Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 11-12-13 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 12,2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Vice Chair Kimura at 9:32 a.m.,at the Lihu`e Civic Center,Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Jan Kimura Mr, Hartwell Blake Ms.Amy Mendonca Mr. John Isobe Ms. Angela Anderson Mr.Herman Texeira Absent and Excused: Mr. Wayne Katayama The following staff members were present: Planning Department—Michael Dahilig, Ka`aina Hull, Leslie Takasaki; Office of Boards and Commissions—Cherisse Zaima;Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting,in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that there were six Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr.Dahilig requested the following amendments to the agenda: • Executive session to be taken during the latter half of the agenda as there will be a swap of counsel at 10:30 • Updates from the Director,and long-range planners to be presented at the end of the agenda • Reports of the Subdivision Committee to be taken immediately following public hearing and comment On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the agenda as amended,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 8,2013 The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush. Ms.Regush stated as of Friday,when attempting to access the minutes at the Planning counter,the minutes were not available; she was told that they were still being transcribed. She feels that it needs to be addressed that they were not available for the public prior to this meeting. She stated that she returned to the Planning counter this morning,and the minutes were there; however,when she asked for a copy, she was given a Request to Access a Government Record form,which states she would be notified by mail within several weeks. She stated she is unsure that the Planning Department staff understands transparency, and the ability for the public to review documents, especially prior to the day of the Planning Commission meeting. She noted that on October 8, there was significant opposition to the Long's project,much testimony was given,and she feels it is clear that members of the public wanted to review the minutes. She pointed out that public transparency is something the Mayor has been working toward improving, and this procedure seems like an obstacle to that. She questioned whether the Commission would be approving the minutes today,what are the options or parameters for public input to correct minutes as they may need be. Mr, Dahilig addressed Ms.Regush's concerns, stating he takes full responsibility for minutes not being available at the counter. He explained that the minutes were in fact available, they are included in the agenda packet,and were available on Thursday; e-packets were transmitted to the Commissioners at that time. He acknowledges that Ms.Regush may have received misinformation at the counter,stating if that is the case,he apologizes and takes responsibility for it. Mr.Dahilig further explained that the procedures at the Planning counter are due to a recent OIP(Office of Information Practices)request by the Honolulu Civil Beat for OIP form 4,which is a response form to OIP form l:Request to Access a Government Record. The Department was not customarily using this form because it impedes the ability to expedite these requests;however,given the official request from Honolulu Civil Beat for those forms, they are in a position of now having to keep records of every single request that comes to the counter; this was prompted by a County-wide media inquiry,includes all County Departments, and is a result of public scrutiny. Mr. Blake asked to clarify that the minutes included in the agenda packet were available to the public at the time the Commissioners received their packets to which Mr. Dahilig replied correct,but there may have been misinformation at the Planning counter,which Mr.Dahilig again apologized for,and accepted full responsibility. Mr. Blake asked in a case such as this where a member of the public is asking for minutes, which have always been available at least five days before the meeting,can they fill out Page 12 a Form 1 and receive the minutes right then. Mr.Dahilig noted that the full agenda packet is available at the counter as a courtesy, so that the OIP form does not need to be filled out; however,any time a copy is requested over the counter,a Form I is required to be filled out. It is administratively cumbersome,but it addresses the concerns of the media request on how these County resources are being managed;these include waiver requirements,time requirements, and a number of monetary requirements. Mr.Dahilig noted that this is an interim measure until there is more guidance from the Mayor's office who is currently working on a County-wide policy. The Department is taking a very conservative approach to ensure that should those documents be again requested from Honolulu Civil Beat, they are readily available. Ms.Anderson noted that the Commissioners receive their packets in electronic form, and there is a website where the agenda is posted. She asked that if rather than having the hard copy available at the office, can the electronic packet be posted for the public,which will alleviate the issue of cost,and the need for a formal request for information., Mr.Dahilig replied that is the eventual goal of the Department,but they are still working out kinks in how the PDF document is put together. Mr.Blake asked if a hard copy of the minutes could be put in a binder and made available at the counter as soon as they are ready to which Mr.Dahilig replied the minutes were available,but it is not uncommon for the public documents there to be taken out of the office. Ms.Regush stated that on Friday two staff people told her that the minutes were still being transcribed,and that they could not see them until the Commission accepts them. The request form was then given to her; it would take weeks for the minutes to get to her. Ms. Regush agrees with the idea of electronic submission to the website,noting that many people have been advocating for that for a number of years. She commented on what the County Council does with their minutes,stating that if they can do it, she is sure the IT staff can assist Planning as well. Mr.Kimura asked what time she made the request for the minutes to which Ms. Regush replied before 4:00 p.m., at which time the counter was no longer accepting requests. Mr. Dahilig stated he would need to identify which staff member gave her the information to obtain an understanding of the situation,and reiterated that the minutes were available as of Thursday,prior to when Ms.Regush made her request. Mr.Dahilig will follow up with his staff to determine where the miscommunication may have been. Ms.Regush asked when and how does opportunity for public comment on the minutes take place to which Mr. Jung replied if an OIP request is submitted, the Planning Department staff will stamp DRAFT on the minutes as it has not yet been approved, and if there are any clarification points a member of the public would like to include,it can be brought up at the Planning Commission meeting prior to approval of the minutes. Mr.Jung noted these procedures are all outlined in the OIP rules. Ms.Regush noted that the minutes will come to her within several weeks of filling out the OIP form, which does not allow time for public input. She further stated that the minutes are on the agenda today for approval,which in her opinion,will be done in a vacuum without the opportunity for the public to review it. Mr.Jung stated the Page 13 Planning Commission meeting can be accessed via webstream, further explaining that the actual minutes do not have to be verbatim,and do not have to be transcribed minutes under OIP law. However,there is the privilege of seeing what actually goes on in this meeting via webstream video on the County website. Ms.Regush stated the public's concern was to assure that the written minutes aligned with the proceedings being viewed on the webcast. Mr. Jung stated the meeting can be viewed two or three days after the meeting to which Ms.Regush replied that she is referring to the written minutes, and stated that if the Commission is approving them without public review,there is a disconnect in transparency,and the public input process. Mr. Blake commented that three or four years ago,it used to take a long time to get the minutes,but since the Boards and Commissions office has been active and has provided the Planning Commission with a dedicated secretary,the minutes get out quickly. He reiterated that the minutes do not have to be verbatim as long as they accurately convey what was being discussed. Ms. Regush stated that accuracy is what the public is looking for as well as the opportunity to review. Ms. Regush asked that when she does get to see the minutes,when is her opportunity to come back to the Commission if she finds any discrepancies she would like to address; how is that handled. Mr.Dahilig restated the Department's procedures,noting that a copy of the minutes are at the Planning counter;he is unclear why a particular set of minutes were absent from the hard copy as the electronic packets contained a copy. That is how the draft minutes are available. Ms. Regush stated for clarification that she cannot,however, obtain a copy;it would take 7 weeks to get it to which Mr. Kimura stated that as it stands now,those are the rules. Mr. Dahilig suggested that the item be deferred as there is public concern on the matter. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Hartwell Blake to defer the minutes to the December 10,2013 meeting,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by John Isobe to receive the items for the record,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Dahilig noted that Rayne Regush is signed up for public testimony,but there is no indication of the specific agenda item. Mr.Kimura asked what agenda item she wishes to testify on. Ms.Regush stated she would like to speak on Item J. Communications, and Item H.2. Executive session pertaining to the evaluation of the Planning Director's work performance. Page 14 Mr. Kimura pointed out that under Item J. Communication,there is none. Mr. Dahilig asked to clarify that Ms. Regush would like to testify under Item F.5. All Public Testimony Pursuant to HRS 92,noting that there is no general agenda item F as she noted on the sign-in sheet. Ms. Regush stated she had actually wanted to testify about Item J. Communication because she noted there was a communication that was not posted under that agenda item,which was a request for reconsideration regarding the Long's store SMA and Class IV zoning permits. She stated there were two letters of reconsideration that would have appeared on the agenda in the past. Mr.Kimura replied that the Commissioners did receive requests for consideration via mail;however, one of the Commissioners would have had to contact the Department prior to the posting of the agenda. Since no one did so,that item was not included on the agenda. Ms. Regush stated for clarification that in the past,requests for consideration were brought before the full Commission to decide publicly how to address it. Mr.Kimura stated he is aware of that,but he has no power to authorize it,further noting that it is not on the agenda. He reiterated that any one of the Commissioners could have informed the Department that they would like to reconsider the application;however,no one has done so. Ms.Regush asked to see in the Rules how that procedure has changed from past policies of allowing the Commission to learn about why reconsideration is being asked,and having it done publicly as opposed to behind the scenes where it seems to be a deterrent to public transparency. Mr. Dahilig pointed out that Ms.Regush has signed up to testify on Item F.5 which is sunshine law testimony, noting that there are other items under Item F. that need to be addressed fast; there is an order to the agenda. Continued Agency Hearing(NONE) New Agency Hearing Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2014-3,to allow after-the-fact improvements involving a parcel located at the Kealoha Road/Makaba Road intersection in KVaa,along the makai side of Kuhio Ili_ hg_way,that includes the conversion of a garage into an additional dwelling unit and additions to the existing residence, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-5-001: 018,and containing a total land area of7,305 sq.ft. =Lorraine Dl Newman. Mr. Dahilig noted that the Department is in receipt of a letter from Loma Nishimitsu stating she is being retained on the matter. Sheds asking that public hearing be kept open to allow further testimony as well as to combine an additional application. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Herman Texeira to receive the item for the record,which includes a waiver of time for action,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 5 Continued Public Hearing(NONE) New Public Hearing Zoning Amendment ZA-2014-1: Amendment(Draft Bill No. 2498)to Chapter 8.6 of the Kauai County Code(1987), as amended, relating to bus stops for commercial development= %aua'i County CounciG Mr, Dahilig recommended that Public Hearing remain open for receipt of further comment as this bill relates to and can be discussed under the upcoming Item 4.b. Zoning Amendment ZA-2014-2: Amendment to Chapter 8.6 of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended,relating to building design requirements and reduced parking standards for commercial development=County of%aua 7,Planninr Department Mr.Dahilig requested that Public Hearing for this item remain open as they are still soliciting feedback from other stakeholders as well as the public,and are not asking for action at this time. The Commission received testimony from Carl Imparato. Mr.Imparato stated that there was virtually no time to read and study the proposed zoning amendment as it was not available to the public in time to do so. In reference to the building setback requirements,he commented that the zoning amendment would create a new rule that the distance of a building from the right-of-way line can be no more than ten feet. In other words, all new commercial buildings will abut the sidewalk. He feels this will be detrimental to maintaining the character of rural areas such as Hanalei where openness and setbacks are the hallmarks of the community's rural character, and feels that requirement needs to be deleted. In reference to the parking requirements,Mr. Imparato noted the zoning amendment would eliminate the minimum off-street parking requirements for customers of retail and office uses,which are based on the square footage of the space. He strongly disagrees with reducing those parking requirements, especially for rural communities like Hanalei, further stating that he feels the current parking requirements in Hanalei should be increased. Due to the current shortage of commercial parking spaces, some businesses direct their patrons to park in the County Park; approval of new commercial buildings in Hanalei would worsen the parking problems. Mr.Imparato stated that while the zoning amendment and CZO allow the Planning Director to increase parking requirements for unusual conditions,he feels it is wrong to rely on the Director re-imposing parking requirements as it puts the communities and the applicants at the mercy of the biases of the Director. He feels it would be better for a developer and the Department to come to the Planning Commission to make the case for reduced parking Page 16 requirements than to have the community have to come to the Commission and try to express their desire for increased parking requirements; the new zoning amendments put the community at a disadvantage. Mr. Imparato stated the new zoning amendment will eliminate the requirements that all parking lots be screened from public roads,and the setback between the parking area and the right-of-way be planted rather than paved. He feels that is a big step backward;and he does not see the rationale in removing those requirements; it serves well to mitigate visual impacts. Referencing earlier public testimony,Mr.Imparato commented that some of the rules are very hostile and burdensome to public testimony,noting the following: • There was no notice of the public hearing posted on the website • The notice of public hearing for today did not include the public hearing on these zoning amendments, therefore,he did not find out until Thursday when the agenda came out • The zoning amendments are not available on the website,which requires those on the North Shore, or West side to come to Lihu`e to find out,which he feels is inexcusable in 2013 • The Planning Commission's rules state that when an agenda item is taken up by the Commission,that is when it is relevant to speak,but the rules also state that one may not be able to speak at that time because accepting testimony at that time is at the discretion of the Chair; some Chairs are welcoming to public testimony,others are hostile to public testimony. He feels it is wrong to say the right the public has under the Sunshine Act to speak during an agenda item is now a privilege at the discretion of the Chair Mr. Imparato asked that the Commission to consider these obstacles, and try to find a way to remedy them in the future. Mr.Dahilig asked if Mr.Imparato had a copy of the amended rules,which state that the rule on public testimony that was cited in reference to the discretion of the Chair has been changed;now the public has the opportunity to speak either in the beginning, or at the agenda item. Mr.Imparato replied that on Page 1 of the current agenda, it states"testimony may also be accepted when the agenda item is taken up by the Commission at the discretion of the Chair". Mr.Kimura noted that the Commission normally accepts all testimony, and has never experienced anyone being denied during the agenda item. Mr. Imparato stated it happened to him last year to which Mr. Dahilig replied after that the Department made a change to the rules. Mr.Dahilig further stated that the nomenclature could be changed if it would clarify things. Mr. Kimura clarified that the changes would be made to the agenda. Adogtion of administrative rules interpreting provisions of Chapter 8, Kauai County Code pertaining to the enforcement of Chanter 8,Article 17(Single Family Transient Vacation Rentals)= County of%aua%Plannine Department Page 17 Mr.Dahilig stated the Department is comfortable with the rules,but would recommend that the Public Hearing be kept open to facilitate further discussion with the public. The Commission received testimony from Caren Diamond, Ms.Diamond stated she is speaking on behalf of Protect Our Neighborhood`Ghana, and herself as well. She thanked the Commission for putting out the draft version of the rules, and requested the public hearing be kept open as she only received a copy of it this morning and has not had time to review them. She feels the rules need more work,and stated it may be too little, too late. The North Shore is the area most impacted, and distributed copies of written testimony, along with a map that marks all the TVRs that were approved without the required documentation to prove non-conforming use to begin with. The biggest issue of concern is the large numbers that did not provide the documentation to establish this use. Ms. Diamond stated the North Shore is the wrong place for a resort, offering no evacuation routes. She also noted that in January 2009,the Planning Commission was tasked by Ordinance 876 to enact rules for these vacation rentals, and that never happened. She asked that they take responsibility in part for why the problems exist today,and that they help craft rules and laws to protect their neighborhoods. Adoption of administrative rules intemreting provisions of Chapter 8.Kauai County Code pertaining to the enforcement of accessory agricultural structures for commercial sale of farm products=County of%aua%Plannine Department. All public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush. Ms.Regush stated that she would like the Commission to consider the ways the public is at a disadvantage, and asked to learn which rules are in place that would enable the public to ask the Commission to assess whether there have been procedural errors made. Mr.Kimura asked to clarify which agenda item was being addressed to which Ms. Regush replied Executive Session Item H.2 pertaining to the evaluation of the Planning Director's work performance. She provided some examples of where she feels there may have been procedural errors, such as letters requesting reconsideration based on certain facts. Mr.Kimura asked what that had to do with the Planning Commission's work performance goals and objectives for the Planning Director. Ms. Regush replied that the session pertains to "the Planning Director's work performance", and stated for example when an agency hearing was held at the last Commission meeting for the Long's project SMA permit, it actually required a public hearing,and not an agency hearing;that is perhaps an error that the Planning Commission needs to assess whether that is procedurally correct or not. She further noted that an agency hearing is only appropriate when there is a contested case, and explained that with the Long's project,the individual who had petitioned to intervene had withdrawn long before the Page 18 agenda was posted. It should have been held as a public hearing where the applicant presents the Long's project, and informs everyone on what is being presented, followed by public testimony; the reverse was true in this case as it was set up as an agency hearing,not a public hearing. That is a procedural error she wants to present to the Commission, and it is challenging to know how to do that. Ms.Regush also noted that a written request for reconsideration had been submitted, but had not been placed on the agenda. Mr. Jung stated that this issue has been brought up before,and he would implore the Commissioners as well as the public to read the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Planning Commission to which Ms. Regush stated she did_. Mr. Jung explained that Chapter 1 defines two types of hearings: 1. Agency Hearing—which refers to hearings held by the Commission immediately prior to judicial review of a contested case provided in Section 91-14, including but not limited to Class IV use and variance permits pursuant to the CZO. 2. Public Hearing—which is a quasi-legislative hearing regarding the adoption,repeal, or amendment of the rules and ordinances as a means to solicit general input on matters before the Commission. Mr. Jung summarized that Agency Hearing deals with the Commission acting in their quasi-judicial form,and Public Hearing is where the Commission acts in their quasi-legislative form such as bills and rules;that is set forth in the rules. Ms. Regush stated she had a copy of the rules,and had read them in advance,noting that it refers to contested case hearings. Mr.Jung explained that anything that deals with the rights, duties,and privileges of an applicant is potentially a contested case. Ms.Regush interjected that a contested case must occur seven days prior to the meeting. Mr. Dahilig added that much of what is framed as rights of the public to come into a quasi-judicial setting is also set forth in Hawaii case law such as Hui Kakoo Aina Hoo Pulapula vs. State of Hawaii which set forth the Supreme Court definition that a contested case hearing starts when an agency hearing is opened. It doesn't necessarily mean it in a hearings officer format,but that the rights of the public flow from the opening of an agency hearing. The Rules of Practice and Procedure are laid out to abide by that case law. He explained that based on a public notice that is printed in the newspaper,a member of the public has up to seven days prior to an action by the Commission to pay a fee,and intervene. In this case,there were no intervention requests; one was withdrawn. Ms. Regush noted that she did see it published as a public hearing; however,on the agenda it was posted as an agency hearing; a discrepancy she would like the Commission to address. Mr.Dahilig distributed, for the Commission's review, a copy of the meeting packet that was out at the Planning Department counter,noting the copy of the minutes are included. Ms. Regush asked if that had been available on Friday to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes; this packet Page 19 was placed on the counter on Thursday. He again apologized for any miscommunication,but the public document,with the minutes included,was available. Ms. Regush returned to her previous concern on agency and public hearing, stating she felt it very inappropriate to have the public give testimony before the agency's representatives laid out the Long's project, and would like to see in the rules where it is required that the public must testify before they hear from the agency representative about the project. Mr. Jung stated this is not a current agenda item,but suggested that it could be placed on a future agenda to discuss how the rules interplay, and to help educate the public on the changes to the rules as there still seems to be some misunderstanding. Mr. Kimura stated if the Commission wishes to put that on the agenda that's fine, but he feels the public should take it upon themselves to read the rules. Ms.Regush stated that she reads the rules before she comes to testify; she comes prepared. Mr. Kimura reiterated that it is up to the Commission if they would like to include discussion of the rules on the next agenda;however,he feels if the public desires knowledge of the rules, they should research it. Ms.Regush commented that during the hearing on the Long's project, it was stated twice that the project would be coming back. Mr.Kimura stated that the Long's project was not on the agenda to be discussed to which Ms. Regush replied she is addressing the rules that enable the public to ask the Commission to assess whether there are procedural errors such as in this case when the public heard that an item was coming back on the agenda on the 22nd,but then no meeting was held on the 22nd Ms.Regush referenced the CZO table of uses that appears to have been applied incorrectly to the Long's store,which was classified as a retail food and drug store;however, based on the square footage of the large retail space,it is a commercial store. Mr.Kimura interjected to ask what that has to do with the performance of the Director to which Ms.Regush replied it is related to how the Director has interpreted the CZO table of uses, Section 8-2.4 as it appears it may have been applied incorrectly. She would like the Commissioners to assess how those uses were applied because"retail store"appears under commercial use,under residential, but not under the resort district; it seems what was approved is a deviation from that, Ms. Regush further noted that the CZO serves a very large resident population; the resort experience is really meant to be separate from commercial or retail, and Long's does not meet the criteria. Mr. Kimura attempted to end public testimony. Ms.Regush interrupted Mr. Kimura to ask if she could pose a procedural question to which Mr. Kimura replied no,noting that Ms. Regush had been speaking for an extended period of time. Mr.Kimura ended public testimony. Ms. Anderson requested that an agenda item be added relating to clarification of the rules, and how the agenda plays out. In addition, some clarification on any changes regarding posting communications relating to requests for reconsideration, and how the rules apply to this should be discussed. Mr. Dahilig noted that an item will be placed on the agenda relative to how the Commission rules interplay with the Sunshine Law,and how requests for reconsideration should Page 110 be handled as well as general correspondence. Mr.Kimura asked for the rule changes to be added. Mr.Isobe questioned whether this matter should be handled via workshop format as opposed to a meeting format,the reason being,there are issues that will take a lot of discussion and clarity; to fold it into a regular Commission meeting would be burdensome. He suggested they schedule a separate day, and call it a workshop or training session where they are better able to deal with the issues formally as a body, and inviting the public to attend. Should they feel amendments to the rules necessary,those can be brought to the full Commission at a formal meeting. Mr. Kimura asked if they would be asking for public input at this workshop to which Mr. Dahilig replied it would be required to post a public notice and offer opportunities for public testimony. There was discussion on possible workshop/meeting dates. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Herman Texeira to review the rules in a workshop as opposed to a formal Commission meeting,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. No action was taken on Items 4.a—d. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision- Subdivision Committee Vice Chair Herman Texeira read the Subdivision Report into the record. The following tentative subdivision action was approved 2-0: S-2014-05 Princeville Mauka Village, LLC 2-lot subdivision The following tentative subdivision action was approved 3-0: S-2014-06 Point One Investments,LLC Proposed 2-lot subdivision S-2014-07 Fox Gray LLC/Dan Errico Proposed 3-lot boundary adjustment The following subdivision extension requests were approved 3-0: S-2006-49 Kauai Habitat for Humanity Proposed 108-lot subdivision Page 111 S-2011-19 Halalea Investment Co.LLC/Patricia Wilcox Sheehan Proposed 4-lot consolidation The following modification of requirement/condition action was approved 3-0: 5-2005-49 Stefan Mandel Proposed 2-lot subdivision The following final subdivision action was approved 3-0: 5-2013-13 James E.Nishida Jr.,ET.AL Proposed 2-lot boundary adjustment On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the Subdivision Committee report,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports Annual Status Report 2013 for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(UD-2005-8. Proiect Development Use Permit PDU-2005-26,Use Permit U-2005-25 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30, Tax May Key(4)3-5-001: 027 (Por.), 168. 169, 171 (Por.), 172(Por.), 175 and 176=Kaua'i Laeoons LLC&Mari Golf(Kaua%LLG. 2013 Annual Status Report(9/9/13) from Michael J.Belles,Esq.,Belles Graham Proudfoot Wilson&Chun LLP,for Special,Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2007-13, Proiect Development Use Permit PDU-2007-25 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2007-29, Tax Map Key 2-8-16: 3 &4 and 2-8-15: 43.44 &82,Po'ipu,Kaua'i=SVO Pacific,Inc. Director's Report(s) for Project(s)Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 12/10/13 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-05 and Use Permit U-2014-05 to construct a farm dwelling with garage,Lanai, and pool on Lot 13 of the Seacliff Plantation Subdivision in Kilauea, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-2-004: 086 and containing a total area of approx. 5.082 acres=gvle&%ate Barker. Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission ReviewSSCR-2014-09 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-19 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 4-3-002:012, Wailua Kaua'i,for acceptance by the Commission=Coconut Coast Partners. Page 112 Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-13 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-26 for a shoreline activity determination,Tax Map Key 4-3-009: 004, Wailua,Kaua'i, for acceptance by the Commission=Desi Luna On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the consent calendar,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Contested Case No. 2013-77 for Protest and Anneal re Notice and Imposition of Fine re Tax Map Key 4-5-8-008: 034,Alleged Special Management Area Notice of Violation, dated September 30,2013,Notice of Breach of Contract&Objection to Malicious Prosecution, Request of Hearing by Klaus H.Burmeister, Esq. Memorandum from the Clerk of the Commission requesting delegated authority to Procure and appoint a hearings officer on behalf of the Commission to hear the contested case. Contested Case No.2013-78 for Protest and Appeal re Notice and Imposition of Fine re Tax Map Key 4-5-8-008: 034,Alleged Special Management Area Notice of Violation,dated September 30,2013,Notice of Breach of Contract&Objection to Malicious Prosecution, Reauest of Hearing by Klaus H.Burmeister, Esq. Memorandum from the Clerk of the Commission requesting delegated authority to procure and appoint a hearings officer on behalf of the Commission to hear the contested case. In response to Mr. Texeira,Mr.Dahilig explained the hearing process for this particular case as well as for contested cases in general, Ms. Anderson asked what the time frame would be for this contested case to which Mr. Dahilig replied it would depend on how much evidence is brought in; it's hard to judge,but generally in circumstances where you're dealing with a fine, it would usually only last a day. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the request for delegated authority,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Blake asked when the items on the consent calendar will come back before the Commission to which Mr.Dahilig replied they won't as the approval action had just been voted on. In response to Mr. Blake,W.Dahilig explained that items on the Consent Calendar are generally perfunctory in nature,but if the Commission feels there is an item that requires more fleshing out,the item can be moved to New Business for discussion. Mr. Dahilig reminded the Commission that Items 1.3 and 4 will be taken at the end of the agenda, COMMUNICATION(NONE) Page 113 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2013-17,Project Development Use Permit PDU2013-15, Use Permit U-2013-14 and Special Permit SP-2013-5 to develop a research complex facilitating research in various science practices that would include a research facility containing offices and workshop areas, dormitory buildings, various accessory structures,and provision for off-street parking on a parcel located along Kuawa Road,in Kilauea, approx. 850 ft. south of its intersection with KaunlUalA Highway, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-2-013: 001,and containing a total area of 14.6 acres= The Resonance Proiect Foundation. [Director's Report received 7/23/13,agency hearing closed 8/13/13.7 Mr.Dahilig noted this item had been deferred at the Commission's request in order to have the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission review and discuss the project;the KHPRC report was circulated. Mr.Dahilig stated he would request further deferral on the matter given the comments from KHPRC that may warrant the request of additional material. Staff Planner Dale Cua read the Supplement#1 to the Planning Director's report into the record. (On file) In reference to the items that have been deleted,Mr. Texeira asked if it changes the concept of the project to which Mr. Cua replied no,explaining that the removal of these spaces does not change the project;however certain aspects of the project were revised. For example, the underground lab space originally proposed has been moved to be part of the garage addition. Ms.Mendonca asked for clarification on the type of project this is to which Mr. Cua replied it is a research facility. In response to further questions,Mr. Cua explained the facility will house physicists who are part of a research foundation,further noting that the applicant was present to explain. In response to Ms. Mendonca's question on the different zoning areas,Mr. Cua explained the area where most of the proposed construction will be located is zoned Residential—R-4. The lot itself is a flag shaped lot, of which the"pole"portion that connects to Kuawa Road is zoned Agriculture. The back portion adjacent to Kilauea Stream is zoned Open. Mr.Blake stated that the project will be a research facility, and asked to clarify that because it is primarily located in the R-4 zoning it can be any kind of research to which Mr. Cua replied yes,noting the applicants study physics and math,which is identified in their application. Mr.Blake questioned why this project is not at Kauai Community College where there are laboratories available,and asked if there are-controls in place to prevent this from becoming a vacation spot for physicists. Mr. Cua stated that the application notes the use of the facility will be through invitation by the applicant, similar to the National Tropical Botanical Garden, which also has a research facility and dormitory for the study of plants. Ms.Mendonca asked to clarify whether the property has been purchased or is on a 20- year lease to which Mr. Cua stated the applicant indicated they have purchased the property. Page 114 Referencing the comparison to the National Tropical Botanical Garden,Ms. Mendoca noted it is a totally different type of research,and does not see the connection that would require putting a facility like this in a residential area. Mr. Cua stated this is the reason for the use permit with which the applicant must demonstrate compatibility. Mr. Blake asked what the maximum amount of people that can be accommodated to which Mr. Cua replied he is unsure how many people the facility is being designed for,but the applicant can respond to that question. Mr.Blake then asked what kind of reporting will the Commission receive to ensure the use remains compatible with the area. Mr. Cua replied that this body will be approving what is being represented in the application, and anything outside those parameters will wan-ant either a permit review,or an amendment to the permit. (The meeting recessed at 11:05 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 11:25 a.m.) Ms. Anderson stated she noticed a hurricane shelter in the revised plan, and asked for a description of the shelter's architecture; can it be used for alternate purposes? Mr. Cua noted that will be part of the applicant's presentation. Jonathan Chun,on behalf of the applicant,explained that the underground shelter is fairly small,roughly 25 x 40 feet, and divided into two rooms. It can only be accessed via the stairway or elevator, and will not be open to view or to the public. Project Manager Gregory Robison, along with Project Director Nassim Haramein, and Land Manager Tammy Davis offered a slideshow presentation on the project. (On file) In response to Mr.Blake's questions,Mr.Robison noted the dormitory location, and explained that it will function as a residential dwelling,having one common bathroom and kitchen facilities to be shared among 10 bedrooms. Mr. Texeira commented that he thought the dormitory was proposed to be eliminated to which Mr.Robison replied the original proposal had two dormitories,but one has been eliminated. Mr. Kimura questioned why everyone could not just stay in the main house rather than having to build a dorm to which Mr.Robison replied their desire is to eventually own a dwelling rather than having to rent a house, and though the proposed dorm construction will not be happening for a while,their ultimate goal is to obtain ownership rights to build another home and a dorm. Mr. Robison further noted the R-4 zoning would allow them to build 20 more houses on the property. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify if the 20 additional houses that could be built on the property included the Manager's House to which Mr.Robison replied yes. Mr. Chun explained that the Page 115 parcel is zoned R-4,with only one house currently there,but it entitles more houses to be built. The dorm is not going to be considered a house because the CZO defines a house as a single- unit that houses one family; this is a dormitory. Because it is a dorm, each room does not count as a single dwelling, and is allowed with a use permit. Mr.Kimura asked to clarify that anyone with an R-4 zoning can construct as many dorms as they want to which Mr. Chun reiterated that it is allowed under the CZO with a use permit, which is what the applicant is requesting. A use permit questions whether or not the building of a dormitory is consistent with the character of the neighborhood,which the applicant feels it is. Mr. Kimura asked for explanation on how the applicant concludes that a dorm is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr.Dahilig noted that is the question being brought before the Commission. Mr. Kimura stated it sounds to him like the applicant is proposing to build 20 homes on the property if they cannot build this research center. Mr. Chun replied that was never stated, and he does not believe it is the position of the applicant; the 20 homes were used as an example to clarify the R-4 zoning. The applicant feels it is less of an impact to build one dorm with one kitchen,housing 8 people,as opposed to 20 homes. Another developer could come in and do just that,which is why they feel this minimal impact is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr.Robison addressed Ms.Anderson's earlier question in reference to the underground research and shelter facility, explaining its alternate use as a potential FEMA hurricane shelter, and how they are working on meeting Federal criteria. Another additional use would be for research and experiments that require a quiet environment as well as an environment free of rays from power lines,radio and television,all of which could affect sensitive electronic experiments. Ms. Mendonca asked how the underground hurricane shelter is accessed;will they be tearing through the existing building. Mr. Robison replied no,they will be building outside the footprint of the existing building as an add-on. Ms. Mendonca noted that it was stated to be underneath the existing building. Mr. Robison pointed out on the drawing where the addition to the new building will be placed on the side of the existing building, and the underground shelter will be under the new addition. Ms.Mendonca noted the applicant used the word"hurricane", but is now referring to it as a basement. She asked if they are using the terminology"hurricane" in order to get FEMA qualification and funding. Mr.Robison stated they are hoping to qualify it as a FEMA shelter, but the terms"basement", "shelter", "bunker", and"research area"have been used interchangeably to describe this underground,multi-purpose space. Ms.Mendonca stated that it was mentioned earlier that this space would also be used for research,but she is still in the dark as to what kind of research they are doing. Mr. Robison stated he could have the Project Director,Nassim Haramein,address that after the presentation. Referencing the above-ground storage containers,Mr. Kimura asked what will happen to them once construction is complete and they are finished using them. Mr. Robison stated they Page 116 are currently utilizing containers for storage of tools,seeds,and things that are sensitive to moisture. There are two more containers that are for temporary or portable office/laboratory use. Currently,they propose to build and permit them as structures with the option to move them later if they choose. Mr.Kimura asked if they still may use those containers as research facilities to which Mr. Robison stated possibly,noting they are being designed to meet all building codes. Upon completion of the presentation,Mr.Chun explained that the property was purchased by one of the major donors of the Resonance Project,and has entered into a 20-year lease for the property with the option to buy, a signed authorization is contained in the file. He pointed out that the criteria for the use permit is whether or not it is compatible with the nature of the neighborhood,and not the kind of research, or whether the research is necessary or not;that is not a land use question. Neighbors have expressed concern whether or not there is anything explosive,or things that could be detrimental to public health,safety, and welfare. Mr.Chun feels the application states there will be nothing to that effect;no explosives,no nuclear or genetic research, or any research that will affect health,safety,and welfare. The research is mostly theoretical in nature. They are very aware of the concern that this will turn into a TVR, and assured the Commission they do not intend to rent out rooms;it will strictly be for researchers that have been invited to attend free of charge. Dr.Nassim Haramein,Project Director,provided an overview of the research park concept of the Resonance Project Foundation, which involves collaborative efforts in theoretical physics, a rapidly evolving field of study. The idea is to bring researchers with various specialties such as astrophysics and quantum theory together to help build a global,unified view of physics. The path to understanding the universe from a global perspective from universal sized objects to quantum objects dates back to Albert Einstein. Mr.Haramein shared that he wrote research papers that define some possible solutions relating to space/time organization and structure, and how the material world emerges from that structure,self-organizing into organic material such as the biology around us,and ourselves. The goal of the Resonance Project is to bring all these experts together to cross-fertilize ideas, and bring these ideas to a testing facility; there are no hazardous or nuclear materials involved. The experiments involve very precise, minute measurements, and require a very quiet environment. Mr.Haramein farther explained the outcome of such research could have extreme, significant impact to society in the near future in terms of understanding energy,producing energy,and creating power that will be useful to society as the biggest issue today is energy production. He feels it could make a huge change in the world. Mr.Kimura asked why this particular site was chosen,and if the desire was for a location that didn't create any interference with their research,why did they not put this facility out in the desert. He feels it would make more sense to do so as this location has electrical lines running right alongside the property, and does not seem fit for the type of research they want to do. Mr. Haramein explained the attenuation, or level of stray electro-magnetic fields does not necessitate being in that remote a location. Mr. Kimura reiterated that the location being right next to a road,with electrical lines very near does not seem suitable for their research,and again questioned why they chose that Page 117 location. Mr. Chun explained the property is sufficient for what they want to do,and what they are allowed to do,noting the interference from the electrical lines is not that critical,and is not an issue. He once again pointed out that the issue before the Commission is whether or not this particular use on this property is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kimura asked that if the electrical lines are not an issue,why it is necessary to go underground to which Mr. Chun replied the placement of the underground facility is to also serve as a shelter, and will also be a place of minimal interference for experimentation;it does not impact the neighborhood,which is the criteria before the Commission. Mr. Kimura stated he did not state that it impacted the neighborhood,but still questions why this particular property was selected. Mr. Haramein explained it was based on a series of compromises. In order to move forward, they had to look at the available properties that would contain all of the things to meet their needs,one of which is zoning,and it was determined that this property would be sufficient, at least as a first step in the evolution of the Resonance Project. Perhaps in the future they will have laboratories elsewhere in the world,but right now they are establishing the foundation for the project,and are excited to bring international scientific exposure to Hawaii. They plan to make some of the visiting professors available to the local colleges. Mr. Haramein further commented that he feels the historic character of the property establishes the foundation of a forward-thinking facility with a strong anchor to respecting and honoring the historic evolution of society. Mr.Blake asked to clarify that this is the first Resonance Project ever created,and are not sited anywhere else but Kauai to which Mr.Haramein replied they are a non-profit organization, and Kauai is currently their headquarters. W.Blake asked if there are other projects doing the same type of research to which Mr.Haramem replied yes, there are laboratories worldwide. Mr. Blake asked if these types of projects exist all over, what will the Resonance Project offer that is not being offered anywhere else. Mr. Haramein explained one of the important aspects is being in a collaborative,highly sustainable environment where they will grow food,and live an organic life while the scientists are there to enable them to completely dedicate their mind,and energy to the research while they are on site. Mr. Blake asked to clarify that no matter where they were located on Kauai,those things would be taken care of anyway, commenting that they would not have the researchers out gardening. Mr. Haramern replied that some of the scientists may want to take part in gardening as ideas come to people in many ways, and sometimes it may be through gardening, and being out observing nature. (The meeting recessed at 12:15 p.m.) (The meeting resumed at 1:15 p.m.) Mr.Dahilig asked whether the applicant had reviewed the comments from the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission to which Mr.Robison replied no,but noted they were present at the KHPRC meeting where they received verbal comments from the Commission. Mr. Chun summarized the requests made by KHPRC: Page 118 • Omitting the dome structure from the project, or, • If the dome structure is required,mitigating the impacts of the dome with the following: o Appropriate coloration of the dome,other than white or light colors be required for the structure to be camouflaged. Currently,the applicant is looking to see if the dome can be painted heather green to match the leaves and landscaping. Mr.Dahilig noted that the visual impacts to that neighborhood are very critical, and given that KHPRC has indicated their concerns,his recommendation on behalf of the Department would be to see more sections that incorporate some of the comments made by KHPRC. Seeing augmented mitigation measures visually would help the Department in making a recommendation as well as help the Planning Commission. Mr.Robison stated that because their application has been pending for so long, in order to expedite,they would be open to approval with conditions based on KHPRC's concerns. Mr.Dahilig replied that visual representations would help them see how the applicant is choosing to address KHPRC's comments. Mr.Robison stated for clarification that the concerns are with the coloration of the dome,the landscape screening,and the height to which Mr.Dahilig replied yes,and that it would help for the applicant to include slides from the different view planes that incorporate KHPRC's comments. Mr.Haramein noted that the dome requires thermal shielding which requires a special paint to make it opaque;the paint can be made in any color and they will camouflage it as best as they can. Mr.Blake questioned the significance of the dome shape to which Mr. Chun replied it is consistent with the logo of the Resonance Project,which is of geodesic character. Mr. Haramem added that it is also related to the fundamental geometry of his equations,which match the basic geometry of these domes. Being inside the dome and seeing the geometry in real space helps people visualize some of these equations, which is sometimes difficult to do. Another property of the dome is how sound creates singularity in the center of it. This helps researchers directly experience the geometry of the dome,and not just discuss it theoretically. Mr. Kimura asked if this dome has been used in other research centers to which Mr.Chun replied they do not have another research center,but other people have used domes in other applications. Mr.Haramem added that there are other research centers that use geodesic domes for various purposes,noting they are fairly easy to assemble and disassemble and are easy to move. He offered some examples on how these types of domes may be used. Ms.Mendonca asked for exact names of places that are doing this type of research,and utilizing domes. Mr. Haramem stated he does not have any specific names or addresses off hand,but he has seen them in research facilities in many places. He noted there is a geodesic dome on top of Kalalau Valley which is part of NASA's radar facility. Ms.Mendonca stated that the applicant states they are not doing any chemical or explosive experiments, and questioned what exactly would they be doing in lab work. Mr. Haramein replied they would be working with desktop devices that use magnets and small Page 119 magnetic field interaction,plasma experiments using electromagnetic fields to excite water or various fluids to observe their collective organization behavior, and other benign desktop experiments. Ms. Mendonca stated she is still not clear, and is trying to grasp the entire concept of the project. She noted that they asked for a lab,and they asked for a dorm,which she is assuming is meant to bring people over. She questioned what it all collectively boils down to, asking if it is a school,or a gathering place. Mr. Haramein replied that it is not a school,though there may be interns or post-doctorate students that come,but in general, it's pure research to attempt to find a unified view of the dynamics of the universe;how matter comes to be,how it self-organizes in biological structures around us,and how we got here. Ms.Mendonca asked that if this involves research to find a collective idea by performing magnetic studies, and other lab work;why choose Kauai in this particular area. Mr. Chun replied that there were many factors that went into the selection of the site,and reminded the Commission that the question before them is whether or not this proposed use,that is benign and does not involve hazardous material,is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, or whether it is a danger to public health, safety,and welfare. Whether or not they could be sited somewhere else is not an issue before this Commission. Ms.Mendonca stated she understands that very clearly,but in order for her to feel comfortable when approached by a member of the public asking what the project is, she does not want to say she doesn't know. This is the time for her to receive this information. She is not disputing the question before the Commission,but for her own purpose, she wants to know what this research center is, further noting she would like to hear from Mr. Haramem. Mr. Chun replied that Mr. Haramem has explained twice in terms of what kind of research is going to be done,and explained twice what kind of instruments will be used in testing and experimentation;he does not think having it broken down further will be any more beneficial than what has already been explained. Ms.Mendonca stated for clarification that it is basically a sharing of ideas,and testing quantum theory as opposed to Darwin's theory. Sitting across each other and discussing metaphysical theories is the lab work. Mr.Chun stated in addition, if the researchers want to perform a simple desktop experiment to support what they're saying,they can do that as well. Ms.Mendonca asked that by having a dormitory for ten people,they are expecting at least ten or more qualified scientists to which Mr. Chun replied ultimately yes. As the research facility grows,there is a possibility that they will build the dormitory, however,that is not proposed until the third phase. Mr.Haramem added that currently they are renting houses in the neighborhood to accommodate scientists;the ultimate vision of the Resonance Project is to have everyone on site. He noted that brilliant ideas can come at any time of the day,and if they are not captured,they are lost;they would like to have all the researchers there to be able to discuss ideas as they come. Ms. Mendonca asked once they come to this one collective idea,where do they go with it to which Mr. Haramem replied it gets published in scientific journals,peer review journals,publicized through typical layman media,and press releases are done to educate the public, and hopefully enlighten the scientific community about their findings. Mr. Dahilig noted that he has been hearing from the Commissioners concerning the health and safety standpoint of what is going to be conducted on the property. At the request of Mr. Dahilig,the applicant distributed copies of CVs(Curriculum Vitae)of Mr. Haramem as well Page 120 as other scientists that are currently assisting him to help the Commissioners better understand the type of research being conducted. Mr.Kimura stated for clarification that Mr.Haramein lives in Hawaii, and asked where to which Mr. Haramem stated he was on the Big Island for seven years. Mr. Kimura asked if he had done any research there to which Mr. Haramein replied yes, in Captain Cook in Kealakekua Bay,and then in Wailua in Kona. In response to Mr.Kimura,Mr.Haramein stated he did similar,theoretical research on advance physics, ancient civilizations,and the relationship between ancient wisdom and advance physics. Some of the physics he does is unusual because they are new ideas. Mr.Kimura asked if he is still doing research there to which Mr. Hammein replied no, explaining that his children were getting sick from the vog. Referencing the part of the project involving a ten room dormitory,Mr. Isobe asked if the Commission were to approve the dormitory facility,would the owner of the property be open to restricting further development on the property. Mr. Chun stated that would be a question to ask the actual owner who is a major contributor to the Resonance Project as he feels the restriction is tied to the use permit itself. Mr. Isobe stated that if the use permit is granted for the use of a dormitory, and then the permit is vacated,the dormitory still remains and could potentially be used as a ten bedroom, single-family structure,and an additional 20 units can still be built on the property. He requested that the applicant ask the fee owner to what extent would they limit, eliminate, or restrict farther use of that property should the use permit for the dormitory be approved. Mr.Blake commented that he is still unclear on what the research facility is. He noted they are in a farming community with a residential block within this ag unit,are seeking to put a research facility overlay on top of that, and then saying it's compatible; however,he is still not convinced that it is. He requested more concrete examples of what has come out of past collaboration. Mr. Haramein stated the Copenhagen interpretation,which shaped most of the 20`b Century quantum theory,occurred when Einstein and many top scientists of the time came together to discuss the double-slit experiment, this shaped quantum theory as it is known today. Mr.Blake stated he is not knowledgeable in quantum theory, therefore,he cannot determine whether it is a positive or negative thing. Mr.Haramein further stated that quantum theory had a tremendous impact on the evolution of our society, and we are now at the nexus point of our evolution where there is a need to evolve theories to a level of developing technologies that are more compatible and sustainable for humanity. They are striving to find new theoretical models to understand nature better in order to harmonize with nature,which is why they wanted to have the research park in a beautiful,healthy, strong,natural environment. Mr.Dahilig stated that he has taken a look at some of Mr. Haramein's publications, and attempted to characterize some of the Commission's concerns. He referenced a publication on torque and the Coriolis effect relating to Einstein's field theory,noting those are the types of experiments that can essentially be done with red dye and a vortex like a toilet. However, as he read through the paper,there were elements discussing things that could potentially involve dark matter such as black holes and supernova. Mr.Dahilig used the comparison of being able to do biology by taking bread and letting it mold, or by constructing a Level 3 bio lab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He stated he thinks the concerns lie with the fact that they could be Page 121 doing red dye in a toilet, or they could be trying to create dark matter in a lab. From a land use standpoint,there must be an understanding of where they are going with their science. Mr. Dahilig noted that the scientific experimentation is not well understood,and requested more information on what exactly they are doing with experimentation. Mr. Kimura commented that there is a lack of understanding of the research because the Commissioners are not familiar with that particular field of study. They are not trying to nitpick by asking all of these questions,they are just trying to gain a better understanding of what the Resonance Project is doing. He requested the applicant return to explain things in a manner that is easily understood by the Commission. Mr. Haramem asked the Commission how they would like the information presented, and offered to bring some tabletop experiments with him to the next meeting,further noting that he is doing his best to explain it as simply as possible;however, it is such a complex subject. Mr.Chun stated that rather than coming back to explain the theoretical aspects of it,which will likely be way over everyone's head,the applicant could provide information based on the criteria of whether there will be any activity that could pose potential harm to the public's safety. Mr.Dahilig agreed that bringing in some simple, safe experiments into the Commission room would help show the benign nature of the experiments. Mr.Haramein stated that due to the some of the specific environmental requirements, he may not actually be able to conduct the actual experiments in that room,but he can bring in parts and components and explain how they work, Mr.Robison noted that this is not the first time they have heard these questions,and they have discussed it with all of their neighbors. The point is not what the science is,but what it isn't; it isn't hazardous, or nuclear,does not involve GMOs,or explosive materials,or hazardous waste. Ms.Anderson revisited the issue raised earlier about the future density of the property, noting that these are not traditional single-family homes,and asked what the equivalent impact would be, and how to address future restrictions on that particular property. If the ten person dormitory would be equivalent to four or five single-family homes, she would like to have a basis for future restrictions. Mr.Kimura stated it was mentioned that this is the foundation of the Resonance Project, this is the first project;however,the fast few pages of the CV show it was founded back in 2001 in Santa Cruz, California. Therefore, this is not the beginning of this project. Mr. Chun clarified. that the term"foundation"doesn't refer to the beginning of the project,but rather that this is their home. In response to questions posed by Mr.Kimura,Mr. Haramem explained the listing of past project locations are no longer in operation; this is currently the only research center in existence for the Resonance Project. He went on to explain that the Resonance Project was founded in 2004, and prior to that it was part of a project under the umbrella of another non-profit foundation. Mr. Texeim commented that he would request a status report to give an indication of what the project is doing to which Mr. Chun replied that is not an unusual request, and the details of what is to be included in the report can be worked out with the planner. Page 122 On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Herman Texeira to defer the Item to the December 10,2013 meeting,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4),the purpose of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal counsel on questions,issues,status and procedural matters. This consultation involves the consideration of the powers,duties privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission and the County as they relate to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act(RLUIPA),Pub.L. 106-274; codified as 42 U.S.C. &2000. Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-5(a)(2 and 4)the purpose of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the review of the Planning. Director pertaining to the Commission's FY 2014 work performance goals.Further,the discussion and development of the Commission's work performance goals and objectives for the Planning Director in FY 2015.This session pertains to the evaluation of the Planning Director's work performance where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved. Further,to consult with legal counsel regarding powers,duties,privileges and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to the evaluation of the Planning Director, Mr. Dahilig suggested the executive session items be deferred. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Update from the Department on the County's "Complete Streets" Policy implementation program and the Kauai Multimodal Transportation Plan. Update from the Director on Transient Vacation Rental Certificate Renewal and Enforcement Efforts. Mr. Dahilig suggested the executive session items be deferred. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m.,or shortly thereafter at the Ldm`e Civic Center,Mo`ikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B,4444 Rice Street, Llhu`e,Kauai,Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday,December 10,2013. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m. Page 123 Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. Page 124