Loading...
2022-1-27 KHPRC_Agenda Packet COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date August 19, 2021 Location Teleconference by Microsoft Teams Start of Meeting: 1:39 p.m. End of Meeting: 2:26 p.m. Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Stephen Long (participated in the meeting by audio-not visible) and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall. Planning Department Staff: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Planner Marisa Valenciano, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Myles Hironaka. Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Commissioner Carolyn Larson Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION A. Call To Order Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. B. Roll Call Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Commissioner Guerber replied here. Commissioner Larson was excused. Commissioner Long replied here. Commissioner Summers replied here. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here. Chair Ida replied here. Quorum was established with five commissioners present. C. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa explained Governor Ige’s Proclamation dated August 5, 2021, that included guidelines for virtual meetings. The commissioners were asked to comply with the new rule that all members remain visible on their device camera throughout the entire meeting. She asked that they mute their device if not speaking and unmute before speaking. It also added the public capability to join and view the meetings virtually. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa said the virtual Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to approve the August 19, 2021 agenda, as circulated. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION meetings would continue for the next several meetings. Chair Ida reminded commissioners to raise their electronic hand prior to speaking. D. Approval of the Minutes 1. February 18, 2021 2. March 18, 2021 3. April 15, 2021 Vice Chair Remoaldo asked what “lases” was on page 13 under action 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 lases, including but not limited to the County of Kaua‘i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Valenciano replied it was a typographical error and should be “laws”. The commission was given the option to restate the motion to include the correction; however, the motion stood as presented earlier. Chair Ida called for the vote. Mr. Guerber moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2021, March 18, 2021, and April 15, 2021, as circulated. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. E. Communications There were none. F. Public Comment Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa announced that any member of the public could now testify on any agenda item. Hearing no response, she moved on to the next agenda item. G. General Business Matters There were none. H. Unfinished Business H.1. Discussion Regarding Minimum Requirements for Project Presentations Before the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Commission a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The commission previously discussed establishing minimal requirements and resources for applications reviewed by KHPRC. A checklist was created along with additional resources to Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION assist the applicant. • The department worked with Commissioner Stephen Long and the result was the posting on the KPHRC webpage. • The information on the website could easily be amended. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa displayed the KHPRC webpage. Questions: 1. Mr. Guerber inquired about the process and enforcement of the requirements. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa responded that Ms. Valenciano was the gate keeper and worked directly with all applicants. Ms. Valenciano responded that she reviews and assists a wide variety of applications and works to ensure that it conforms to the minimal requirements before its presented to the commission Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall advised that the commission could act by deferring for future comments or add comments. He said if they act to accept, it could always be placed back on the agenda for additional discussion to edit the content. The department responded that it would accept and review comments by email or phone if the commission needed to adjust or edit the content on the website posting and if needed it would be reviewed by the whole commission. H.2. Certified Local Government (CLG) Update. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa explained an overview of the CLG program and shared the following; • The CLG encouraged state and local governments to participate with the national historic preservation programs and commit to maintain standards consistent with the national historic preservation act and secretary of interior standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation. Kaua‘i, Maui and Big Island are certified for the CLG program. • Yearly SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) offered grants to CLG’s for projects that support historic preservation, but the one-year timeline constraint was too short for the county’s lengthy procurement process to complete. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • There was a $60,000 CLG grant available that the department could seek funding for training, either to fund commissioners to travel to the site or hire a consultant to train the commission here. The commission did not take action and was asked to email or call with any suggestions or ideas on use of the grant money. I. New Business I.1. County of Kaua‘i, Housing Agency Lima Ola Workforce Housing Project Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-001:054 ‘Ele‘ele, Kaua‘i National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Initial Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation for the Re-evaluation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) b. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The project was construction of 550 affordable housing units in ‘Ele‘ele. Section 106 was triggered by use of Federal funds and Chapter 343 by reevaluation of draft environmental assessment conducted prior to construction. • The planning department recommended the commissions’ action as follows; o For Section 106 KHPRC concur with effect but with proposed mitigation and comment that the agency should preserve the historic plantation irrigation ditch system to the maximum extent possible. o For Chapter 343 KHPRC concur related to portions regarding cultural and historic properties. • The ditch was already removed and request KHPRC submit recommendations that would generate a helpful response for the housing agency. County of Kaua‘i Housing Agency, Housing Development Coordinator Steven Franco and consultant Kehau Watson reviewed the following; • The project was in phase one and infrastructure was to be installed. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • The ditch was partially removed; it was not removed in its entirety. • The goal requested was concurrence to remove the remainder of the ditch that was in the project area. • The departments recommendation to preserve the ditch was not appropriate and the agency asked that KHPRC; o Concur to remove the remainder of the ditch that was within the project area. o Concur with the mitigation data recovery in a historic context. Questions: 1. Chair Ida inquired about the process used to remove portions of the ditch. Ms. Watson explained that removal of portions of the ditch was necessary to complete the housing project. SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) reviewed and agreed to the two-part mitigation plan under HRS (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes) §6E Historic Preservation Program. Multiple inventories were conducted, and extensive documentation completed. 2. Chair Ida asked if the archaeology was done before removal of the ditch. Ms. Watson said yes. Two AIS (Archaeological Inventory Survey) were completed one by CSH (The Corporation for Supportive Housing) and the second by SCS (Scientific Consultant Services, Inc) several years ago. SHPD requested an EOF (End-of-Fieldwork) report once they requested to remove the ditch. The two AIS and one EOF occurred before the ditch was removed. Additional monitoring and data recovery occurred during removal of the first part of the ditch and would take place during the removal of the two remaining portions of the ditch. 3. Mr. Long commented that often markings on the ground or signage was used to document an historic site when a historic structure is removed and asked if this could possibly be included. Ms. Watson replied that interpretive markers would be the responsibility of the county. She said GIS (Geographic Information System Mapping) coordinates were used to capture and accurately document the area. Mr. Franco replied that they would discus and investigate a possible solution. Chair Ida commented that the significance of the area did not warrant the use to purchase interpretive markings, it wouldn’t be necessary. He said due diligence was accomplished with Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION GIS mapping, recorded information, and documentation. Mr. Guerber agreed and was concerned with the additional expense that could be passed on to the tenants or taxpayers. 4. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the two remaining portions of the ditch would be removed. Ms. Watson replied that they would remove two parts of the ditch that were within the project area; however, the ditch continued onto private property. Chair Ida commented that he did not see this project as a problem and commended SHPD for its handling of the project and asked the commission for a motion. DCA Hall said the applicant recommended concurrence with the mitigation plan that was found acceptable pursuant with Section 106. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa asked that they include Section 106 and Chapter 343. Ms. Valenciano stated that the departments initial recommendation for Section 106 was concurrence with proposed mitigation that the agency determined and preserve the historic plantation ditch system to the maximum extent possible but based on the conversation the commission may amend the departments recommendation. For Chapter 343 the department recommended concurrence related to portions regarding cultural and historic properties. The commission may also amend these recommendations. Mr. Guerber moved to concur with the applicant on the County of Kaua‘i, Housing Agency, Lima Ola Workforce Housing Project, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-001:054 ‘Ele‘ele, Kaua‘i. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Initial Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation for the Re-evaluation of the Environmental Assessment Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session August 19, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION (EA). Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Roll Call 5-Ayes, 0-Nays. Motion carried 5:0 J. Announcements Ms. Valenciano said it may be necessary to schedule a September 16, meeting but she would notify the commission. The next planned meeting was October 21 and then the next meeting would be scheduled January 2022. There would be no meetings in November and December. K. Selection of Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics (October 21, 2021) No response for agenda topics. L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Summers moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chair Remoaldo seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 2:26pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date October 21, 2021 Location Zoom Teleconference Start of Meeting: 1:30 p.m. End of Meeting: 4:49 p.m. Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall. Planning Department Staff: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Planner Marisa Valenciano, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Myles Hironaka. Office of Boards and Commissions: Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Administrator Ellen Ching Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION A. Call To Order Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. B. Roll Call Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Commissioner Guerber replied here. Commissioner Larson replied present. Commissioner Long replied here. Commissioner Summers replied here. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here. Chair Ida replied here. Quorum was established with six commissioners present. C. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Guerber moved to approve the October 21, 2021 agenda, as circulated. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. D. Approval of the Minutes 1. April 29, 2021 2. June 17, 2021 Ms. Larson requested the following corrections to the April 29, 2021 minutes; H. Unfinished Business page 5, Chair Ida called for a recess at 2:24 p.m. and Chair Ida reconvened the meeting DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION at 2:20 p.m.; correct recess time and time reconvened. Vice Chair Remoaldo requested correction to page 4, second paragraph; They plan to incorporate more landscape around the courtyard with sugar cane and lawai leaf; should be lauea leaf. Vice Chair Remoaldo inquired about the June 17, 2021 minutes, H. Unfinished Business page 6, bottom paragraph states; Hawai‘i Air National Guard Compliance Manager Karl Bromwell stated that the antenna radius was seven feet, she didn’t recall it being seven feet. Ms. Valenciano replied that she would check with the applicant. Ms. Larson requested a change on page 1, B. Roll Call, Commissioner Larson replied merci should be here. Ms. Larson moved to approve the April 29, 2021 minutes with the following corrections; correct time of recess and time reconvened on H. Unfinished Business page 5, Chair Ida called for a recess at 2:24 p.m., Chair Ida reconvened the meeting at 2:20 p.m. and word “lawai leaf” to “lauae leaf” on page 4 second sentence from the top and the June 17, 2021 minutes with the following corrections; B. Roll Call page 1, Commissioner Larson replied merci correct to here and H. Unfinished Business page 6, bottom paragraph seven feet, verify if seven feet was the correct information. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. E. Communications 1. Letter from Reid Kawane, Chair of Charter Review Commission, requesting any proposals to amend the Charter. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall explained that the charter review commission started the process of gathering potential charter amendments and invited the commission to submit informal changes along with why the change should be made. All recommendations were reviewed by the charter review commission, and they decide if it should be placed on the ballot. Any proposals from this commission would be placed on the agenda for the commission to review, discuss and vote on. Questions: 1. Mr. Long asked if the county council also reviewed and voted on any proposed amendments. DCA Hall couldn’t confirm but replied that the charter review commission reviewed all proposals and would decide which ones to place on the ballot for the public to vote on. Ms. Larson recalled that Planning Director Ka‘aina Hull mentioned that KHPRC was moving into a regulatory function and asked if this was a potential charter amendment. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa replied that KHPRC was created by county ordinance, and it was to advise the planning department and county on meeting its historic preservation roles. The commission had an advisory role and comments and recommendations, which are enforceable, are included into regulatory permits. DCA Hall suggested this discussion be agendized and functions of the commission explained at the next meeting. The commission agreed. Mr. Guerber moved to receive the letter from Reid Kawane, Chair of Charter Review Commission, requesting any proposals to amend the Charter. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. F. Public Comment Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa announced no one from the public submitted testimony and should anyone from the public want to testify to register 24-hours prior to the start of the meeting. G. Consent Calendar G.1. Lydgate Park-Kapa‘a Bike/Pedestrian Path, Phase D Federal Aid Project No. STP-0700(088) Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Draft World War II Era Structures Interpretive Signage – Pillboxes Waipouli, North Olohena, and South Olohena Ahupua‘a Kawaihau District, island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i TMK: (4)4-3-002:001,013, 014,015,016,018,019,020; (4)4-3-007:027,028 HRS Chapter 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review. Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • Department of Public Works Acting County Engineer Troy Tanigawa was available to answer questions • The commission’s action was to provide comments • Draft copy of the signage included in packet Ms. Larson asked for an explanation of the new agenda item “consent calendar”. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa said agenda items placed under consent calendar were for comments and if it required discussion, it would be moved into new business. She said planning commission used this, but in retrospect this agenda item should not have been placed there. DCA Hall confirmed that this did not prohibit the commission from having a discussion on the agenda item. Questions: 1. Chair Ida asked for the dimensions and location of the sign. Acting County Engineer Tanigawa did not have the information available but would provide it later. He said the commission was being asked to comment on the information contained on the sign. 2. Ms. Larson asked if this was a mitigation due to destroying the structures or mitigation that the signs would recognize the former structure or structures. Mr. Tanigawa replied the proposal was to remove the concrete structure that was shown on the sign. 3. Ms. Larson asked if there were more than one sign in that section. Mr. Tanigawa replied he did not think so. 4. Ms. Larson asked if the photos were of one structure. Mr. Tanigawa replied that the picture in the center was the structure located on Kaua‘i. For context of what the Kaua‘i structure looked like it included similar outer island pictures. 5. Ms. Larson asked if there were multiple pill box structures on Kaua‘i. Mr. Tanigawa could Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION not confirm but could find out if the commission wanted that information. Ms. Valenciano explained the project was originally managed by a recent retiree and Mr. Tanigawa was unfamiliar with the particulars of the project but tried his best to answer the commissions questions. She said they would list the questions and allow Mr. Tanigawa time to research and present the answers at another meeting. 6. Ms. Larson requested information on the number of pill boxes left on Kaua‘i and wanted to know why this was being destroyed if it could be the last remaining pill box structure. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa explained that the commission was to provide comments on the interpretive sign and discussion on the removal of the structure would be brought up later. 7. Vice Chair Remoaldo and Mr. Guerber both commented they had difficulty reading the text on the copy provided and was unable to make comments on the sign information. They requested a clearer print. Mr. Guerber moved to receive the letter dated July 27, 2021 from Department of Public Works Acting County Engineer Troy K Tanigawa regarding the Lydgate Park- Kapa‘a Bike/Pedestrian Path, Phase D, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0700(088), Draft World War II Era Structures Interpretive Signage-Pillboxes Waipouli, North Olohena, and South Olohena Ahupua‘a Kawaihau District, island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, TMK: (4)4-3- 002:001,013,14,015,016,018,0 19,020; (4)4-3-007:027,028 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 8. Chair Ida pointed out that the document listed “Coast Defense Study Group” and requested more information about this group; which he had not heard about before. With no further discussion or questions, Chair Iida called for the vote. HRS Chapter 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review and requested Mr. Tanigawa return with more facts and answers to their questions at another meeting. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. H. Unfinished Business There were none. I. New Business I.1. Pacific Missile Range Facility (Department of Defense – Missile Defense Agency) Mānā, Hawai‘i TMK: (4) 1-2-002: 1,9,10,13,21,26,31,40 and 999 and (4) 1-2-016:1-11,17-20, 999 Section 106 Section 106 Consultation for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) proposal to develop a plan to construct, test, and operate the Homeland Defense Radar – Hawai‘i (HDR-H) project that includes a missile defense radar system complex, and related actions in Hawai‘i. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this item. DCA Hall disclosed that Ms. Larson informed them of a conflict of interest; a family member was a paid consultant for this project. He said KHPRC rules stated that the commission was to find a conflict, and to note the conflict in the motion. Mr. Guerber moved to find a conflict of interest with Commissioner Carolyn Larson’s disclosure of a family member who was a paid consultant for the Pacific Missile Range Facility Missile Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Commissioner Carolyn Larson exited the meeting at 2:09 p.m. Ms. Valenciano reviewed portions of the Director’s Report dated October 21, 2021 (on file) and shared the following; • The commission’s action was to provide comments and directions that would generate a Section 106 response letter; o Provide comments o Defer comments until more information becomes available • The project was postponed but they were continuing with the environmental impact study to prepare for the launch the project once funding became available in the future. • Identified Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) as the preferred alternative site. • Project would cover approximately 50 acres, 85-foot radar and support facilities built on a raised earthen pad not to exceed 20 feet high. • The entire project should not exceed 105-feet in height. • The project would include temporary laydown areas for storage of construction material and permanent roadway for transporting materials and work equipment to the site. • The departments findings included that the project site had a potential for burials due to the sand and soil type and burials were previously found around the area. HDR-H Environmental Manager and Lead Dr. Buff Crosby based in Alabama introduced the Hawai‘i team; HDR-H Program Representative Charla Schreiber, and Consultants Dawn Chang and Jan TenBruggencate. HDR-H Program Representative Charla Schreiber shared parts of a 17-page power-point presentation titled Homeland Defense Radar Hawai‘i (HDR-H) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Update and Preferred Alternative and provided an overview of the project; • Congress approved a missile defense system in the State of Hawai‘i due to advancing threats Defense Agency project. Vice Chair Remoaldo seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye-6 Nay-0. Motion carried 6:0. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION in the region. • The project started in 2017, but in 2019, the Department of Defense postponed funding. • Studied the project site with PMRF colleagues to understand potential impacts. • Secured funding for radar production and EIS to prepare for a future construction start. • Displayed a conceptual rendering of the radar. The radar would be the largest structure in the complex that included 11- separate buildings. The 85 feet radar had 10 panels. Each panel measured 10x30 feet; a similar radar was constructed in Alaska. • Expected to complete a draft EIS by mid-2022. • Topographical picture of the HDR-H site layout located at the south end of PMRF. Questions: 1. Chair Ida inquired about the materials that would be used to construct the 20-foot pad. Ms. Schreiber said they were researching potential supply of construction grade fill. 2. Chair Ida asked for confirmation that the fill would not be from the PMRF area but brought in from the outside. Ms. Schreiber replied yes. 3. Chair Ida asked if the conduits and pipelines would be planted into the pad. Ms. Schreiber replied that some would be inserted into the pad. Borings would be done before construction of the pad to insert foundation pins that would secure the pad in place. Consultant Dawn Chang shared they were in preliminary stages of the section 106 consultation that began with community outreach and cultural consultations. They’ve interviewed descendants that have stewarded their ancestors land and play an important role in the section 106 consultation. Ms. Chang stated the project would not impact any access to shoreline and would not adversely impact near shoreline activities. 1. Chair Ida inquired about the testimony email received October 18, 2021, from Michael Goodwin concerned with advancement in technology that made the HDR-H obsolete. Ms. Schreiber said its incorrect, and the HDR-H would still satisfy the missions requirements. 2. Chair Ida asked if this agenda item would come before the commission again. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa stated the applicant was in the section 106 process and the commission could state comments or request for more information which would allow the commission to review Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION again. 3. Vice Chair Remoaldo stated she required additional information. The maps shown did not provide specific roads, sites, and familiar locations. She needed surrounding roads identified, names of valleys and beaches, locations of where endangered birds nested, Japanese cemetery and familiar locations on the base. She could develop comments and questions once she is able to assess where everything was in proximity to the complex. 4. Mr. Guerber agreed with Vice Chair Remoaldo and said it’s a huge decision and commented he would like to defer. Ms. Crosby said the draft impact statement document would be completed mid-2022 and would provide the additional description and details that Vice Chair Remoaldo requested. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa added that the commission would be asked to provide comments once the EIS draft was completed. DCA Hall said he gathered from the commissioners that they formed two options; request for more information or defer the matter. 5. Chair Ida stated that he would need copies of archaeological reports. Ms. Chang replied they would request reports from PMRF. 6. Chair Ida asked if the reports were specific to the project. Ms. Chang said the reports contained previous work done on PMRF in areas close to the site. Cultural Resource Specialists Architectural Historian Jeanne Barnes said previous archaeological surveys were done for the entire project site and plans were in place for additional surveys. The commission would be asked to comment on the reports once completed. Chair Ida said the request for comments on the project were too far in advance and lacked the necessary information to form a comment or ask questions. Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to requests additional information with regards to the project. (motion restated below) Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to request additional information about the Pacific Missile Range Facility Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 7. Chair Ida asked if they had an archaeological consultant. Ms. Barnes replied the consultant was International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII). They have not secured an EIS consultant, but they would procure a local firm familiar with the unique PMRF site. Chair Ida requested the consultants return once they completed an archaeological survey and EIS. Vice Chair Remoaldo referenced cultural reports from Althea Kaohi and E. Kalani Flores that she would like the commission to review. She said the reports would provide important information. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa stated that one of the options for the commission was to become a consulting party through the section 106 process. She said it’s been done before but the timing of the section 106 consultation process was not always in line with the commissions scheduled meetings. Ms. Chang said the commission would have access to all information whether they decided to be a consultant or not. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa began the roll call vote and was not able to get a response from Commissioner Stephen Long. She asked Chair Ida to call for a five-minute recess. Chair Ida called for a recess at 3:13 p.m. Chair Ida reconvened the meeting at 3:17 p.m. once Commissioner Stephen Long was able to communicate. (Department of Defense – Missile Defense Agency) Mānā, Hawai‘i, TMK: (4) 1-2- 002: 1,9,10,13,21,26,31,40 and 999 and (4) 1-2-016:1-11,17- 20, 999; Section 106 as noted earlier and to include copies of previous archaeological and cultural reports for the commission to review before commenting on the project. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Higuchi proceeded with a roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Motion carried: 5:0 I.2. Java Kai Old Kōloa Town Old Kōloa Town Building Renovation Lot 4A, Kōloa, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i TMK: (4)2-8-007:016 Renovation of an existing structure a. Revised Plans b. Director’s Report pertaining to this item. Commissioner Carolyn Larson logged back into the meeting at 3:19 p.m. Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The commission’s action was to provide the following; o Support the project o Recommend to the planning department conditions of approval for any zoning permit o Suggest recommendations to the planning department to consider denial of the permits o Recommend defer action on the permits • Read portions of the Director’s Report dated October 21, 2021. (Document on file) • The Planning Department recommended the commission support the proposed renovations as represented. Attorney Ian Jung introduced architect Kanoa Chung and presented the following; • Shared photos of the existing Kōloa History Center structure that would be converted to the Java Kai coffee shop along with proposed plans and a materials board. • Addressed Historic Hawai‘i Foundation (HHF) two-page letter dated October 21, 2021, from Executive Director HHF Kiersten Faulkner comments on the swinging door panels, reposition and replacement of windows, siding and color pallet. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Questions 1. Vice Chair Remoaldo commented that HHF did not mention the roof top exhaust vent that should be disguised without interfering with its function. Mr. Jung said HHF reviewed the original plans that did not include the exhaust vent; they were in the supplemental plans to comply with department of health (DOH) regulations. Architect Kanoa Chung replied that he placed it to the rear of the roof to minimize view and the only other option would be to blend it into the landscape with paint. Mr. Chung said they explored reduction of the vent height, but it could not be altered to be compliant with DOH regulations. 2. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the existing windows could open. Mr. Chung said the existing windows do not open and the reason for the reposition and replacement was to provide airflow. 3. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked how the replacement windows opened. Mr. Chung said the windows were casement that would swing out to the eastside of the building. Casement provided a cleaner visual but was open to single or double hung windows. Vice Chair Remoaldo said the surrounding windows were double hung and it wouldn’t blend into the surrounding area. 4. Chair Ida asked if the exterior wall was the one with the photos on. Mr. Chung said that was a middle wall and the exterior wall was behind. 5. Chair Ida asked if the middle wall was original. Mr. Chung replied it appeared to be original. 6. Chair Ida asked what was between the middle wall and exterior wall. Mr. Chung replied it was used as storage for historic material. 7. Chair Ida asked what would happen to the historic material. Mr. Jung replied plans were being worked on to exhibit the items. 8. Vice Chair Remoaldo referenced the architectural drawings on page 9 and pointed out the arched doorway that led from the front to the back work area. She questioned if the arch doorway was appropriate. Mr. Chung replied that the arch was a recognizable feature of the company’s brand. Ms. Larson wasn’t sure how and when to bring up her concern that the entire complex had the potential to become registered as a historic district which would affect her support on the reuse of this building. Mr. Jung shared that the owner and long-term leaser are open and have already discussed applying for historic district status to maintain the historic integrity of the area. But Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION with the southside community plan pushing for reuse of old structures with restaurants and shops they were challenged with timing. Ms. Larson asked the planning staff and wanted to discuss what steps were needed if the commission identified an historic district. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa replied that they had discussions with the owner and long-term leaser. A historic district designation would trigger an environmental impact statement (EIS) and environmental assessment (EA) under National and Hawai‘i laws that would prevent rehabilitation in the district and potentially add to the cost and time. 9. Ms. Larson asked the length of time it took to become a historic district. Ms. Jodi Sayegusa replied that the interior Hanapēpē bridge took over one year. Ms. Larson commented that although the structure was not historic and the area not identified as a historic district, they did not have a clear understanding of what the original building looked like, and it was a concern not only for this building but other projects. She said they want to maintain the historic nature of the area and want to support the reuse of the area but could not figure out how to get to that point if they do not even have a basic picture of the original building and what would constitute as historic integrity of the building. She said they were asked to allow small changes in this one area on this building and other buildings, but how could they gauge how far off these changes were from the original building. Ms. Valenciano responded that the department researched as much as they could with the limited information and records available. She suggested they could possibly come up with design standards for this area or form-based code which would help form the character of this place. The design standards would create a cohesive look for the area. She realized that it probably would not affect this project because it would take time. Ms. Larson expressed issues with changing the windows and said there was very little left of what the garage looked like, and the windows should be kept where it was now and the exterior kept as much as it looked now. Mr. Jung replied that they couldn’t confirm if the windows were repositioned after the rebuild. Ms. Valenciano displayed the June 23, 1983, permit of the rebuild of the garage. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 10. Ms. Larson asked if the garage was rebuilt for the history center. Ms. Valenciano replied that it was rebuilt as a garage. Ms. Valenciano said the building now was very different than what the 1983 plans indicated, and they do not have original plans or drawings of the building. Mr. Jung said the applicant was willing to address these comments to reposition the windows and change the windows to wooden casing and replace the exterior with board and batten. 11. Ms. Larson asked that they change the three front door panels. The tongue and groove panels were horizontal, and the exterior walls had vertical board and batten. Mr. Jung replied they would change it to look more like a garage door. He displayed a picture of what HHF commented on. 12. Mr. Ida asked where the original garage entrance was. Mr. Jung replied they speculate the front area was the original entrance due to the drive-in spots of the three bays. 13. Ms. Larson asked if the garage was commercial or home garage. Mr. Jung replied it was a home garage but was probably also used as storage for the Yamamoto store. Ms. Larson stated that she supported reuse of buildings to preserve the historic nature. She said the closest visual of what they could work with was the rebuild after the hurricane. Ms. Summers commented that it was unfair to conform to something unknown because the building probably changed multiple times. She agreed with changes to the window since it improved the look of the structure. Mr. Ida agreed with Ms. Summers and said changing the windows would maintain the look of the area and asked that the three front panels replaced with vertical board and batten. He said the window type had a lot to do with the character of the building and blending in with the rest of the buildings. Ms. Larson stated the windows were better left where they are currently, and double hung windows are consistent in the area. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa asked the motion include the suggestions and comments. Ms. Larson moved to accept proposed design with the caveat that the design and incorporate the commissions concerns and suggestions. (motion restated below) Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Together the commission came up with the following comments; 1. Use board and batten for the three front panels and place it consistent with the rest of the exterior walls 2. Use wooden casement or double hung windows, not metal but match the design of the other buildings in the area. 3. Off white color pallet 4. Disguise exhaust vent without affecting function Mr. Chung asked the commission if they could consider a plantation style door instead of board and batten. Ms. Larson moved to accept the proposed design from Java Kai Old Kōloa Town, Old Kōloa Town Building Renovation, Lot 4A, Kōloa, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, TMK: (4)2-8- 007:016, Renovation of an existing structure with the commission’s comments and suggestions; 1. The three panel front doors be designed and consistent with the rest of the exterior walls 2. Windows replaced with wooden casement or double hung windows, not metal, and compatible with other windows in the area 3. Off white color pallet 4. Disguise exhaust vent without affecting function Ms. Summers seconded the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION motion. Roll Call vote: Aye-6 Nay-0. Motion carried 6:0 I.3. Discussion on Archeological Guidelines Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa asked the commission if they could provide archeological guidance for zoning, SMA (Special Management Area) projects that would be placed on the agenda for KHPRC to review for potential impacts to archaeology. She said they review hundreds of permits with potential burial sites, and it’s referred to SHPD. Ms. Larson asked that the department provide a category list and examples of what they would review. Chair Ida cautioned that KHPRC should not become SHPD. The commission should only act if they saw anything wrong with a SHPD report or if they could contribute more information. Ms. Summers suggested the commission review SHPD’s electronic form to gain a better understanding. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa said she would gather more information as requested and place it on the January 2022 agenda for further discussion. Ms. Summers moved to defer discussion on archeological guidelines to the January 2022 meeting. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. J. Announcements There were none. K. Selection of Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics Next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, November 18, 2021, and no meeting in December. Mr. Guerber said he would not be available for the November 18, meeting. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa said the next agenda would include a brief review of the commission’s roles and duties. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session October 21, 2021 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION (November 18, 2021) L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Larson moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 4:49pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date November 18, 2021 Location Zoom Teleconference Start of Meeting: 1:30 p.m. End of Meeting: 4:37 p.m. Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall. Planning Department Staff: Planning Director Ka‘āina Hull, Planner Marisa Valenciano, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Myles Hironaka. Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Commissioner James Guerber Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Prior to the meeting being called to order, Administrative Assistant to the County Clerk Eddie Topenio administered the Oath of Office to Planning Mayoral Appointee Commissioner Stephen Long serving a second term ending 12/31/24 and History Mayoral Appointee Commissioner Carolyn Larson serving a second term ending 12/31/24. A. Call To Order Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. B. Roll Call Planning Director Ka‘āina Hull verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Commissioner Guerber was excused. Commissioner Larson replied here. Commissioner Long replied here. Commissioner Summers replied here. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here. Chair Ida replied here. Quorum was established with five commissioners present. C. Approval of the Agenda Chair Ida was experiencing internet connectivity issues. While the commission waited for Ms. Summers moved to approve the November 18, 2021 agenda, as circulated. Vice Chair Remoaldo seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair Ida to regain visual presence Mr. Hull reviewed Exhibit C that was sent to all commissioners and explained sunshine laws new procedures for virtual meetings that would officially take effect January 2022. It stated that all commissioners must be visible and audibly present during the entire meeting. If connectivity was lost the meeting would be suspended until the commissioner regained visual and audible access to the meeting. D. Approval of the Minutes There were no minutes to approve. E. Communications There were no communications. F. Public Comment Mr. Hull announced no public testimony was received. He opened the floor for the public to testify and called out each caller; 1. Barbara Shidler – responded part of Hawai‘i department of transportation presentation 2. 808-222-2863 – responded just listening G. Consent Calendar None. H. Unfinished Business H.1. St. Catherine Church Parish Center Kamehameha Schools (Applicant/Lessee) TMK: (4) 4-6-015:058 Property Address: 5021A Kawaihau Road, Kapa‘a, HI Conversion of the former nunnery building into a preschool building. Renovations include the demolition and reconfiguration of the interior layout along with repairs to the roof, windows, and doors. Additional improvements include a new covered walkway, fenced in play yard, on-site access improvements, and a new septic system. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The commission’s action was to provide comments and directions that would generate a Section 106 response letter; o Support for the project Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION o Recommend to the planning commission to approve with conditions o Recommend to the planning commission to deny the permits o Recommend defer action on the permits • Read portions of the Director’s Report dated November 18, 2021. • The project was presented to the commission on October 17, 2019, and the commission requested more information and historical documentation and photos of the nunnery, which the applicant was not able to acquire. • The department recommended the commission support the proposed renovations as represented. Rebecca Candilasa, Planning Consultant for Wilson Okamoto Corporation gave a few additional updates and introduced Joleen Miranda-Pesquira, Architect for Ushijima Architects, Inc., and Laura Takahashi of Kamehameha Schools; • Kamehameha Schools plans to close and relocate the Anahola preschool location to this area and would lease the property from the Roman Catholic Church, landowner. • Efforts were made to contact the Kaua‘i Historic Society and landowner for documentation and photos that the commission requested that would provide more detailed information of the original nunnery building, but they were unsuccessful. • The landowner referred them to a long-time administrator who recalled that the CMU blocks were original and after Hurricane Iniki the roof and windows were replaced. Questions 1. Ms. Larson expressed her disappointment that the applicant could not produce any historic documentation or photos and asked to describe the efforts taken. Ms. Candilasa replied they contacted the Kaua‘i Historic Society and they did not have any photos of the building but found a 1958 Garden Island Newspaper special edition on the dedication of the nunnery building but there were no photos. They also reached out to the landowner, but they also did not have any historic documents or pictures of the nunnery building to share. The church went through several administrative changes and the current staff could not locate any files. 2. Ms. Larson asked if they talked with Carmen. Ms. Miranda-Pesquira did not know who Carmen was. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 3. Ms. Larson shared that she contacted the church and they referred her to Carmen Nakasone who may have information and photos of the nunnery building. Ms. Miranda-Pesquira replied they did not speak with a Carmen but other members of the church with no success. She said records were lost after Hurricane Iniki. Ms. Takahashi replied that she also was unaware of a Carmen Nakasone but spoke with a Laura who was a longtime head administrator that moved to O‘ahu. 4. Ms. Larson asked if Laura was the principal of the school. Ms. Takahashi replied that she may have been. They also met with Father Nick and Father Anthony. 5. Ms. Larson asked if they checked the archives from the Diocese of Honolulu, which may have information. Ms. Candilasa replied they did not. 6. Ms. Larson asked if they contacted the congregation. Ms. Takahashi replied inquiries were concentrated with Father Nick and that option was not offered. Ms. Larson expressed concern that the commission was not given historic documents or photos. She said there should be something out there that could identify the original type of windows and roof material. 7. Mr. Long commented that he supported the commissions opinion and referred to the lack of information as a feeble attempt. He asked if anyone came over to Kaua‘i. Ms. Takahashi responded that they have regional directors on island and spoke with Laura several times. Mr. Long said with more effort they would be able to find more documentation. Mr. Hull commented that the planning department staff did a considerable amount of research, and they also were not able to track down additional documents. The result was not a feeble attempt. 8. Ms. Larson asked if they contacted the group of nuns that inhabited the nunnery building. She thought they may be Benedictine nuns. Ms. Candilasa appreciated the information and would follow-up. 9. Ms. Larson asked if this was the only nunnery building on Kaua‘i. Ms. Candilasa didn’t know but would research. Ms. Remoaldo responded Immaculate Conception and St. Catherine still had nunnery buildings that existed. Holly Cross and St. Theresa’s nunnery buildings were Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION gone. Ms. Larson expressed concern that this may be the last surviving nunnery building on Kaua‘i and did not want to lose the history and story. Ms. Remoaldo agreed and understood what Ms. Larson shared but felt it was also important to support the directors report that specified that prior to renovation they would document the nunnery building. She said they all contained three buildings a nunnery building, church, and school. She acknowledged that within a 40-year period these types of properties went through renovations, hurricanes, and fire. Ms. Larson commented that it would be great to reuse the nunnery building for a preschool; however, she was challenged with being the one to possibly destroy the original building and asked if they could leave one or two rooms untouched. Ms. Takahashi offered to display the plans and elevations to show the extent of the changes. Ms. Candilasa displayed Exhibit D Preliminary Design Drawings and Joleen Miranda-Pesquira reviewed the plans; • The nunnery building was currently functioning as office space, storage, meeting rooms and a gift shop. • Photo of the interior dormitory rooms that contained a closet, built in shelves and sink. • Proposed new layout would remove the dormitory rooms and create two large classrooms, install a central restroom area, and convert the laundry room to another bathroom. Replace windows and doors and add a covered walkway. • Windows and roofing would be replaced with the same type and materials. Mr. Long apologized to the planning department staff and consultants for his misunderstanding of the efforts made to retrieve historic material and photos and extended an appreciation for their efforts. 10. Ms. Summers commented that the architect and planner have already documented what was done and asked what more needed to be documented. Vice Chair Remoaldo wanted more photographs because from the picture of the dormitory room she could not determine the size Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION of room. Ms. Larson agreed and requested they add video documentation. She reiterated her desire to keep one of the dormitory rooms preserved. Ms. Candilasa clarified with Ms. Larson that the built-in shelves and sink were important to preserve. 11. Mr. Long asked for the dimensions of the dormitory rooms. Ms. Miranda-Pesquira replied they were approximately 10x10. He replied that it would be interesting if they could include Ms. Larson’s requests without it interfering with the overall renovation of the space. Mr. Long moved to accept and approve the St. Catherine Church Parish Center Kamehameha Schools (Applicant/Lessee) TMK: (4) 4-6-015:058 Property Address: 5021A Kawaihau Road, Kapa‘a, HI, Conversion of the former nunnery building into a preschool building. Renovations include the demolition and reconfiguration of the interior layout along with repairs to the roof, windows, and doors. Additional improvements include a new covered walkway, fenced in play yard, on-site access improvements, and a new septic system, with the caveat that a historic architectural survey be done to document the building, along with photos prior to renovations and as a minor mitigating factor include Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Larson requested to add to the motion to preserve one of the dormitory rooms. Ms. Summers stated she would not support the request and asked that it be in a separate motion. Mr. Long agreed with Ms. Summers. Ms. Valencia asked if the historic architectural survey was the same as a HABS (Historic American Building Survey) like report. Mr. Long said he didn’t know the exact terminology, but it would be the same as traffic study or traffic survey, he didn’t know the official name. Ms. Candilasa responded that they included a reconnaissance level survey. Ms. Larson asked that Ms. Valenciano include an explanation to define architectural survey documentation at another meeting. Chair Ida commented his agreement with documentation and photos were necessary and important to preserve the history and story of the nunnery building. Mr. Hull proceeded with a roll call vote. Mr. Hall interjected that The Charter of the County of Kaua‘i, Article XXIII General Provisions, Section 23.02. Boards and Commissions, J. state that a majority vote from commissioner’s present shall validate an action. The KHPRC required five commissioners present for quorum and a majority vote with five commissioners present; four ayes and one nay passed. Mr. Hull announced the motion passed. Chair Ida asked if the commission wanted to make another motion. With no response, Chair Ida moved on to the next agenda item. interviews with the congregation. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye-4 Nay:1 (Larson) Motion failed: 4:1 Motion carried: 4:1 H.2. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. a. Hawai‘i Historic Bridges Programmatic Agreement. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION b. An introduction to the Best Practices Manual-introduction. c. Summary of the Activities and Tier Levels “Appendix Tier Matrix Ch. 1-6” d. Sample Chapter for the Best practices Manual-Appendix Chapter 3 Roadway Sample. e. Comment Sheet f. Supplemental #1 to the Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The commission’s action was to provide on-going comments regarding a draft Programmatic Agreement (PA); o Provide comments on the draft programmatic agreement and supplemental documents o Defer and withhold comments until future drafts of the programmatic agreement becomes available • The commission reviewed this agenda item in February and March 2021. • The department reviewed the materials and communicated with the consultants to clarify details on the treatment of sensitive bridges, how tier determinations were made and how the PA would address emergency repairs. • The department recommended the commission receive the report and defer recommendations to a future meeting. Mr. Ikaika Kincaid shared a power point presentation NHP Act Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) for Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Minor Project • The commissioners would complete an excel comment sheet that would assist with resolving any conflicting comments and asked that they consolidated their responses onto one sheet. • Pre-final draft PA would be available June to September 2022. Questions 1. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if they could insert page numbers on the table of contents and provide a listing of acronyms and definition of bridge elements. Mr. Kincaid responded that they have a glossary of terms that would be included in the PA. 2. Vice Chair Remoaldo referenced top of page 11, section 7 and asked for an example of an emergency. She said an emergency would require immediate quick repairs; but could they Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION undo the quick fix and treat the repair differently. Mr. Kincaid responded that the repairs would follow the material type concept that was listed on page 11, General Concepts for Minor Repairs. Vice Chair Remoaldo said emergency meant urgent which may not be the same in the PA. Mr. Kincaid said safety for the traveling public and timeliness to repairs were most important. He said if the emergency did not fall into one of the tier activities it would not qualify under the PA, which were minor projects. A major project would be if a storm wiped out an embankment and part of a bridge washed away that would not qualify under the PA. Barbara Shidler stated emergency repairs in the PA followed the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 actions under Federal law. 3. Chair Ida asked who decided which tier and activity to follow and what would happen if a project ranged over multiple tiers. Ms. Shidler said the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation project manager was responsible for determining the tier and activity in the PA. She said they were working on language that would define if a project was still in conformance with the PA or reevaluate the scope and continue under a different tier activity. Mr. Kincaid clarified that the project manager would utilize the PA and determine if it fit into the tier activity. The PA would annually report back to SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) on how the PA was used, which activities were used and identify the bridge. Ms. Shidler replied that after the initial rollout of the PA, they would report to SHPD twice a year in March and September. But once its determined that everyone understood the PA’s tier activities it would become an annual report to SHPD. Ms. Shidler said they hope the PA would increase federal funds into the state for preventative maintenance repairs and reduce regulatory processes to repair and extend the bridge life. Mr. Kincaid said they discovered that the county & district areas already performed regular maintenance but did not report to SHPD. The PA would assist with following the guidelines and appropriately track and catalog repairs for each bridge. Ms. Shidler said there would also be guidance and training on best practices manual and explanation of the Secretary of Interior Standards. Mr. Kincaid advised the commission to thoroughly review the tiers and activities contained in the PA. He said once the PA is finalized it would streamline the 106 process and eliminate the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION requirement to consult with KHPRC. Mr. Kincaid said if they missed an activity to please add it to the excel comment sheet. 4. Mr. Long mentioned the replacement with in-kind and pointed out a reference to rivet and bolt replacement and asked if that was possible. Mr. Kincaid replied that there was less than a handful of skilled laborers qualified to replace rivet and bolt and they would include language to ensure that repairs are done to match as closely as possible. Marisa confirmed the following with Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Hull; • Commissioners would individually fill out the excel comment sheet and turn it back to the department. • The department would consolidate the comment sheet for the commission to review at the January 2022 meeting. Any conflicting comments would need to be resolved. • March 2022 turn in a unified consolidated comment sheet to Mr. Kincaid. Ms. Larson moved to defer the discussion on the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. a. Hawai‘i Historic Bridges Programmatic Agreement. b. An introduction to the Best Practices Manual- introduction. c. Summary of the Activities and Tier Levels “Appendix Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Hull proceeded with a roll call vote. Tier Matrix Ch. 1-6” d. Sample Chapter for the Best practices Manual-Appendix Chapter 3 Roadway Sample. e. Comment Sheet f. Supplemental #1 to the Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. to the January 20, 2022, meeting. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: 5-Aye 0-Nay. Motion carried 5:0. I. New Business I.1. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Kūhiō Highway Emergency Shoreline Mitigation, Vicinity of Wailua Beach TMK: (4) 3-9-006:012; (4) 4-1-004:001, 020 and 999; (4) 4-1-005:004, 014, 017 and 999. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared the following; • The commission’s action was to provide comments and directions that would generate a Section 106 response letter; o Provide comments o Defer comments until more information becomes available • Read portions of the Director’s Report dated November 18, 2022 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Kaua‘i District Eric Fujikawa introduced project team consultants from Dougas P USA Engineer and Consor Engineers. Todd Nishioka presented the Kūhiō Highway Emergency Shoreline Mitigation Vicinity of Wailua Beach Section 106 Consultation/Presentation November 18, 2021 power point. • Wailua Beach area was impacted by a storm from March 8, 2021 to March 12, 2021 that caused flooding, removal of vegetation and sand. • HDOT selected ungrouted rock revetment to protect Kūhiō Highway and use of Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) to study wave currents. Wave data would determine placement of sandsavers on the beach. The sandsavers allowed breaking waves to thrust sand particles on the beach while breaking down the energy of the waves that cause beach erosion. • Ungrouted rock revetment also known as riprap was the placement of rock to prevent scour from eroding roadways and bridges. Its main purpose was to protect Kūhiō highway and prevent coastal erosion from extreme storm surge, wave run ups and hurricane force waves. • Sandsavers used breaking wave energy to thrust sand particles up the beach while breaking the energy of the wave to reduce erosion on the beach. It was designed to build back the sand, reduces erosion, and protect the roadway. • Sandsavers have been used worldwide successfully. HDOT partnered with the University of Hawai‘i (US) to pilot this program and potentially use it in other areas in the State of Hawai‘i. Installation of sandsavers would be completed by the first half of 2022. • Use of ADCP was also a pilot program with UH and would be placed along the ocean floor to collect wave data. The information collected would travel through an underwater cable to a land device and manually obtained. This would also be completed by the first half of 2022. Questions 1. Chair Ida asked if this was the first time this technology would be used in Hawai‘i. Mr. Nishioka replied this would be the first time used in the State of Hawai‘i. 2. Chair Ida asked for the results of the technology used in other areas. Mr. Nishioka replied it was successful and the conditions at Wailua Beach supported use of the sandsaver and based on that it would be a successful project. 3. Ms. Larson asked if the placement of sandsaver blocks was temporary, and would it be taken Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION out once the sand built up or if successful would it get covered in sand and left in place. Mr. Kincaid responded that exact placement was still being determined but it would be positioned in an arch. He said ideally it would remain in place and be buried but if not, it would be taken out. 4. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if ungrouted riprap was like the large rocks placed along Kekaha beach. Mr. Long said yes. 5. Vice Chair Remoaldo shared that the website displayed pictures of sand grabbers made of rebar that were used in 1970. Mr. Kinkaid replied it was placed in Kualoa Regional Park at Kāne‘ohe Bay, Oahu and it was not successful and left in place. Vice Chair Remoaldo commented that the rebars have rusted and looked dangerous. Mr. Kinkaid replied that the sandsavers have gone through a new iteration and are now made of durable plastic. 6. Vice Chair Remoaldo said a photograph showed sandsavers in a linear shape and would that make a difference. Mr. Kinkaid said the sandsavers would be placed on the beach and may be formed into two or three arches along the water break and would be linked together. 7. Vice Chair Remoaldo said the photograph showed the blocks were not connected. Mr. Kincaid replied the sandsavers would be connected to keep the accumulated sand. Chair Ida was experiencing computer problems and decided to log off and log back in hopes that it would fix the problem. Chair Ida logged out at 3:41 p.m. Mr. Hull announced a 10-minute recess at 3:42 p.m. Chair Ida successfully logged back in at 3:44 p.m. Chair Ida reconvened the meeting at 3:52 p.m. 8. Ms. Larson asked if they would replace the rock wall and would it be positioned more towards the beach. Mr. Kincaid replied that the revetment would abut the bike path. 9. Ms. Larson asked if the rock wall would be placed more makai. Mr. Kincaid said there was no rock wall; big boulders were placed along a section of the beach. 10. Ms. Larson asked if the proposed treatment included bringing in sand. Mr. Kincaid replied no sand would be brought in. There may be larger piles of sand in one section that would need to be pushed around to other areas. 11. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the sandsavers were used in similar tropical island settings. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Kincaid replied Kaua‘i would be the first one of this type of installation. 12. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if previous mitigations contributed to the current situation or was it caused by the storm. Mr. Kincaid replied that the area went through sand degradation many times, but it had never receded this far back, and the storm and flooding contributed. 13. Chair Ida asked where the sandsavers would be placed on the beach. Mr. Kincaid replied ideally it would be placed at low tide level and be underwater at high tide. 14. Chair Ida asked if the sandsavers would affect the surf spot in the bay. Mr. Kincaid replied that the surf spots were affected by the sand movement. At this point Ms. Larson inquired about subjects that did not pertain to the agenda and Mr. Hall and Mr. Hull asked that the questions return to the agenda. 15. Chair Ida asked if this project was an emergency and was climate change part of the cause. Mr. Kincaid replied that sea level rise and storm and hurricane events were the cause. Mr. Hull paused the meeting and announced a 4:06 p.m. a public person “Kaahi Isodas” had the electronic hand raised and may want to testify. The public person removed the electronic hand. 16. Ms. Larson asked the commission if there were concerns with the adjacent historic resources. Chair Ida replied he had no concerns. He said the area was very dynamic and had seen photographs when there was no beach in the 1940’s and 1950’s. With multiple sand movements over the years there was no significant archaeological items on that strip of beach left. Mr. Long agreed with Chair Ida. Mr. Long shared that that Iceland was in the process of surrounding their island with walls as high as twenty feet. 17. Ms. Larson asked if the project would return to KHPRC. Mr. Fujikawa replied that they were seeking comments and would submit a determination letter to SHPD for concurrence and acceptance. Mr. Long commented that they were looking for a definitive answer and would not require return if there were no changes. Ms. Larson moved to defer until further information progress on project no other additional comments at the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION time. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. (Motion restated below) Ms. Larson moved that KHPRC had no comments for the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Kūhiō Highway Emergency Shoreline Mitigation, Vicinity of Wailua Beach, TMK: (4) 3- 9-006:012; (4) 4-1-004:001, 020 and 999; (4) 4-1-005:004, 014, 017 and 999, Section 106 process and requested the applicant return if there were any future substantial changes from what was proposed. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Roll Call vote 5-Ayes, 0-Nays Motion carried 5:0 J. General Business Matters J. Briefing on Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Powers and Duties Mr. Hull explained KHPRC powers and duties were founded in a 1980 historic preservation ordinance 8-14.3. Prior to 1980 the community wanted the county to become a Certified Local Government (CLG). Kaua‘i has been a CLG for almost 40 years and may have been the first in the State of Hawai‘i. He displayed the ordinance and Kaua‘i County code section 8-14.3 Powers and Duties of the HPR Commission and read it aloud for the commissioners. With no questions from the commission, Mr. Hull moved on to the next agenda item. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session November 18, 2021 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION K. Announcements No December meeting. L. Selection of Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics (January 20, 2022) Next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2022 Election of officers would be on the agenda. Ms. Valenciano would email out the comment sheet for the commissioners to complete and it would be placed on the agenda for the commission to discuss and review. Mr. Long asked about the Permitted Interaction Group Historic Inventory, if it could be restarted next year January, February, or March. Vice Chair Remoaldo appreciated receiving all or part of the meeting materials early. L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 4:37pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 000000 Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) SUPPLEMENTAL #2 TO THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT I. SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: a. Section 106 request to provide comments regarding a draft programmatic agreement. KHPRC actions may include the following: b. Provide comments on the draft programmatic agreement and supplemental documents. c. Defer and 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. PROJECT BACKGROUND At the November 2021 KHPRC meeting, the applicant presented portions of the draft programmatic agreement and supplemental documents for review and comment. At the meeting, there was a request by the commission to receive a copy of the glossary terms and the SHPD PowerPoint presentation. The agency has provided both resource documents to facilitate the review process (see attached Exhibit A for the Glossary and Exhibit B for the SHPD presentation). Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting Section 106- HDOT Programmatic Agreement for Minor Repairs of Historic Bridges Page 2 During the November 2021 KHPRC meeting, it was mentioned that the commission would use the month of December to compile their individual comments for submittal to the Department in January. By the January 2022 meeting, the Department would compile a list of the individual comments and discuss any conflicting comments for official transmittal to the agency by February 2022. As of this date, the Department has not received any comments and would recommend that the commission provide any comments related to the November 18, 2021 agenda packet prior to the February 2022 KHPRC meeting. KHPRC Meeting Date Presentation Topic KHPRC Action February 18, 2021 OVERVIEW Agency presented an overview of the proposed project Motion to receive the project report and requested the consultants to return with a progress report and draft of the programmatic manual for the commission to review. Motion carried. March 18, 2021 OUTLINE Agency presented a draft outline of the programmatic agreement and welcomed any questions. Motion to receive the draft statement of purpose, approach, and abbreviated outline. Motion carried. November 18, 2021 DRAFT Agency presented a draft programmatic agreement with supplemental documents. Motion to defer the discussion to the Jan. 20, 2022 KHPRC meeting. Motion carried. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends that the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission receive the updated report and resource documents and defer recommendations and comments to a future meeting. 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; Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting Section 106- HDOT Programmatic Agreement for Minor Repairs of Historic Bridges Page 3 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: ___________________ 1-10--2022 EXHIBIT “A” (Draft Glossary of Terms) DRAFT GLOSSARY 1 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 HAWAIʻI HISTORIC BRIDGE MINOR PROJECTS BEST PRACTICES MANNUAL ACRONYMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Annual Average Daily Traffic – or – Average Daily Traffic ADTT Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic APE Area of Potential Effects Center Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO HDOT State of Hawaii Department of Transportation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration H, HS, HL Standard Highway Design loading designation for trucks LPA Local Public Agency LRFD Load Resistance Factor Design MOA Memorandum of Agreement NHO Native Hawaiian Organization NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places SHPO State Historic Preservation Office, State Historic Preservation Officer. SOI U.S. Secretary of the Interior DRAFT GLOSSARY 2 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 GLOSSARY A Abutment: Part of bridge substructure at either end of the bridge which transfers loads from superstructure to foundation and provides lateral support for the approach roadway embankment. Abutment Endwall: A wall designed to go from the top of the bridge seat to the roadway surface, meant to prevent the soil from covering a portion of the beams and so causing the beams to rust. Sometimes called a “backwall.” Adverse Effect: A project activity that alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property such as a historic bridge that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. An adverse effect diminishes the integrity of a historic property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the project undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Alignment: The relative horizontal and vertical positioning between the bridge and the approaching roadways, which are often referred to as “the approaches.” Alteration: An act or process that changes any portion of the physical appearance or function of a structure. Alternatives or Alternatives Analysis: A process through which options for a historic bridge project are explored, and the benefits and losses of each alternative assessed, for the purpose of analyzing prudent and feasible treatments that will avoid or minimize an adverse effect to a historic bridge. A good alternatives analysis steps back from a project to gain critical perspective. Angle: The amount of divergence between two intersecting straight lines. The term is also applied to an angle-iron “L-shaped” section, particularly in historic steel truss or girder bridges. Anode: The positively charged pole of a corrosion cell at which oxidations occur. Relevant to cathodic protection for historic concrete bridges Approach Roadway Alignment: Approach roadway means the portion of the highway immediately adjacent to the bridge that affects the geometrics of the bridge, including the horizontal and vertical curves and grades required to connect the existing highway alignment to the new bridge alignment using accepted engineering practices and ensuring that all safety standards are met. Approach span: In a multi-span bridge, the span(s) connecting the abutment with the main span(s). Approach spans may be the same type/material or a different type/material from the main span(s). The span immediately adjacent to the abutment is sometimes referred to as an "end span." DRAFT GLOSSARY 3 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Approach Wall: A wall that is visible above the roadway immediately before and after the bridge structure. Sometimes called a “wingwall.” Apron: 1) A reinforced concrete slab placed on the approach embankment adjacent to and usually resting upon the abutment backwall; 2) a form of scour protection consisting of concrete, stone riprap or other material adjacent to abutments or piers to prevent undermining by water. Arch: A curved structural member spanning an opening and serving as a support. Arch barrel: A single arch that extends the width of the structure. Arch bridge: A bridge whose main support structure is an arch. There are three main types of arches: closed spandrel deck arch, open spandrel deck arch, and through arch. Area of Potential Effects: The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties; also APE. Ashlar: Large squared blocks of stone laid in parallel courses. Also frequently used for cut-stone masonry. Ashlar masonry: Stone masonry composed of blocks cut to regular size, generally rectangular, laid in courses of uniform height. B Backing block: A course of masonry or concrete resting on the extrados of an arch; the filling behind an abutment; the interior filling of any stone masonry construction. Backwall: See abutment endwall. Balustrade: A row of repeating posts, often ornamental, that support the upper rail of a railing. Bascule bridge: From the French word for “see-saw,” a bascule bridge features a movable span (leaf) that rotates on a horizontal hinged axis (trunnion) to raise one end vertically. A large counterweight is used to offset the weight of the raised leaf. May have a single raising leaf or double leaves that meet in the center when closed. Beam: A horizontal structure member supporting vertical loads by resisting bending. A girder is a larger beam, especially when made of multiple plates. Deeper, longer members are created by using trusses. Bearing: A device at the ends of beams that is placed on top of a pier or abutment. The ends of the beam rest on the bearing. Commented [GU1]: this is very confusing. Not sure what it means. Commented [GU2]: what are these? Commented [GU3R2]: If cut stone masonry, is the stone cut a certain way, or is it laid a certain way? Commented [GU4]: maybe a picture? Commented [GU5R4]: "members?" Does this refer to a type of beam? DRAFT GLOSSARY 4 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Bearing seat: A prepared horizontal surface at or near the top of a substructure unit upon which the bearings are placed. Bent: A substructure unit made up of two or more column or column-like members connected at their topmost ends by a cap, strut, or other member holding them in their correct positions. The area between two bents is a span. Bituminous: a black sticky mixture of hydrocarbons usually obtained from distilling petroleum, although also occurring in natural tars. Bolt: A mechanical fastener with machine threads at one end to receive a nut, and a head, typically hexagonal, at the other end. Bolts with rounded heads may be referred to as “button- head” bolts and they are sometimes used to replace rivets in historic bridge repairs. Box Culvert - A culvert of rectangular or square cross-section. See also Culvert. Bollard: One of a series of posts preventing vehicles from entering an area; a small post or marker placed on a curb or traffic island to make it conspicuous to motorists. Bottom chord: The lower member of a truss, usually resisting tension. Brace: Generally, a strut supporting or fixing in position another member. Sometimes the term is applied to a tie used for such a purpose. Bridge: A structure including supports erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes. Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM): A comprehensive FHWA manual on programs, procedures and techniques for inspecting and evaluating a variety of in-service highway bridges. Bridge Preservation: As defined by the FHWA Bridge Preservation Guide, bridge preservation includes “actions or strategies that prevent, delay or reduce deterioration of bridges or bridge elements, restore the function of existing bridges, keep bridges in good condition and extend their life”. Bridge preservation actions may be cyclical or condition-driven and may be preventive or restorative. See “Historic Preservation” for NPS definition. Bridge seat, Bridge-seat: The part of the top of a bridge pier or abutment that bears the pedestals or shoes of the superstructure. Commented [GU6]: Is the area between 2 bents a span? Commented [GU7]: Is this related to bridges? Commented [GU8]: I think that bridge preservation according to preservationist should also be defined, as the two don't mean the same thing. DRAFT GLOSSARY 5 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Built-Up Member: A column or beam composed of plate, angles, channels or other structural steel shapes united by riveting, bolting or welding. Bulkhead: A retaining wall-like structure commonly composed of driven piles supporting a wall or a barrier of wooden timbers or reinforced-concrete members. Button head: The head of a bar, bolt, or rivet having the circular shape of a button. C Cantilever: A structural member that has a free end projecting beyond a support, length of span overhanging the support. Cap: The topmost piece of a pier or a pile bent. Cast-in-Place: The act of placing and curing concrete within formwork to construct a concrete element of a bridge in its final position. Cathodic protection: A means of preventing metal from corroding by making it a cathode through the use of impressed direct current or by attaching a sacrificial anode. Centering: Temporary structure or falsework supporting an arch ring during construction. Certified Local Government (CLG): A local government (e.g., a City or County) officially certified to carry out some of the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. CLGs are granted authority for reviewing various historic resources projects which might otherwise require federal review. In addition, CLGs may receive special grants for cultural resources activities. Chord: Either of the two principal members of a truss extending from end to end, connected by web members. Clear Span: The unobstructed space or distance between support elements of a bridge or bridge member. Closed Spandrel Arch: a stone or reinforced-concrete arch having spandrel walls to retain the fill carrying the roadway. Column: A vertical, structural element, strong in compression. Compression Member: An engineering term that describes a timber or other truss member that is subjected to squeezing or pushing. Also see tension member. Concrete: A mixture of aggregate, water and a binder, usually Portland cement, which hardens to a stone-like mass. Commented [GU9]: cultural resources are not well defined. DRAFT GLOSSARY 6 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Concrete Deck Bridge: A concrete bridge in which the supporting members are all beneath the roadway. These bridges are usually either Concrete Slab or Concrete Tee Beam types (see below). Concrete Rubble Masonry (CRM): See Rubble Masonry. Concrete Slab Bridge: A bridge having a superstructure composed of a reinforced concrete slab constructed either as a single unit or as a series of narrow slabs placed parallel with the roadway alignment and spanning the space between the supporting substructure units. Concrete Tee Beam: "T" shaped section of reinforced concrete; a type of bridge with a cast-in- place monolithic deck and beam system. Condition Rating: A judgment of a bridge component condition in comparison to its original as-built condition. Deck, superstructure, and substructure elements are assigned a descriptive condition rating of "good," "fair," "poor," or "severe" based on the physical deficiencies found on the individual element. The following guidelines are used in establishing an element's condition rating: Good - Element is limited to only minor problems, Fair - Structural capacity of element is not affected by minor deterioration, section loss, spalling, cracking, or other deficiency, Poor - Structural capacity of element is affected or jeopardized by advanced deterioration, section loss, spalling, cracking, or other deficiency, and Severe - Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components, or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Consultation: The process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the section 106 process. Consulting Parties: Parties to consultation under Section 106, i.e. SHPO, NHOs, representatives of local government, applicants for federal funds or permits, etc., and others upon request. Context Sensitive Solution: A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in developing a transportation facility that fits into its setting. Context sensitive solutions results in preserving and enhancing scenic, aesthetic, historic, community and environmental resources, while improving or maintaining safety and mobility. Continuous Span: Two or more spans of a bridge designed to extend without joints over one or more interior supports. The opposite of simple span. Commented [GU10]: Include NHOs. 36 CFR 800.2 describes the different participants Commented [GU11]: Make Bold DRAFT GLOSSARY 7 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Contributing: A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic associations, architectural qualities, or archaeological values for which a property is significant. Consultation: Means the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the Section 106 process. The SOI’s Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Preservation Programs pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act provide further guidance on consultation. Corrosion: The general disintegration of metal through oxidization. Counter: An adjustable diagonal in a truss, not subjected to stress except for certain partial applications of the live load. Course: A layer of bricks or stones, usually laid in a bed of mortar. Cover Plate: A steel plate used to add additional section to a flange or web in a beam, column or similar member. Crack: A break without complete separation of parts; a fissure. Crutch bent: A bent added after original design to add additional support to the superstructure due to substructure deficiencies. The crutch bent may directly support the superstructure, or may support the deficient substructure unit. Cultural Resource: Physical evidence or place of past human activity: site, object, landscape, structure; or a site, structure, landscape, object or natural feature of significance to a group of people traditionally associated with it. Culvert: A drainage structure beneath an embankment (e.g., corrugated metal pipe, concrete box culvert). Curb-to-Curb: Minimum distance between curbs or rails on the structure roadway. Cutwater: A wedge-shaped projection on the pier of a bridge, which divides the flow of water and prevents debris from becoming trapped against the pier. Cyclical maintenance, also called scheduled maintenance: Activities performed on a pre- determined interval or schedule. Cyclical maintenance prevents an element from becoming deficient, not to improve it. Like an oil change for a car, cyclical maintenance actions are included in the work plan because the element is due for maintenance. D DRAFT GLOSSARY 8 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 De Minimis Impact: No adverse effect on a resource protected under Section 4(t) of the Department of Transportation Act. Dead Load: The static load imposed by the weight of materials that make up the bridge structure itself. Deck: The roadway portion of a bridge, including shoulders above the superstructure. Most bridge decks are constructed as reinforced concrete , but timber decks are still seen in rural areas and open-grid steel decks are used in some historic steel bridge types. Deck bridge: A bridge in which the supporting members are all beneath the roadway. Deck Geometry: The width of the bridge, the minimum vertical clearance over the bridge, the ADT, the number of lanes carried by the structure, whether two-way or one-way traffic is serviced, and the functional classification of the structure. Deck geometry rating is based in part on the difference between the actual width of the structure and the current design standard for the width of the structure with the same characteristics as the bridge being rated. Delamination: Surface separation of concrete into layers. Design Load: The force for which a structure is designed; the most severe combination of loads. Determination of Eligibility: Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation to determine if a property should be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Diagonal: A sloping structural member of a truss or bracing system. Diagonal tension: The tensile force due to horizontal and vertical shear in a beam. Diaphragm: Bracing spanning between the main beams or girders of a bridge or viaduct and assists in the distribution of loads laterally. Drain Hole: See “"Weep Hole.” Dry-Laid Masonry: A structure of stone such as a wall or arch bridge that was constructed without the use of mortar. Sometimes also referred to as dry stacked stone. Dry staked stone walls are a traditional Hawaiian construction technique. E Effect: An alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Commented [GU12]: deck and slab are different. A "deck" is directly supported by the superstructure. A "slab" is a combined deck and superstructure unit that is directly supported by the substructure. DRAFT GLOSSARY 9 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Efflorescence: A deposit on concrete or brick caused by crystallization of carbonates brought to the surface by moisture in the masonry or concrete. End diaphragm: A diaphragm placed at the end of the span generally in line with the bearings to add rigidity to the bridge. End Post: The end compression member of a truss, either vertical or inclined in position and extending from top chord to bottom chord. Expansion Joint: A joint designed to provide a means for expansion and contraction movements produced by temperature changes, loadings, or other forces. Extrados: The curve defining the exterior surface of an arch; also known as back. Eyebar: A structural member having a long body and an enlarged head at each end. Each head has a hole through which a pin is inserted to connect to other members. F False chord member: A truss member that only carries its own weight based on 2–dimensional analysis. It effectively shortens the un-braced length of compression truss members. Falsework: The scaffold or temporary supports employed for erecting a structure. Usually, a temporary timber trestle sustaining a bridge during erection. Fascia girder: A longitudinal girder at the extreme edge of a structure so finished as to present a neat appearance. Feasible: An alternative is feasible if it can be constructed as a matter of sound engineering. Finial: An ornament on top of a gable, spire, or arched structure. Flange: One of the principal longitudinal members of a girder which resist tension or compression, also sometimes called the upper and lower chords of a beam. A projecting edge, rim, or rib on any structural member. Floor beam: Horizontal members that are placed transversely to the major beams, girders, or trusses; used to support the deck. Form: The constructions that hold concrete in place while it is hardening; also known as form work or shuttering. Form liner: A sheet, layer, or plate material that alters the surface finish of concrete, usually by giving a texture to its surface. DRAFT GLOSSARY 10 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Foundation: The supporting material upon which the substructure portion of a bridge is placed. It often consists of steel, timber or concrete piles (driven vertically into the ground) or grillage (horizontal layers of materials). Fracture-critical: A fracture-critical bridge is a steel bridge that does not contain redundant supporting elements. This means that if those key supports fail, the bridge would be in danger of collapse. This does not mean the bridge is inherently unsafe, only that there is a lack of redundancy in its design. F-style parapet, Type -F bridge rail: A type of railing design developed to minimize damage to vehicles and to contain and redirect vehicles back onto a roadway. The form has a basic, smooth- face precast character, and is commonly used on single-faced roadside barriers, such as bridge parapets. Functionally Obsolete: A bridge that has deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance or approach roadway alignment that no longer meets the criteria for the system of which the bridge is a part. G Girder: A horizontal structure member supporting vertical loads by resisting bending. A girder is a larger beam, especially when made of multiple metal plates. The plates are usually riveted or welded together. Girder Bridge: A bridge with a superstructure consisting of two or more girders supporting a floor system. Guardrail: A safety feature element intended to re-direct an errant vehicle. Gunite: The process of blowing Portland cement mortar or concrete onto a surface using compressed air. Gusset plate: A metal plate used to unite multiple structural members of a truss. Gusset plates connect steel beams in riveted, bolted, and occasionally, in fully welded bridges. They are weight bearing but do not carry the main load. H Hanger: A tension member serving to suspend an attached member. Headwall: A concrete structure at the ends of a culvert to retain the embankment slopes, anchor the culvert, and prevent undercutting. Commented [GU13]: does this make it unsafe? DRAFT GLOSSARY 11 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Hillside Bridge: A bridge with a portion of its roadway width on embankment and a portion of it cantilevered off the side of the embankment. Hip vertical: The upright tension member attached to the pin or to the plates at the hip of a truss and carrying a floor beam at its lower end. A hip is the place at which the top chord meets the batter-brace or inclined end post. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER): The National Park Service’s nationwide documentation program established in 1969 to survey and document America's historic industrial, engineering, and transportation resources. HAER documentation is a permanent collection of architectural, engineering and landscape documentation at the Library of Congress consisting of measured and interpretive drawings, large-format black and white and color photographs, written historical and descriptive data, and original field notes. Historic Bridge Inventory: For the purposes of the Historic Bridge Minor Project PA, the Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI) is the FHWA/HDOT/SHPD agreed upon list of bridges that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been deemed through consultation to meet or have the potential to meet the eligibility criteria. The list is an attachment to the PA and is based on the 2013 Hawaii Historic Bridge Inventory and the list of bridges exempted from FHWA’s Program Comment for Post-1945 Bridges. The HBI may be updated based on further survey and evaluation. Historic Context: Information about historic properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area. Historic District: A significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property within a specific time period. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Historic Property: At the Federal level, historic properties are any prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are eligible for or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places (CFR §800.16). The State of Hawaii defines historic as and building, structure, object, district, area, or site…which is over fifty years old (HRS §6E-2). Commented [GU14]: In State law, it just has to be 50 years old. DRAFT GLOSSARY 12 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 I I-beam: A rolled structural shape having a cross-section resembling the letter “I.” True I-beams stopped being manufactured for bridge applications about 100 years ago. The wide-flange beam, a structure shaped with a cross-section resembling a capital letter “H” on its side, replaced the I- beam and has been the standard structural shape for bridge construction since the 1920s. Wide- flange beams are often still called I-beams. In-Kind: Refers to the preferred type of repair or replacement of historic building material, whereby the new section is completed with the same type of material, design, dimensions, surface finish, texture, details, and overall appearance to match the item that was repaired/replaced and adjacent materials and components. Integrity (Historic): Authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. There are seven aspects of integrity: design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, association and feeling. Not to be confused with an engineering definition of “structural integrity”, which refers to a bridge’s ability to withstand intended loads without failing. Intended Level of Service: The degree of structural capacity and functionality a project is designed to provide. The intended level or service should be consistent with actual use of the structure and functional category of the roadway and pedestrian path. Internal Redundancy: The redundancy resulting from having multiple similar (identical) components within a larger member. Intrados: The curve defining the interior surface of the arch; also known as soffit. Inventory Rating: The capacity of a bridge to withstand loads under normal service conditions based on 55% of yield strength. J Joint: In stone masonry, the space between individual stones; in concrete, a division in continuity of the concrete; in a truss or girder, a point at which members are joined. A roller joint allows adjacent parts to move controllably past one another. A rigid joint prevents adjacent parts from moving or rotating past one another K Keystone: The uppermost wedge-shaped ring stone (voussoir) at the crown of an arch that locks the other ring stones into place. Commented [GU15]: preservation people and engineers might read this differently. DRAFT GLOSSARY 13 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 L Lacing: A system of bars not intersecting each other at the middle, used to connect two leaves of a strut in order to make them act as a single member. Lacing bar: Any bar used in a system of lacing. Laminated Timber: Timber planks joined together to former a larger member. The planks may be joined by an adhesive (glue-laminated) or they may be joined by physical connections such as bolts or nails (stress-laminated). Lancet arch: A narrow, tall opening with a pointed arch. Lateral strut: A strut in the lateral system of a bridge. A Lateral system is a system of tension and compression members, forming the web of a horizontal truss, connecting the opposite chords of a span. Its purposes are to transmit wind pressure to the piers or abutments, to prevent undue vibration from passing loads, and to hold the chord members to place and line. Lattice, latticing: An assembly of smaller pieces arranged in a crisscross-like pattern; sometimes used a decorative element or to form a truss of primarily diagonal members. Leaf (of a member): One of the vertical component parts of a built-up member; consisting generally of one or more web plates with top and bottom angles, or one rolled channel. Usually, two in number and sometimes three. Least Overall Harm: The alternative that causes the least overall harm is determined based on consideration or the factors listed in 23 CFR§774.3I, i.e. · Ability to mitigate adverse effects; · Relative severity of remaining harm after mitigation; · Relative significance of the historic resource; · Views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the historic resource; · Degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need of the project; · Magnitude of adverse impacts to unprotected resources after reasonable mitigation; and · Substantial cost differences among alternatives. Live Load: A temporary dynamic load such as a vehicular traffic that is applied to a structure; also accompanied by vibration or movement affecting its intensity. Load: Weight distribution throughout a structure; loads caused by wind, earthquakes, and gravity affect how weight is distributed throughout a structure. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD): Design method used by AASHTO, based on limit states of material with increased loads and reduced member capacity based on statistical probabilities. DRAFT GLOSSARY 14 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Load posted: Any bridge or structure restricted to carrying loads less than the legal load limit. Load posting a bridge is required by National Bridge Inspection Standards when a bridge is not capable of safely carrying a legal load. Load Rating: An analysis of a bridge’s capacity to support live loads; the basis for load posting. The determination of the carrying capacity of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by information gathered from a field inspection. M Makai: In Hawaiian language, a directional term indicating towards the ocean. Masonry: That portion of a bridge composed of stone, brick or concrete block placed in layers either dry laid or cemented with mortar. Mauka: In Hawaiian language, a directional term indicating towards the mountains. Member: An individual angle, beam plate or built piece intended to become an integral part of an assembled frame or structure. Memorandum of Agreement: means the document that records the terms and conditions agreed upon to resolve the adverse effects of an undertaking upon historic properties; also MOA. Micro-piles: Also known as mini piles, pin piles, needle piles, and root piles, are deep foundation elements constructed using high-strength, small-diameter steel casing and/or threaded bars. Mile Marker: A unit of measurement used in select context throughout this report, per measurement data provided in the National Register Nomination. Mile Point: A unit of measurement based on HDOT straight-line map data. Mile Post: See Mile Marker. Mortar: A paste of cement, sand and water laid between bricks, stones or concrete blocks. Movable bridge: A general term for a bridge in which the deck moves to clear a navigation channel, also sometimes referred to as a drawbridge; There are three types of movable bridges: 1) a swing bridge has a deck that rotates horizontally around a center point; 2) a bascule bridge deck rotates vertically like a seesaw around a pivot point referred to as a trunnion, the leaf may be balanced with counterweights ; and the deck of a vertical lift bridge is raised vertically like a massive elevator. N DRAFT GLOSSARY 15 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS): Established in 1971 to set national policy regarding bridge inspection frequency, inspector qualifications, report formats, and inspection and rating procedures. National Historic Landmark: A historic property evaluated and found to have significance at the national level and designated as such by the Secretary of the Interior. National Register Criteria: The established criteria for evaluating the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. National Register of Historic Places: The official list of recognized properties of national, state and local significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, maintained and expanded by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO): Per Section 106, any organization which serves and represents the interests of Native Hawaiians; has as a primary and stated purpose the provision of services to Native Hawaiians, and has demonstrated expertise in aspects of historic preservation that are significant to Native Hawaiians. Non-Contributing: A non-contributing building, site, structure, or object does not add to the historic associations, architectural qualities, or archaeological values for which a property is significant. O Open-spandrel arch: An arch in which the roadway is carried on spandrel columns or cross- walls, allowing “open” visibility through the bridge Open-spandrel arches are often ribbed in which two or more comparatively narrow arch rings, called ribs, function in the place of an arch barrel. Oregon “stealth” rail: A railing system developed by ODOT in which structural steel is concealed within precast concrete. The in-kind rail replacement system is designed to meet AASHTO standards for horizontal impact loads and SHPO’s visual requirements. Official(s) having Jurisdiction: Under Section 4(1), the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (for Section 106 properties), and the National Park Service (for National Historic Landmarks). Operating Rating: The capacity of a bridge to withstand loads based on 75% of yield strength; the maximum permissible live load to which the structure may be subjected for the load configuration used in the rating. Out-to-out deck: The width of the deck measured perpendicular to the direction of traffic. This includes any parapets or barriers. For through structures this is the lateral clearance between Commented [GU16]: Is this MASH tested? Commented [GU17]: Can also be the land owner (i.e. State Parks) for parks developed using LWCF funds. DRAFT GLOSSARY 16 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 superstructure members. See the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. P Panel point, panel-point: The point at which the axis of a principal web member intersects the axis of a chord of a truss. Parapet: A low solid wall along the outmost edge of the roadway or a bridge to protect vehicles and pedestrians; i.e., a solid concrete parapet within the context of this report document. Parapets may have intentional decorative features such as recessed panels or concrete textures. Period of Significance: The length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Pier: A vertical structure that supports the ends of a multi-span superstructure at a location between abutments. Also, see column and pile. Pier Cap: The topmost horizontal portion of a pier that distributes loads from the superstructure to the vertical pier elements. Pile: A long column driven deep into the ground to form part of a foundation or substructure. Also, see column and pier. Pin: A cylindrical bar that is used to connect various members of a truss; such as those inserted through the holes of a meeting pair of eyebars. Pin packing: The arrangement of truss members on a pin at a pinned joint. Pin-connected truss: Any truss having its main members joined by pins. Plain Concrete: Concrete with no structural reinforcement. Plate: A flat piece of metal or wood. Plate girder: A girder built of structural plates and angles. Usually I-shaped in cross section. Pointing: The compacting of the mortar in the outermost portion of a joint and the trowelling of the exposed surface to secure water tightness or desired architectural effect. Pony Truss: A truss having its roadway at the level of the lower chord and insufficient height to use a top chord system of lateral bracing; also referred to as a "low truss.” Pop-out: a fragment broken out of a concrete surface by pressure. Commented [GU18]: I need a picture DRAFT GLOSSARY 17 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Portal: The opening at the ends of a through truss or through arch which forms the entrance. Also, the open entrance of a tunnel. Portal bracing: The combination of struts and ties in the plane of the end posts at a portal which helps to transfer the wind pressure from the upper lateral system to the pier or abutment. Portal strut: A strut in the portal bracing of a bridge. Pratt truss - A type of truss having parallel chords and an arrangement of web members of tension diagonals and compression verticals. Preservation: see Bridge Preservation for FHWA definition and Historic Preservation for NPS definition. Prestressed Concrete: Concrete with strands, tendons, or bars that are stressed before the live load is applied. Cracking and tensile forces are greatly reduced by compressing the concrete with the strands, tendons, or bars. Preventive Maintenance: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Maintenance defines Preventive Maintenance as “a planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system (without substantially increasing structural capacity).” Prudent: An alternative is prudent in it meets the definition given in 23 CFR§774.J7, i.e., it is reasonable to proceed based on an assessment of: · How well project purpose and need are satisfied; · How well safety or operational problems are avoided; · Severity of social, economic, or environmental impacts; and · Severity of impacts to environmental resources. psf: Pounds per square foot. R Railing: a fence-like construction or low barrier built at the outermost edge of a bridge’s roadway or sidewalk to protect pedestrians and vehicles. Reconstruction: The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. DRAFT GLOSSARY 18 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Rehabilitation: The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Reinforced concrete: Concrete with steel reinforcing bars embedded in it to supply increased tensile strength and durability. Reinforcing bar: a steel bar, plain or with a deformed surface, which bonds to the concrete and supplies tensile strength to the concrete. Also sometimes referred to as “rebar” or “reinforcement.” Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical and electrical systems and other code- required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Retaining Wall: A structure designed to retain and hold back a mass of earth. Often used to hold back the fill of the approach roadways or embankments next to a bridge. Rigid frame pier: A pier with two or more columns and a horizontal beam on top constructed monolithically to act like a frame. Ring stone: A stone or block in the shape of a truncated wedge that forms part of an arch ring. Also called a voussoir. Rip rap: Gabions, stones, blocks of concrete or other protective covering material of like nature deposited upon river and stream beds and banks, lake, tidal, or other shores to prevent erosion and scour by water flow, wave, or other movement. Rivet: A metal fastener used in pre-1970 construction to connect multiple pieces of metal; made with a rounded preformed head at one end and installed hot into a predrilled or punched hole; the other end was hammered into a similar shaped head thereby clamping the adjoining parts together. Riveted truss: Any truss having its main members riveted together. Rolled shape: Any hot-rolled iron or steel section including I-beams, wide-flange beams, channels, angles or other cross-sectional shapes. Rubble: Rough stones of irregular shapes and sizes; often used in rough, uncoursed work in the construction of walls, foundations, and paving. 1 Rubble Concrete: Any type of concrete in which large stones are placed. This type of concrete is most often used in constructing dams, lock walls, breakwaters, retaining walls, and bridge piers. Sometimes referred to as “cyclopean concrete." DRAFT GLOSSARY 19 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Rubble Masonry: Stone masonry built of rubble. Undressed or roughly dressed stones are laid in a suitable mortar. Joints are not of uniform thickness. S Scarfed edge: The leading edge of two pieces of steel that have been angled or beveled in preparation to fit together neatly before the weld. The two pieces are joined without a large bulge, thus reducing amount of blending later. Scour: Removal of a streambed or bank area by stream flow; erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water; often considered as being localized around piers and abutments of bridges. Scour Critical: Scour critical bridges are bridges "with a foundation element that has been determined to be unstable for the observed or evaluated scour condition. Scour Protection: Protection of submerged material by steel sheet piling, rip rap, concrete aprons, etc., or a combination of methods. Scupper: An opening in the floor or railing of a bridge to provide a means for rain or other water to drain through into the space beneath the structure. Seat: A base on which a bridge member is placed, often found at the top of an abutment or pier. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards: Describe in terms of academic attainment, training, and experience, minimum professional standards for disciplines routinely practicing in historic preservation such as archaeology, architectural history, history, and historic architecture. They describe the minimum education and experience which qualifies select individuals to produce professionally credible and competent work. The National Historic Preservation Act per Section 106 and 112 require agencies responsible for protecting historic properties (in this case bridges) to ensure that all actions taken by their employees or contractors meet professional standards as determined by the SOI. Secretary of the Interior's (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: The principles established by the Secretary of the Interior for the planning and execution of projects involving the rehabilitation of historic properties. Section 106 Review Process: The process established under the National Historic Preservation Act requiring federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects of these actions. Section loss: a loss of a member’s cross sectional area usually by corrosion or decay. DRAFT GLOSSARY 20 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Segmental arch: A circular arch in which the intrados is less than a semi-circle. Semi-circular arch: A circular arch in which the intrados is half of full circle, sometimes referred to as a "Roman arch.” Sheet piling: a wall-like barrier created by driving interlocking, usually Z-shaped piles, into the ground to keep earth or water out of an excavation or to protect an embankment. Significance: Historic importance of a property to the architecture, archaeology, engineering, culture of a community, State, or the nation. is the history. Simple span: the span of a bridge which begins at one support and ends at an adjacent support. The opposite of a continuous span. Skewback: The inclined support at each end of an arch. Slab: A flat beam, usually of reinforced concrete, which supports load by flexure. Slab Bridge: A bridge having a superstructure composed of a reinforce concrete slab constructed either as a single unit or as a series of narrow slabs placed parallel with the roadway alignment and spanning the space between the supporting substructure units. Soffit: Underside of a bridge deck. Sometimes also referred to as the intrados if a bridge is an arch or arch shape. Spall: A surface depression in concrete caused by a separation of a portion of the surface concrete, revealing a fracture parallel with or slightly inclined to the surface. Span: The distance between the supports of a beam; the distance between the faces of the substructure elements; the complete superstructure of a single span bridge or a corresponding integral unit of a multiple span structure. Spandrel: The roughly triangular area above an arch and below a horizontal bridge deck. A closed spandrel encloses fill material. An open spandrel carries its load using interior walls or columns. Spandrel wall: A form of retaining wall built on an arch barrel to retain the spandrel filling. Splice: A structural joint between members to extend their effective length. State Historic Preservation Office(r): The official appointed or designated pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act to administer a State’s historic preservation program or a representative designated to act for the State Historic Preservation Officer. Stem: The vertical wall portion of an abutment retaining wall, or solid pier. Commented [GU19]: not defined. DRAFT GLOSSARY 21 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Stiffener: On plate girders, structural steel shapes, such as an angle, are attached to the web to add intermediate strength. Strap: A narrow band of flexible material used to encircle and hold together various articles. Stringer: A beam aligned with the length of a span which supports the deck. Structurally Deficient and Sufficiency Rating: Bridges where 1) significant load carrying elements are found to be in poor or worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage or, 2) the adequacy of the waterway opening provided by the bridge is determined to be extremely insufficient to the point of causing intolerable traffic interruptions. Structure Inventory & Appraisal (SI&A) Sheet: The graphic representation of the data recorded and stored for each NBI record in accordance with this Guide. Structural Stability: The ability of a structure to maintain its normal configuration, not collapse or tip in any way, under existing and expected loads. Stub abutment: An abutment that has only one wall, which is generally at right angles to the longitudinal center-line of the structure. Also called a straight abutment. Substructure: The substructure consists of all parts that support the superstructure. The main components are abutments or end-bents, piers or interior bents, footings, and piling. Sub-tie: A tension member in a subdivided panel of a truss. Substructure - The abutments and piers built to support the span of a bridge superstructure. Sufficiency Rating: A calculated numeric value used to indicate the sufficiency of a bridge to remain in service. Superstructure: The entire portion of a bridge structure that primarily receives and supports traffic loads and in turn transfers these loads to the bridge substructure. Historic bridges are typically classified by their superstructure type or design, e.g., truss, arch, slab, tee beam, etc. Sway bracing: Bracing transverse to the planes of the trusses; used to resist wind pressure and to prevent undue vibration. Sway strut: A strut used in sway bracing. T Tension rod: A rod subjected to tension. DRAFT GLOSSARY 22 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Texas type “T-411” bridge railing: A continuous concrete railing that has six-inch wide windows spaced every 18 inches, center to center. The T-411 railing is not to be used in high- speed areas. Through truss: A truss that carries its traffic through the interior of the structure with cross bracing between the parallel top and bottom chords. Also known as a "high truss.” Tied-arch, tied arch: An arch that has a tension member across its base connecting one end to the other. Treatment: Treatment of an historic property refers to the course of action that is deemed most appropriate for the historic structure, site, or district. The SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Truss: A jointed structure made of individual members arranged and connected usually in a triangular pattern, as to support longer spans. Trusses are often classified by the pattern of the triangles and/or the methods of connecting the members, e.g. pin-connected Pratt truss. Truss bridge: A bridge having two or more trusses for the superstructure, typically classified by the relationship of the roadway to the bridge as a deck, pony or through truss. U Undermining: The scouring away of stream and supporting foundation material from beneath the substructure footing. Undertaking: Means a project, activity or program funded in whole or part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license or approval. Upper chord: Top longitudinal chord of a truss. V Vertical: Upright, plumb, perpendicular to the horizon. Also an upright member in a truss. Voussoir: One of the truncated wedge shaped stones composing a ring course in a stone arch, also known as a ring stone. W DRAFT GLOSSARY 23 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021 Warren truss: A triangular truss consisting of sloping members between the top and bottom chords and no verticals; members form the letter W. Waterway Adequacy: Item appraises the waterway opening with respect to passage of flow through the bridge. Wearing surface: The topmost layer of a material applied upon a bridge roadway to receive the traffic loads and to resist the resulting disintegrating action, also known as a wearing course. The wearing surface of a historic bridge is typically meant to be sacrificial and periodically maintained or replaced, protecting the superstructure members. Web: The system of members connecting the top and bottom chords of a truss. Or the vertical portion of an I-beam or girder. Web plate: The plate forming the web element of a plate girder, built-up beam, or column. Web wall: a wall added between columns of a column pier or column bent. These may provide protection against impact from rail, maritime or vehicular traffic, or they may be simply an architectural touch. Weephole: A hole in a concrete retaining wall to provide drainage of the water in the retained soil. Sometimes also referred to as a “drain hole.” Wide flange: A rolled H-shaped member having flange plates of rectangular cross section, differentiated from an S-beam (American Standard I-beam) in that the flanges are not tapered. Wingwall: A retaining wall extension of an abutment intended to restrain and hold in place the side slope material of an approach roadway embankment. Workmanship: Quality of historical integrity applying to the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan. Notes: 1. Structural terms are referenced from the following sources:  Bridge Inspection Reference Manual, Dec. 2012  Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, Dec. 1995 with erratas  2010 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance.  AASHTO Case Studies, 2011 2. Historic preservation terms are referenced from the following sources: DRAFT GLOSSARY 24 Hawaii Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 12/27/2021  The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,  Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms, Part A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977.  36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties  HRS 6E-2 Definitions EXHIBIT “B” (SHPD PowerPoint Presentation) National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for Hawaiʻi Historic Bridge Minor Projects (PA) 2 AGENDA o Best Practices Manual –Introduction of the Tiers Concept o Summary Matrix for the Proposed Activities and Tier Categories o Sample Chapter for the Best Practices Manual o Programmatic Agreement Document Language o Buffer Zone Concept o List of Attachments o General Concept for Minor Repairs o Signatories / Invited Signatories / Consulting Parties o How to Comment –Use of the “Excel Comment Sheet” 1Introduce Team 2Purpose & Goal of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) 3Scope of Agreement 4Review of the Documents 5Next Steps for Consultation Efforts and Timeline 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 Highway 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 September 21-27, 2021 Draft PA Submitted to SHPD HICRIS and number received, 2021PR01172 November 18th , 2021 Present the Draft PA to KHPRC 5 PURPOSE ▪Ensure safe public transportation ▪Undertake minor projects that have no adverse effects on historic bridges ▪Efficiently deliver federally-funded maintenance projects at the state and local levels ▪Streamline implementation, review, and reporting for minor historic bridge projects that have no adverse effects on historic properties ▪Encourage adoption of best treatment practices for historic bridge types and materials 6 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 7 SCOPE of Agreement The PA will not apply to Major bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects Projects with an effect to archaeological resources 8 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Best Practices Manual –Introduction of Tiers TIER 1: Activity may proceed. TIER 2: Activity requiring application of guidance in the Best Practices Manual to achieve an outcome having no adverse effect. TIER 3:Activity requiring application of guidance in the Best Practices Manual and review by a Qualified Professional to achieve an outcome having no adverse effect. Not Included :Activities requiring additional approval and not covered by Historic Bridge Minor Project PA. Tier Intro Link 9 ACTIVITIES Chapter 1 –Environs 1.1 Vegetation Removal 1.1.1 Vegetation on or within Structures 1.1.2 Vegetation Adjacent to Structures 1.2 Waterways and Scour Protection 1.2.1 Stream Diversion 1.2.2 Channel Lining and Scour Protection 1.2.3 Micropile Installation 1.3 Laydown Yards 1.4 Utility Maintenance 1.4.1 Underground Utilities 1.4.2 Utilities Attached to Bridge Debris Removal -Tier 1 Micropile Installation/Scour Protection -Tier 1 10 ACTIVITIES Chapter 2 –Bridge Structure 2.1 Temporary Structures 2.2 Stone Masonry 2.2.1 Cleaning 2.2.2 Stone Masonry Repair 2.2.3 Mortar and Repointing 2.3 Concrete 2.3.1 Concrete Cleaning 2.3.2 Spalling 2.3.3 Cracking 2.3.4 Cathodic Protection 2.3.5 Fiber-Reinforced Polymer 2.4 Steel 2.4.1 Steel Cleaning 2.4.2 Welded and Bolted Repairs 2.4.3 Member Replacement 2.4.4 Rivet and Bolted Connections 2.4.5 Supplemental Structural Members 2.4.6 Paint, Coatings, and Paint Removal 2.5 Wood 2.5.1 Wood Cleaning 2.5.2 Repair and Replacement 2.5.3 Supplemental Structural Members 2.6 Expansion Joints 2.6.1 Expansion Joint Maintenance, Repair, and Retrofit Stone Masonry Repair –Tier 2 Member Replacement –Tier 3 11 ACTIVITIES Chapter 3 –Roadway 3.1 Roadway Surface / Wearing Surface 3.1.1 Wearing Surface and Paving 3.1.2 Surface Sealing 3.1.3 Surface Drainage 3.2 Railings and Parapets 3.2.1 Bridge Railing and Parapet Repairs 3.2.2 Bridge Railing Upgrade 3.2.3 Embossed or Impressed Bridge Name and Signage 3.2.4 Approach / Transition Guardrails 3.3 Sidewalks 3.3.1 Sidewalks and Accessibility 3.4 Traffic Control 3.4.1 Traffic Control Lights Wearing Surface and Paving –Tier 2 Railing and Parapet Repairs –Tier 3 (Concrete), Tier 2 (Guardrails) 12 ACTIVITIES Chapter 4 –Testing 4.1 Site 4.1.1 Site Disturbance 4.1.2 Geotechnical Borings 4.2 In-Situ Material Strength Analysis 4.2.1 Masonry 4.2.2 Reinforced Concrete 4.2.3 Structural Steel 4.2.4 Wood 4.3 Material Sampling and Testing 4.3.1 Masonry 4.3.2 Reinforced Concrete 4.3.3 Structural Steel 4.3.4 Wood 4.4 Masonry Testing 4.4.1 Non-Destructive Concrete Testing Methods 4.5 Structural Steel Testing 4.5.1 Non-Destructive Structural Steel Testing Methods Reinforced Concrete Sampling –Tier 2 Geotechnical Boring –Tier 1 13 ACTIVITIES Chapter 5 –Finishes 5.1 Cleaning and Paint Removal 5.1.1 Surface Cleaning:Washing,Chemical Cleaners, and Paint Removal 5.1.2 Graffiti Removal and Anti-Graffiti Coatings 5.2 Paint and Coatings 5.2.1 Concrete 5.2.2 Masonry 5.2.3 Steel 5.2.4 Wood 5.3 Veneer Repair 5.3.1 Stone Masonry Veneer Repair Graffiti Removal –Tier 2 Paint and Coatings Concrete –Tier 1 Concrete Spall Repair –Tier 3 14 Chapter 6 -Miscellaneous 6.1 Lighting 6.1.1 Lighting Fixtures 6.1.2 Navigation Lights 6.1.3 Conduits and Utility Boxes 6.2 Signage 6.2.1 Freestanding Signage 6.2.2 Attached Signage and Graphics 6.2.3 Plaques and Inscriptions ACTIVITIES Navigation Lights –Tier 1 Freestanding Signage –Tier 1Conduit Repair –Tier 1 15 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Summary Matrix for the Proposed Activities and Tier Categories Partial Chapter 3 Roadway Tier 1: Activities with No Adverse Effect Requiring No Further Review "Tier 2: Activities with No Adverse Effect and Requiring Application of Guidance in the Best Practices Manual Tier 3: Activities with No Adverse Effect and Requiring Application of Guidance in the Best Practices Manual and Approval of an SOI Qualified Professional Activities requiring additional approval and not covered by Historic Bridge Minor Project PA. 3.1 Roadway Surface / Wearing Surface 3.1.1 Wearing Surface and Paving Concrete*Replacement of wearing surface to match existing. Repair of existing concrete deck or wearing surface to match existing. Temporary patch using material dissimilar to existing provided longer term patch using material to match existing is completed within 90 days of initial work. Repair or replacement of wearing surface with material dissimilar to existing. All activities judged in Tier 3 by SOI Qualified Professional to have potential for adverse effects. Asphaltic Concrete (AC)*AC patch of existing wearing surface. Repair or replacement of wearing surface to match existing. Replacement of wearing surface with material dissimilar to existing. All activities judged in Tier 3 by SOI Qualified Professional to have potential for adverse effect. Steel Grid*Welded repair of fatigue cracks in existing grid. Replacement of existing grid to match existing. (No activities apply)Modification to existing or replacement of existing wearing surface to enhance performance. Replacement of existing wearing surface with dissimilar material or design. All activities judged in Tier 3 by SOI Qualified Professional to have potential for adverse effect. Wood*Replacement of timber planks.(No activities apply)Replacement of existing wearing surface with dissimilar material. All activities judged in Tier 3 by SOI Qualified Professional to have potential for adverse effect. Matrix Summary Link Steel Grid Repair–Tier 1 Wood (Timber Planks) –Tier 1 16 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Sample Chapter for the Best Practices Manual Partial Chapter 3 Roadway 3.1 Roadway Surface / Wearing Surface 3.1.1 Wearing Surface and Paving Intent: Bridge pavement maintenance contributes to vehicle safety and is often essential to the longevity of a historic bridge as it can protect against water infiltration to the structure below. Principles: Degraded deck wearing surfaces should be routinely maintained and replaced when a specified threshold is reached, and when funding permits. Periodic repair or replacement of a historic bridge’s roadway surface should be done with like materials (ex: replace wood with wood) per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. Roadway surface maintenance varies by material. Concrete: The determination to maintain, repair, or replace a concrete wearing surface is based on the percentage of delamination an d/or spalled surface present, chloride contamination, and condition of the deck soffits. Testing may be required to verify the condition of the concrete wearing surface, which may be done by chain drag, thermographic imagery, or ground penetrating radar and should be performed by qualified professionals (see Chapter 4 for additional information on concrete testing). Surface replacement should be done when the existing concrete surface is more than 30 to 40% spalled or delaminated. There are a variety of repair strategies that may be used depending on the existing conditions: Tier 1 Activities Replace an existing concrete deck or wearing surface with new concrete. Tier 2 Activities Repair of an existing concrete deck or wearing surface. This may be done using a dissimilar material, such as Asphaltic Conc rete, as a temporary and urgent measure to prevent further degradation of the surface. Permanent repair using concrete repair material should then be done w ithin 90 days. Where spalling is present, specific repair techniques are vital to the longevity and effectiveness of the work. Refer to Section 2.3.2 for information on Spall Repair. Structural overlays may be required if significant delamination and/or deterioration is present. Placing a new concrete surface over an existing one will lead to extra loading on the structure. Refer to section 3.1.4 below for wearing surface loading considerations. Tier 3 Activities Repair or replacement of a concrete wearing surface with a dissimilar material is not recommended. Approval from an SOI Qual ified Professional is required to ensure that the wearing surface is not a contributing characteristic to the historic bridge. Thin polymer overlays may be used for concrete wearing surfaces with moderate traffic and chloride concentration levels at th e steel reinforcement mat below sub-threshold levels but should be approved by an SOI Qualified Professional prior to installation. BPM Chapter Link 17 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Programmatic Agreement Document -Table of Contents I.PURPOSE,APPLICABILITY,AND SCOPE II.AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HISTORIC BRIDGE MINOR PROJECTS III.PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS IV.PERSONNEL TRAINING V.HISTORIC BRIDGE IDENTIFICATION UPDATES AND REVISIONS VI.APPLICATION OF TIERED ACTIVITIES VII.PROJECT REVIEW VIII.EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IX.POST-REVIEW AND UNEXPECTED EFFECTS X.IDENTIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS XI.ANNUAL REVIEW, AUDITING, AND REPORTING XII.ADDITIONAL CONSULTING PARTIES FOR SPECIFIC UNDERTAKINGS XIII.NOTICES XIV.DURATION XV.AMENDMENT XVI.CONFIDENTIALITY XVII.TRANSISTION XVIII.DISPUTE RESOLUTION XIX.WITHDRAW AND TERMINATION XX.EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT IN COUNTERPARTS PA Doc Link Spall Repair –Tier 1 18 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Chapter 1 –Environs 1.2 Waterways and Scour Protection 1.2.1 Stream Diversion 1.2.2 Channel Lining and Scour Protection 1.2.3 Micropile Installation Chapter 2 –Bridge Structure 2.3 Laydown Area 2.4 Utility Maintenance / Underground Utilities 2.1 Temporary Structures Chapter 4 –Testing 4.1.1 Site Disturbance 4.1.2 Geotechnical Boring Chapter 6 –Miscellaneous 6.2.1 Freestanding Signage 6.2.2 Attached Signage and Graphics Buffer Zone Concept –Utilized in the following Sections Stipulations: 1.Ground-disturbing activities for qualifying minor projects, including scour countermeasures and foundation repairs, may take place within a strict 10-foot buffer zone,as measured from the edge of the superstructure and substructure of the existing historic bridge or structure. 2.Driven poles for signage,guardrails and other types of roadside appurtenances are allowable within the Right of Way and outside of the 10-foot buffer zone for poles with a maximum 4-inch diameter to be driven no more than a depth of 36 inches below existing ground surfaces. 3.Laydown yards for qualifying Historic Bridge Minor Projects must be on existing paved areas or unpaved areas protected with matting 19 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Buffer Zone Concept -Images Stream Diversion –Tier 1 Channel Lining and Scour Protection –Tier 1 20 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Programmatic Agreement Document – List of Attachments ➢“Historic Bridge List” –Currently 2013 State of Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Inventory ➢“Tiered Activities Matrix Summary for Historic Bridge Minor Projects” ➢“Hawai‘i Historic Bridges Best Practices Manual” – Sample Chapter 3 -Roadway ➢“Certification & Compliance Forms” –These have not been prepared or created yet. ➢“Consulting Parties List” ➢“Letter of Understanding between the SHPO and HDOT” 21 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Programmatic Agreement Document -General Concepts for Minor Repairs Repairs are categorized by material type rather than bridge element. Most repairs typically follow the same procedure regardless of the element being repaired or the location of the repair. Remove delaminated/spall concrete to sound concrete. Clean exposed or corroded rebar and add supplemental rebar if the rebar has significant section loss. Patch with an approved patch material. Match the color and finish of the existing. The patch material could be unique depending on whether it is an overhead patch or on a vertical or horizontal surface. Concrete beams, girders, diaphragms, abutments, wingwalls, pile caps, footings, decks, railings, curbs, piles, and any other c oncrete element. Replace deteriorated or damaged areas with similar sized members. Timber piles, abutments, wingwalls, pile caps, girders, floor beams, cross bracing, decks, railings, wearing surface, and cur bs Replace missing stones and grout to match existing. Stone abutments, wingwalls, footings, piers, railings, approach railings, scour protection, channel lining, and any other stone masonry element. Clean the corroded/deteriorated areas of the steel. If significant section loss,repair by adding supplemental steel or replace in-kind. Attach supplemental steel and or replacement member using approved methods. Coat the repaired area to match the existing color (and finish as needed). Steel girders, floor beams, diaphragms, cross bracing, decks, railings, curbs, columns/piles, and any other steel element. 22 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS Programmatic Agreement Document •Signatories •Federal Highway Administration •Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Officer •Advisory Council on Historic Preservation •Invited signatories •U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •Hawai‘i Department of Transportation •Consulting parties (potential concurring signatories) •County of Kaua‘i •County of Hawai‘i •County of Maui •City and County of Honolulu •Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission •Historic Hawai‘i Foundation •Consulting parties (non-signatories) •NHOs 23 REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS How to Comment –Use of the “Excel Comment Sheet” DRAFT Hawaiʻi Historic Bridge Minor Project Programmatic Agreement 9/21/2021 DATE REVIEWED:xx/xx/xxxx NO.Page Line Reviewer Comment/Proposed Revision Action Taken/ Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 24 NEXT STEPS September 2021 to January 2022 Draft PA and document review for Signatories, Invited Signatories, Consulting Parties, and NHO’s. February to May 2022 Address comments and revise PA and documents June to September 2022 Pre-final draft development 25 ➢Best Practices Manual –Introduction of the Tiers ➢Best Practices Manual –Summary Matrix of the Proposed Activities and Tier Levels ➢Best Practices Manual –Sample Chapter 3 –Roadway ➢Programmatic Agreement Document Language ➢How to Comment –Use of Excel Comment Sheet ➢Next Steps 26 Mahalo DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA‘ĀINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 000000 Kaua‘i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) DIRECTOR’S REPORT I. SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: a. Consideration of a new Class I Zoning Permit to renovate the existing garage accessory structure and to construct a new outdoor shower in proximity to the garage. 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 94 years old. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES Zoning: Open State Land Use District: Urban General Plan Designation: Natural Owner(s): 3 Palms, LLC III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 2 The Douglas Baldwin Beach House is a historic property with a single-family residence and a detached garage structure. As represented in the preliminary plans, the Applicant is proposing a series of interior and exterior renovations to the garage that includes the following: Table 1: Exterior Renovations to the Garage Features Proposed Plans Garage Door Remove existing sliding lattice doors and replace with a new folding door as noted in Sheet A06 Door Remove existing wooden doors and replace with new typical wood doors noted on Sheet A06. Windows Remove existing wooden windows and replace with new in-kind bronze outside and wooden inside materials with Ipe wood trim. Roof Replace existing metal corrugated roofing with a new silver zinc-aluminum corrugated roofing material. Original roof framing will remain the same. Shed Remove existing shed and shed roof. Replace with a new covered “bike port” storage area. The new covered “bike port” storage area will be larger than the previous storage area. The proposed square footage of the covered “bike port” storage area is 90 square feet. Shower Addition of a new outdoor shower to be located next to the garage. The new rock wall outdoor shower enclosure will be detached by 4-6 inches. Table 2: Interior Renovations to the Garage Features Proposed Plans Interior Layout The existing Garage Bay 2 will be reduced to increase the new storage that connects with the “bike port” storage area. Bathroom 1 will remain the same and the original storage and laundry areas have been swapped to facility storage from the proposed covered “bike port” storage area. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 3 IV. PERMIT HISTORY This subject property has come before KHPRC several times over the last few years for different improvements. November 2018 KHPRC Meeting 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 wooden 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 Douglas 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. March 2021 KHPRC Meeting In March 2021, the Applicant decided to retain the use of the historic beach home as a dwelling unit and to abandon plans to construct a new dwelling unit and a guest house on the property. The Applicant came before KHPRC to amend Class I Zoning Permit Z-74-2019, withdraw Class I Zoning Permit Z-275-2020, and apply for a new Class I Zoning Permit Z-145-2022. A more detailed permit history is provided in the tables below. Table 3. Amendments to Class I Zoning Permit Z-74-2019 Original Permit Description (2019) 1st Amendment (March 2021) 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 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 4 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 Table 4. Amendments to Class I Zoning Permit Z-275-2020 Original Permit Description (2020) 1st Amendment- WITHDRAWN (March 2021) Demolition of Garage Accessory Structure AND Removal of the Deck, Ramp, Walls, Doors, Cabinetry, Fixtures, etc. to the Historic Dwelling Demolition of Garage Accessory Structure AND Removal of the Deck, Ramp, Walls, Doors, Cabinetry, Fixtures, etc. to the Historic Dwelling Table 5. New Class I Zoning Permit Z-145-2022 Permit No. Permit Status Permit Description Z-145-2022 Approved at March 2021 KHPRC Meeting Renovation and deck addition to the existing historic single-family dwelling unit January 2022 KHPRC Meeting The proposed renovations to the garage will require an amendment to Class I Zoning Permit Z-74-2019 to remove reference to the outdoor shower (previously proposed at a different location on the subject property) and an application for a new Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 to apply for the renovation to the garage and the new outdoor shower. Table 6. Amendments to Class I Zoning Permit Z-74-2019 Original Permit Description (2019) 1st Amendment (March 2021) 2nd Amendment (January 2022) New Dwelling Unit New Dwelling Unit N/A Guest House Guest House N/A Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 5 Hot Tub Hot Tub Hot Tub 6 ft. Wood Fence 6 ft. Wood Fence 6ft. Wood Fence Outdoor Shower Outdoor Shower Outdoor Shower Conversion of Existing Historic Dwelling Unit to an Accessory Structure Conversion of Existing Historic Dwelling Unit to an Accessory Structure N/A Related site utilities Related site utilities N/A Table 7. New Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 Permit No. Permit Status Permit Description Z-297-2022 Pending KHPRC Approval Renovation to the Existing Garage Accessory Structure AND Addition of the Outdoor Shower V. 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. VI. 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 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. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 6 c. As represented by the applicant, the garage renovations will preserve the garage structure that was previously proposed to be demolished. The applicant, where possible, is utilizing in-kind replacement materials and is following the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the placement of the outdoor shower. It is the Department’s position that the proposed renovations to the garage structure should not detract from the historic integrity of the subject property. VII. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, the Planning Department recommends that the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT the project as represented and 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 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. 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; Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) January 27, 2022 Meeting 3 Palms, LLC- Douglas Baldwin Beach House Garage Renovation and Outdoor Shower TMK: (4) 5-5-002:107 Class I Zoning Permit Z-297-2022 HPRC-2022-13 Page 7 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: ___________________ 1-10-2022