My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-07-10 Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Minutes (Kona Mtg)
PublicDocuments
>
Finance Department
>
Property Management Division
>
Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission
>
Commission Meeting Information
>
Minutes
>
2005 - 2024
>
2006
>
2006-07-10 Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Minutes (Kona Mtg)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2011 2:01:13 PM
Creation date
7/1/2011 1:59:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the gray area out for the commission when they are doing the assessment and <br />puts on as much information on the survey form. <br />Commissioner Campbell stated that there was a fine line between too <br />much information and not enough information to dissuade the public from <br />submitting intake form. <br />Commissioner Springer stated that if the Commission had this standard <br />for completing out the form and it's incomplete and the public has given their <br />address, they could be contacted. <br />Commissioner Kaneshiro questioned if the Commission should ask what <br />their main purpose was for suggesting the site under the Assessment Criteria <br />form below "purpose of suggested site ". Commissioner Flores did not think it <br />was a good idea for them to single out only one reason. Commissioner <br />Kaneshiro stated in doing the analysis portion, if they just prioritized what came <br />in and not look at other things such as distributing then it would not be important. <br />Chair Replogle stated that he liked the changes Commissioner Flores <br />made which seemed to address Commissioner Kaneshiro's suggestions except <br />the prioritizing. <br />Commissioner Campbell stated that he felt it added an unnecessary level <br />by having the public add a blurb about each one. <br />Commissioner Walker stated that the proposal has enough background <br />information and when it comes time to evaluate, they could evaluate the entire <br />information given. <br />Commissioner Flores went over the Assessment /Criteria form and <br />amended it where there was one section in the general plan that aligned with one <br />section in the five purposes so that it was more distributed. In the first <br />assessment /criteria form there was too much weight given in certain areas such <br />as natural resources; there was no fair balance. Commissioner Flores stated <br />that he attempted to make it more objective. Criteria 3 on Commissioner Flores' <br />draft of the assessment /criteria form was left as is with the exception of providing <br />an attachment. Criteria 5 was deleted which dealt with accessing boundaries, <br />title, maintenance options. Criteria 6 was also deleted which dealt with <br />accessing the conditions of the land. Once they got to the final selection then <br />someone would go in more detail and do due diligence. This is more of a due <br />diligence process. The Commission can go through his draft and make other <br />suggestions. <br />Commission Garovoy commented on contacting the landowner to see if <br />they knew that their property had been proposed to the Commission; sometimes <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.