2018-01-08 Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission_Minutes_Approved

Home

1.Ms. Fischer, Ms. Nazara, and Ms. Siracusa reported the result of their CDP Action Committee assignments. Ms. Fischer reported a concern was raised by Ms. Toni Withington that the deadline was too soon. Ms. Siracusa commented the reason to up the deadline was to effectively perform our due diligence in discovery, investigating, fact-finding, reporting, and evaluation process of all nominations. 2.The commission recognizes considerable latitude was practiced in determining procedures and methodology for site visits. In pursuant to HRS § 92-2.5(b)(1), open discussion by the commission prove the effectiveness of site visits for scoring all nominations fairly and equally was critical, although worthwhile; the present procedures proved inadequate for the evaluation process. A handout presented by Mr. Warshauer was put forth to the commission to consider a standardize form of implementing a uniformed evaluation site visit procedure when commissioners visit nominated properties and reporting. The commission openly discussed items on the handout, before making any motion to try to define the directionality of the motion. Mr. DeLozier suggested that accessibility of nominated properties for commission visits must be planned and coordinated in advance. He suggested the following revisions to the bullet points on the handout as follows: &¨±²³ bullet point: a.The first sentence, no changes needed. b.The second and third sentence should be completely deleted because there is an implementation of an opinion in it. He would suggest replacing with, To verify the accuracy of the maps provided. c.The last sentence, no changes needed. 3¤¢®£ bullet point: a.Revise it to read, As best as possible the report should supply \[add: factual\] information \[remove: and judgement\] as to how the property meets the various points of the \[remove: three\] assessment \[remove: points of the\] criteria. 4§¨±£ bullet point: a.Delete entirely. It is already addressed in the second bullet point: point because it is one of the assessment criteria. &®´±³§ bullet point: a. is there a larger \[add: possible\] strategy &¨¥³§ £ 3¨·³§ bullet points: a.No changes needed. 3¤µ¤³§ £ %¨¦§³§ bullet point: a.Delete completely. It is already addressed in the second bullet point: point by saying assessment criteria. .¨³§ bullet point: a.The first two sentences delete. b.Replace with: Does this acquisition of this open space serve the public? \[delete the rest of the sentence\] Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.