2026-03-09 - Minutes DRAFT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

between those two values represents the value of the conservation easement. Using a simplified example, DCC Campbell stated that if a property were worth $10 million with all development rights and $2 million after certain development rights were removed, the value of the conservation easement would be $8 million. She noted that the figures were hypothetical and used only to illustrate the appraisal method. Chr. Chang stated that, under that example, the $8 million figure would be the amount the County would be able to pay. DCC Campbell confirmed that the amount would represent the maximum the County could pay for the conservation easement. MEETING RECESSED: 9:57 a.m. MEETING RECONVENED: 10:01 a.m. V. RULE MAKING: 1. Rulemaking: Discussion and adoption of amendment to Rule 4(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. DEBORAH WARD, testified in opposition of the Rule change DEBBIE HECHT, testified in opposition of the Rule change MOTION: Cmr. Rosam moved to adopt the proposed rule amendment as published, increasing the scoring threshold in Rule 4(b) from 50 points to 70 points. Seconded by Cmr. Markoff. Chr. Chang opened the floor for discussion. V. Chr. Britt stated that she reviewed the projects under consideration using the Acquisition Assessment Form and identified several she considered important that did not meet the proposed 70 percent threshold. She expressed concern that increasing the threshold to 70 percent would be unfair to agricultural conservation easements, which she said may be significant even if they do not score highly in areas such as forest resources, species, or other biological elements. For that reason, she stated that she opposed changing the threshold to 70 percent. Cmr. Rosam stated that she supported the rule change and noted that she had originally suggested it. Referring to the Kaloko Makai property, she said she did not believe only 10 percent of the property was worth saving, as it included extensive dry forest and trail systems, but she felt that placing it on the list had effectively served as a bail-out for the property owner. She also stated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife had not upheld the restrictions in the memorandum of understanding and said she was not proud that the property had made the list. Cmr. Rosam further stated that, based on her review of the criteria assessment forms, the range of available scoring made her believe that a 70 percent threshold would not eliminate properties she would be proud to support. Chr. Chang reminded the Commission that the minutes from the January meeting contained important information from the prior discussion of the proposed change. She stated that DRAFT v.1 BS - Minutes of March 9, 2026 Page 4