May30,2014 Mr.DerekYasaka President,WCPInc. 99‐061KoahaWay,Suite208 ‘Aiea,HI96701 Re: Pre‐AssessmentConsultationRequestfortheWaikikiWarMemorial ComplexProjectEnvironmentalImpactStatement VIAFedExandEmail DearMr.Yasaka: ThankyouforyourletterofApril29,2014toStephanieK.Meeks,PresidentandCEOof theNationalTrustforHistoricPreservationregardingtheWaikikiWarMemorial ComplexProject.WeappreciateyoukeepingusinformedonthestatusofthisProject asaninterestedorganization. TheNationalTruststronglysupportstheMay15,2014letteronthissubjectfromthe HistoricHawaiiFoundationandweendorsetheirviewpointthattheWarMemorial shouldbestabilized,preservedandrehabilitated.WeinvitetheCityandtheStateto reneweffortstoworkwithstakeholdersandpartneronafinancingmodeland businessplanthatwillsustainthesiteandmakeitonceagainananchoronthefamous Waikikishoreline. PursuanttoitsCongressionalCharter,theNationalTrustforHistoricPreservationis committedtopromotingpublicparticipationinthepreservationofournation’s heritage,andtofurtherthehistoricpreservationpolicyoftheUnitedStates.See16 U.S.C.§468.OnMay21,2014,ourorganizationannouncedthedesignationoftheWar MemorialNatatoriumasa“NationalTreasure”(see www.savingplaces.org/natatorium).Pursuanttothisdesignation,wehaveteamedup withalliesinHawaiionacomprehensivepublicoutreachplan.Weintendtourgethe CityandStatetousetheenvironmentalreviewprocessnowunderwaytohonorthe site’shistoryasaWorldWarIMemorialandrepairandrehabilitatetheNatatoriumto onceagainbeavibrantaquaticfacility. Asoutlinedinourcommentsbelow,weareconcernedthattheconsequencesofthe plantodemolishtheentiresiteandreconstructonlyitsarchwayhasnotthouroughly studied.ItwouldundoubtedlyresultinthelossofitsstatusontheNationalRegisterof HistoricPlaces.Anditwouldalsomeanthelossofanentireresourcetypeinournation asthereisnoremainingcomparablestructureintheUnitedStates. The Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20037 E [email protected] P 202.588.6000 F 202.588.6038 www.PreservationNation.org Preservationofthesite’sdesignandintegrity,incontrast,hasaverypracticalan environmentallybeneficialpurpose.Inadditiontoconservingthetangibleelementsof thesite,itwouldavoidtheunknowncostsofpursuingademolitionprojectina sensitivemarineenvironment.Thisconcernisparticularlyacutegiventhatthe creationofabeachwouldrequiresubstantialnewconstructioninordertopreventthe existingadjacentbeachatfromwashingaway. Werespectfullysubmitthefollowingquestionsandissuestoassureanequitable analysisofalternativesintheWaikikiWarMemorialComplexProjectEnvironmental ImpactStatement,asrequiredbytheHawaiiEnvironmentalPolicyAct(HRS§343). TheEISMustContainaReasonableRangeofRehabilitationAlternatives. TheEISmustexplorealternativesforarehabilitatedNatatoriumthatarereasonable andincludeacloseinvestigationofhowtheexistingsitecanberepairedand rehabilitatedatafeasiblecost.Weurgeattentiontohowexistingmaterialscanbe reinforcedratherthanremovedsuchasthelargeembeddedconcretepilingsthat supportthedecking,seawallelements,andbleacherandarchwaycomplex. Inaddition,adesignshouldbeconsideredforanoceanswimmingvenuethatmeets thesamewaterqualitystandardsastheadjacentocean.IftheapplicationofHawaii DepartmentofHealthRulesonPublicSwimmingPools(HawaiiAdministrativeRules§ 11‐10)isdeterminedtobedisproportionateincost,alternativepooldesignsmustbe analyzedthatwouldaddresshealthandsafetyconcernswithouttheneedfor expensivepumpingandfiltrationsystems.Forinstance,theRulesdefinea“Swimming pool”asanentitythatcontainsan“artificialbodyofwater.”Thepreviously‐approved tidalflowpoolrestorationdesigndoesnotenclosesuchanartificialbodyandwould thereforenotbeinconsistentwiththeRules. Inaddition,alternativesmustbeexploredthatqualifyforspecialexemptionsfromthe HealthDepartmentRules,suchas“beachvenues,”likenearbyKuhioBeach,and “marinehabitat.”TheinsertionofabeachfrontwithintheNatatoriuminordertomeet thepoolregulations,forinstance,couldbeaneffectivecompromisethatwould maintainmostofthequalitiesthatmaketheresourceeligiblefortheNationalRegister. AllApplicableRegulatoryRequirementsMustbeEvaluatedandSatisfied. DemolitionoftheNatatoriumwouldrequirefederalapprovalsthatmustbeconducted concurrentlywiththereviewprocessundertheHawaiiEnvironmentalPolicyAct(see attachedletterof8/26/2009foramorecompleteanalysisoftheapplicablelaw).A jointprocesswouldavoidlengthyandcostlydelaysintheimplementationofthe Project.ThisrecommendationissupportedbyHRS§343‐5(h),whichstates, “WheneveranactionissubjecttoboththeNationalEnvironmental PolicyActof1969(PublicLaw91‐190)andtherequirementsofthis chapter,theofficeandagenciesshallcooperatewithfederalagenciesto 2 thefullestextentpossibletoreduceduplicationbetweenfederaland staterequirements.Suchcooperation,tothefullestextentpossible,shall includejointenvironmentalimpactstatementswithconcurrentpublic reviewandprocessingatbothlevelsofgovernment.” BecausetheCitymustseekfederalpermitsfromtheArmyCorpsofEngineersunder section10oftheRiversandHarborsActandsection404oftheCleanWaterAct,the EISshould,ataminimum,describetheprocessbywhichtheCityandtheStatewillbe cooperatingwiththeArmyCorpstocoordinateitsStateEISreviewwithNEPAand otherfederalpermittingrequirements—includingSection106oftheNationalHistoric PreservationAct. Inaddition,theEISmustcontainananalysisofhowdemolitionwouldbeaccomplished consistentwithexistingCityandCountylaw.Forinstance,Section2‐15.1ofthe RevisedOrdinancesofHonolulustates: “Thedirectorofparksandrecreationshall:(a)operateandmaintainthe Waikikiwarmemorialandnatatorium,includingitsstructures,facilities,and grounds.”(emphasisadded) Thereisnoevidencethatthislawhasbeentakenintoaccount.TheCitymustclarifyin theEISthatitsproposeddemolitionalternativecannotbecarriedoutabsentCity Councilactiontonullifyexistinglaw,anactionwhichNatatoriumadvocateswould stronglyoppose. Finally,theCity’sproposedalternativetodemolishtheNatatoriumhasnotyetbeen thoroughlyevaluatedintheenvironmentalreviewprocess.Forexample,theWaikiki WarMemorialParkandNatatoriumEIS(preparedin1998),whichapproveda rehabilitatedNatatoriumwithatidalflowpooldesign,didnotanalyzetheimpactsand permittingrequirementsassociatedwiththedemolitionalternative.Asaresult,this EISmustcontainathoroughanalysisofthoseanticipatedimpactsandpermitting requirements.Theseinclude: Thefederalandstateregulations,reviewsandpermitsthatwouldbeimplicated orrequiredbyeachalternative;and Analysisoftheapplicabilityofthe1973HawaiiSupremeCourtrulingthat resultedinapermanentinjunction“enjoiningandrestrainingthe[Cityand CountyofHonoluluandtheStateofHawaii]…frominanywaytearingdownor demolishingtheNatatorium.”NatatoriumPreservationCommitteev. Edelstein,55Haw.55,61(1973) 3 TheEISMustFullyAnalyzetheEnvironmentalConsequencesofDemolishingthe Natatorium. ThecurrentstabilityoftheshorelineisdependentontheNatatoriumservingasa retainingwallforsandontheadjacentSansSouciBeach.Thepotentialenvironmental impactsofalteringtheshorelinemustbestudied,including: Effectsonwaterqualityduetoreleaseofsedimentfromthepoolbottomwith respecttofederalcleanwaterstandardsandregulations; Adverseimpactsonthereefandmarinelife; ErosionofSansSoucibeach;and constructionoftheinfrastructurethatwouldbenecessarytoretainorre‐create anewbeach. Inaddition,theEISmustdisclosewhatwouldbenecessary,duringorafter construction,toaddressthesandandsedimentthatiscurrentlyonthebottomofthe Natatorium.Undereachalternative,whatkindofsandwouldgobackintoa reconstructedpoolorontoanartificialbeach?Ineachcase,whatenvironmental impactswouldbeexpected? Finally,theEISmustcontainathoroughanalysisoftheimpactthatclimatechangeand risingsealevelsmayhaveonthecreationofanewbeach,particularlyonthepotential long‐termcostsofbeachreplenishmentthatwillberequiredtokeepsandinplace.For example,demolitionwouldrequirerepeateddredgingandtransportofsandatatime whenitmightbemoreimportantforsucheffortstobefocusedonretainingexisting beachesonWaikiki. EngineeringfortheProjectMustBeSupportedbyAdequateData. Thecostandfeasibilityofbuildingeachalternativemustbescrutinizedbyappropriate experts. ThepreviouslyapprovedtidalflowdesignalongwiththeKo’OlinaSwimming LagoonsweredesignedbyUHoceanengineersKarlH.Bathen,PhDandFrans Gerritsen,PhD.Thispreviouslystudiedandapproveddesignmustbeincluded intheEISasanalternative. Thedemolitionalternativemustbeanalyzedbyoceanengineers(asopposedto coastalgeologists)foradverseimpactsincludingerosion,creationofrip currents,andsedimentationofthereef. TheEISshouldexplicitlydetailtheacademicqualificationsofanyengineersor otherexpertswhoseopinionsorjudgmentsarecited. WilsonOkamotoCorp.preparedaStructuralConditionReportinJuly2004 concludingthatthe“bleacherstructureappearstobeingoodoverallcondition.” 4 TheEISshouldincludeanalternativethatwouldpreservethisstructurealong withthefaçadeofthememorial,eveniftheswimmingbasinisreconfiguredor removed. CostConsiderationsMustBeAccuratelyAssessedandEquitablyCompared. PreviousrepresentationsfromtheCityandStatehaveindicatedthatcostisthesole basisforproposingdemolitionoverretentionoftheNatatorium.Eventhoughthese estimateshavenotbeenmadepublic,theyhaveunfortunatelyledtotheimpression thatrehabilitationisinfeasible.See,e.g.,Grube,Nick,AbercrombieTeamsWithCaldwell ToTearDownWaikikiNatatorium,HonoluluCivilBeat,May1,2013,availableat http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/05/01/18956‐abercrombie‐teams‐with‐ caldwell‐to‐tear‐down‐waikiki‐natatorium/(reportingthatatapressconferencethe MayorandGovernorbasedtheirdecisiontodemolishthehistoricresourceoncost estimates.Theydidnotprovideinformation,howeverastohowtheircostestimates weredeveloped,andwedisputethem). TheEISshoulddetailhowcostestimateshavebeendeveloped,aswellasthedegreeto whichcostisafactorinevaluatingthealternatives.TheEISmustalsobestructuredso astofairlyanalyzetheenvironmentalconsequencesofeachalternativewithout comingtoapre‐ordainedconclusionbasedonoutdatedcostestimatesthathavenever beenmadepublic. Totheextentthatcostisreliedonasacentralfactor,partnershipswithnon‐profit organizationssuchasFriendsoftheNatatoriummustbeconsideredpriortomakinga determinationaboutthefeasibilityoffinancingarehabilitationproject.Thisappliesto bothbricksandmortarconstructioncostsaswellasendowingfutureoperationalcosts fromphilanthropic,public,andprivatesources.Forinstance,inthewakeoftheCity’s 2013announcementaboutitsproposeddemolitionproposalsin2013,severalmajor nationaldonorshaveexpressedinterestinpartneringtohelpendowanaquaticfacility thatwouldretainkeyhistoricelementsofthefacility.However,suchdonorshaveno confidencethattheCityiswillingtoengageinapublic‐privatepartnershipwitha capablenon‐profitorganization. Inaddition,thefollowingfactorsmustbeconsidered: Currentcostestimatesmustbepreparedforeachalternative,andshouldbe procuredfromlicensedcontractors. Inordertohaveanaccuratecomparison,costestimatesforeachalternative shouldbebasedonA/Edesigndocumentsratherthanonconceptualplansor sketches. Whatwouldbethefundingsourcesandfinancingmechanismsforeach alternative? 5 RelatedMaintenanceCostsMustBeIncludedintheEISandFactoredintoCost Estimates. EachalternativewillhaveoperationalcoststhatmustbeconsideredintheEIS.It shouldaddressthefollowingquestions: Whatarethecomparativecostsofeachalternative? Whatisthebasisofthesecostestimates? Whatassuranceswouldtherebeunderthedemolitionalternativethatthe beachsandwouldremainwhereinstalledratherthanwashingoutandaltering surfbreaks,envelopingreefhabitat,orcausingotheradverseenvironmental impacts? Ifthebeacherodes,whatistheanticipatedannualcostofbeachreplenishment? Howwouldthatimpactbeachaccess,tourismandareahotelsandbusinesses? Wherewouldthesandcomefromandwhatwouldbetheassociated environmentalconsequences? Wouldthecostofconstantlyreplacingthesandbehigherthanrehabilitating andmaintainingatidalflowpool? Thealternativesanalysisshouldspecificallyassessthepotentialtogenerate revenueforanongoingmaintenancefundforeachalternative. TheFeasibilityandCostofReplacementFacilitiesMustbeRealisticallyEvaluated andConsidered. TheNatatoriumcurrentlyhousesmen’sandwomen’srestrooms,showersand changingareas,alongwiththeOceanSafetyDivision’sDistrict1regionalheadquarters andRescueOneoperations.Alloftheseamenitieswouldbelostunderthedemolition alternative.Inaddition,thedemolitionalternativedoesnotincludeavolleyballcourt andmorethan30parkingspaces. Wherewouldallofthesecurrentfunctionsandfacilitiesbemovedunderthe demolitionalternative? Arethesitesfortheparking,restroomsandlifeguardssecured? Wouldanyofthesefunctionsorspacesbediminishedintheirreplacementform andsites? WouldrelocatingtheOceanSafetyofficeselsewhereresultinanyadverse impacttopublicsafety? What,ifany,wouldbetherelevantland/leasecostofprocuringnewsitesfor replacementfacilities? 6 Thecostsassociatedwithreplacingallthesefunctionsandfacilitates(including land,softcostsandconstructioncosts)mustbeincludedinthecostestimates fordemolition,inordertoensureanequitable“apples‐to‐apples”comparision ofalternatives. Swimming/RecreationalUse. TheNatatorium’senablinglegislationrequiresthatthesiteincludeaswimmingvenue of100metersinlength(seeAct15ofthe1921TerritorialLegislature).Undertheplans developedin1998,thetidalflowpoolwouldhavebeentheonlyfullyADA‐accessible saltwaterswimmingvenueinthestate. TheEISshouldstatethatthedemolitionalternativedoesnotcomplywiththe enablinglegislation,becauseitwouldremovethe100‐meterswimmingvenue. WouldtheartificialbeachbeADA‐accessibleforbothbeach‐goingand swimming?Itspotentialforaccessibilitybythedisabledisoneofthekey featuresthatmakestheNatatoriumuniqueamongswimmingvenuesinHawaii. Whatengineeringstudieshavebeendonetoshowthatanartificialbeachwould besafeintermsofman‐madehazardsandripcurrents?Forinstance,wouldthe sandcomeleveltothenewgroins?Haverelatedsafetyissuesbeenexplored, e.g.,swimmersclimbingontothegroinsandfallingoffordivingoffina dangerousmanner? ArehabilitatedNatatoriumwouldofferrecreationalistsprotectionfromopen oceancurrents.Itwouldenablemanytoswimintheoceanwhoareotherwise unabletodoso,includingthedisabled,childrenandtheelderly. Underthedemolitionalternative,thelossoftheseawallwouldchange surroundingcurrents.Accordingtothe2008ShorelineRestorationStudy ConceptualDesignReviewReport,“duringlargewaveeventsstraightgroinsare knowntoproduceripcurrentsalongthegroinedgesthatcantransportthe sandseaward.”(p.53)Wouldthatchangeadverselyaffectbeachgoers?Wouldit becomeunsafeforswimmerstoleavethegroinboundaries?Wouldsurfersand theirbreaksbeadverselyimpactedbyalterationofthecurrentshoreline conditions? Veterans’Concerns. TheWarMemorialNatatoriumwasopenedin1927asa“livingmemorial”intributeto themorethan10,000menandwomenfromHawaiiwhoservedinWorldWarI.A rehabilitatedNatatoriumwouldbesthonortheveteransandvictimsofwarby providingapublicvenueforrecreation,recuperationandreflection.Repairingand reopeningtheNatatoriumastheMemorialitwasintendedtobewouldalsopreserve thehistoricalmessagesenttothefuturebythepeopleofpost‐warTerritorialHawaii. Theprocessofreachingouttostakeholdersshouldspecificallyincludeoutreach toveterans’groupstoaskwhichalternativeispreferred. 7 TheEISshouldalsoidentifywaysinwhicheachofthealternativeswould specificallyaddresstheinterestsofveterans. From2014to2018,theUnitedStatesandnationsaroundtheworldwillmark the100thanniversaryofWorldWarI.Thisfactorshouldbeconsideredinthe selectionofalternatives,astherewillbeahighdegreeofmediainterestinthe stateofmemorialsdevelopedforAmericanswhoservedinthewar. ThankyouforconsideringthescopingcommentsoftheNationalTrustforHistoric Preservation. Sincerely, BrianR.Turner SeniorFieldOfficer&Attorney,SanFranciscoFieldOffice NationalTrustforHistoricPreservation ElizabethS.Merritt DeputyGeneralCounsel NationalTrustforHistoricPreservation Attachments: LetterfromNationalTrustforHistoricPreservationtoMr.CollinsD.Lam,P.E.,August 26,2009. Cc(viaemail): Mr.AlanDowner,HawaiiStateHistoricPreservationDivisionAdministator Mr.GeorgeP.Young,P.E.,Chief,RegulatoryBranch,ArmyCorpsofEngineers KierstenFaulkner,ExecutiveDirector,HistoricHawaiiFoundation Maurice“Mo”D.Radke,President,FriendsoftheNatatorium 8
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
