eastern side and a
breezeway with access to a new meeting space,storage room,and pantry on
the western side.In total,the proposed improvements will add on
approximately 5,432 sq.ft.The proposed expansion areas will be covered
with a new roofthatwill be distinguished from the existing roofline ofthe
sanctuary.As part of this project,the existing roofline of the main sanctuary
will also be reroofed.
IV.TRIGGER FOR KHPRC REVIEW AND HISTORIC PROFILE
Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)§6E-2defines "Historic property"as "any
building,structure,object,district,area,orsite,including heiau andunderwater
s/te,which is over flfty years old."
Hawai'i Administrative Rules Title 13 defines "Significant Historic Property"as"any historic property that meets the critgria"for listing on the Hawai'i Register
ofHistoric Places underHAR 275-6fb)orHAR 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 ofHistoric
P/aces,including those which any Native Hawaiian organization might attach
religious and cultural significance.
V.EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
a.Site/Building/Structure/Object is NOT Listed on Register -State and/or
National Register
b.The property is NOT located in a Historic District
c.The propertyJS over 50 years old and NOT.an existing privately-owned
single-family detached dwelling unit or townhouse.Therefore,the
project IS.subject to Hawai'i Revised Statues (HRS)Chapter 6E-42.
d.The property IS NOT included on the KHPRC Inventory List
e.Evaluation Under the Criteria for listing to the National or State Register
of Historic Places
Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18,2021 Meeting
'Ele'ele Baptist Church
TMK:(4)2-1-001:041
Page3
Under the criteria for listing a property on the State and National Registers of
hlistoric Places,the historic nature or significance of the
site/building/structure/object may be assessed as follows:
•Criteria A.The property is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
The Department does not maintain historic information for the subject
property.However,based on the Department's research,there is no
information to confirm that the property is associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
•Criteria B.The property is associated with the lives of significant persons
in our past;
The Department does not maintain historic information for the subject
property.However,based on the Department's research,there is no
information to confirm that that the property is associated with the lives of
significant persons in our past.
•Criteria C.The property/structure/building embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type,period,or method of construction,or that
represent the work of a master,or that possess high artistic values,or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose connponents may
lack individual distinction;
The Department does not maintain historic information for the subject
property.However,based on the Department's research,there is no
information to confirm that the subject property meets the requirements of
Criteria C.
Criteria D.The property has yielded or may be likely to yield,information
important in history or prehistory.
The Department does not maintain historic information for the subject
property.However,based on the Department's research,there is no
information to confirm that the property is likely to yield information
important in history or prehistory.
Criteria E.(Hawai'i Register Only).Important value to native Hawaiian
people or to another ethnic group ofthe state due to associations with
cultural practices once carried out,or still carried out, at
the property;or
Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)
March 18,2021 Meeting
'Ele'ele Baptist Church
TMK:(4)2-1-001:041
Page4
due to associations with traditional beliefs,events or oral accounts -these
associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity.
The Department does not maintain historic information for the subject
property.However,based on the Department's research,there is no
information to confirm that the property presents evidence that meets
Criteria E.
Based on the Department's review,there is no evidence that
indicates significance under Criteria A,B,C,D,and E.
VI.EVALUATION OF HISTORIC INTEGRITV
a.Seven Aspects of Historic Integrity
Based on the Department's review,the subject property appears to maintain
the following aspects of integrity:location and setting.There is a lack of
information available about the subject property to confirm ifthe integrity of
the design,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association have been
retained.
b.Permit History
The zoning permits for this subject property are listed in Table 1 below.All
the zoning permits to date,with the exception ofZ-601-2010,involve
improvements on the Single-Family Residence or minor additions (i.e.fence)
to the property.Although the 2010 zoning permit was for the main sanctuary
building,the improvements were interior renovations limited to the existing
footprint.Based on the Department's research,there are no zoning permits
to date that have substantially altered the exterior of the main sanctuary
building.
Table 1.'Ele'ele Baptist Church Permit Historv
1982 Z-660-1982 New Chain Link Fence
1985 Z-660-1985 Carport Addition to Residence
1988 Z-820-1988 Chain Llnk Fence
1992 R1-255 OEP Permit for the Single-Family Dwelling
Damage included:roof and bearing walls gone,
water damage,and damage to ceilings,windows,
and floors.
Proposed Repairs:rebuild and enlarge^
2010 Z-601-2010 Interior Renovations for the Main Sanctuar^
Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commisslon (KHPRC)
March 18,2021 Meeting
'Ele'ele Baptist Church
TMK:(4)2-1-001:041
PageS
VII.RECOMMENDATION
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 expansion and renovation to the church
sanctuary building.
The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department's final reconnmendation 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 limited to:
a.Government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The land owner's response.
By
MARISA VALENCIANO
Planner
Approved &Recommended to Commission:
^)6
I/JODI A.HIGUCHI SAVAGUSA
Deputy Director of Planning
Date:3/4/2021