Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-08 Open Space Commission Minutes Approved COUNTY OF KAUAI PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE & NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION FUND COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 MINUTES A regular meeting of the County of Kauai Public Access, Open Space & Natural Resources Preservation Fund Commission of the County of Kauai was held on March 8, 2012, in the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Maurice Nakahara, Vice Chairperson, Linda Dela Cruz, Tessie Kinnaman, John Lydgate, and Jean Souza. The following Commissioners were excused: Joseph Figaroa, Chairperson, Nathaniel Childs, Johanna Ventura and one (1) vacancy. The following staff members were present: Nani Sadora, Duke Nakamatsu, and Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Nakahara called the meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: It was moved by Tessie Kinnaman and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to approve the agenda. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Minutes of the 2/09/12 Meeting —Approved. Commissioner Kinnaman requested a correction to the last paragraph on page 3 from "Commissioner Souza stated that she and Commissioner Souza..." to "Commissioner Souza stated that she and Commissioner Kinnaman..." Commissioner Souza requested an amendment to the last paragraph on page 3 from "She stated that the she talked about..." to "She stated that she explained to the Council..." 1 Commissioner Kinnaman requested an edit to the 3rd paragraph on page 5 from "and project manager" to "and/or project manager". Commissioner Souza requested an edit to the first paragraph on page 4 from "She stated that 2% would be consistent..." to "She stated that 2% may be consistent..." Deputy County Attorney requested amending the first sentence on page 6 from "many times private owners will impose a conservation easement upon themselves in the form of a dedication." to "many times private owners will impose deed restrictions upon themselves." Commissioner Souza requested clarifying the third paragraph on page 7 from "the Council Committee Chair helped the Commission to come up with a mission statement and goals." to "the now Council Planning Committee Chair, helped the Commission to come up with a mission statement and goals years ago as a consultant." Commissioner Kinnaman noted an error in the second sentence of the first paragraph "executive session" should be "executive summary". Commissioner Kinnaman noted an error on page 12 "Since 20015" should be "Since 2005" MOTION: It was moved by Jean Souza and seconded by John Lydgate to approve the minutes of the 2/23/12 Meeting as amended. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. Minutes of the 2/23/12 Meeting — Deferred. MOTION: It was moved by Tessie Kinnaman and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to defer approval of the 2/23/12 meeting minutes. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Sadora announced that one application was received via the Office of Boards & Commissions for the ninth commissioner and it was circulated to the investigative team. Commissioner Souza stated that on February 23, the Commission took action to recommend that the Planning Department purchase an Elmo overhead projector. She stated that staff requested that she provide more specifics, but she noted that when the amendments to Ordinance 812 were discussed at the Council, there is a possibility that 2 the frequency of future Commission meetings might be significantly less if the amendments are approved so the utilization of the Elmo would be less. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that if the Elmo is purchased by the Commission, any other members of the County could and should be allowed to utilize it. Commissioner Souza stated that one of the reasons for suggesting an Elmo was to lessen the amount of paper that was being photo copied because it could project documents and images and it would lessen the amount of times that staff would need to leave the room to make copies. She noted that the Planning Department has been responsive to the motion, but she suggested waiting to see if there would still be the need if the Ordinance passes. Commissioner Souza also announced that she might need to leave the meeting between 4:00 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. Ms. Sadora announced that Commissioner Ventura will be off-island and not available for the next meeting on March 22. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD There were no items to receive for the record. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion with the County Attorney pertaining to the legal issues involved with recommending acquisition of real property to the County Council as part of the annual report. Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii 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 and issue relating to the above item. This consultation involves consideration of the Commission's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities with regard to this agenda item. There was nothing to report from the Deputy County Attorney. Vice Chair Nakahara requested continuing this agenda item should something come up. Update on proposed amendments to Ordinance 812. Commissioner Souza stated that the County Council's Planning Committee received the proposed amendments to Ordinance 812. She noted that staff was distributing a 3 memorandum from Planning Director Dahilig to Councilwoman Nakamura in response to questions that the Council had of the Planning Department and a floor amendment that the Council considered introducing that was pulled for further consideration. Ms. Sadora stated that the first question was regarding the limit to the number of terms a commissioner can serve. She stated that the answer was three consecutive terms, each term being three years. She stated that the next question was to the 5% of the fund that is used for administrative expense. She noted that the Planning Department utilizes 5% of the certified real property tax allotment for that fiscal year as the budget submittal for administrative expenses including office supplies, mileage reimbursements, printing, etc. Commissioner Souza clarified that the administrative expenses are 5% of the Open Space Fund. Ms. Sadora noted that the Ordinance refers to 5% of the Open Space Fund, but when the Planning Department submits the annual budget, they only calculate 5% of the incoming yearly certified real property tax allotment for the operating administrative budget. She stated that when the Council Chair refers to 5% of the fund, he is referring to 5% of the total accumulated funds that can be used for appraisals and other expense. She stated that Council asked for clarification on administrative expenses for the operating budget. Commissioner Souza stated that the difference in interpretation of how much is involved, whether 5% of the annual addition to the fund or 5% of the accumulated total is significant, because the expectation on what can be done with the money is different. Deputy County Attorney Jung clarified that they don't have to use the full 5%. He noted that the Ordinance states no more than 5%. Vice Chair Nakahara questioned if part of the 5% is used to print the annual report. Ms. Sadora stated that it is part of their administrative budget. She stated that because Council was referring to 5% of the balance of the fund, the Department wanted to notify the Council that they base the operating budget on only the annual incoming certified real property taxes. Commissioner Souza stated that the budget is up to the Administration, but it reflects on the Commission in the expectation of what gets done. She stated that some of what can be done in the future is dependent on funds that are available to contract out. Commissioner Lydgate stated that it is an important clarification. Ms. Sadora stated that the fourth question was whether it was more cost efficient to perform work related to open space land acquisitions in-house rather than out sourced. She stated that currently it is handled in-house. She stated that when the job cannot be 4 performed by the Planning Department or another County agency then it would be out- sourced. Vice Chair Nakahara questioned if any work has ever been out-sourced. Ms. Sadora stated that the only out-sourcing was when Ms. Nakamura was brought in as a consultant prior to being on the Council. Vice Chair Nakahara questioned if the Council is looking to receive packages for each recommendation. Commissioner Souza stated that it was not clear as to whether the recommendations in the report should include the entire package. She stated that would be a question that she would ask regarding expectations. She stated that currently the Commission provides a brief package, but the Commission would expect the Council to state which sites they are interested in and then request more information, or the Commission at a subsequent date could provide more information on how it should proceed like with the Hoban dossier. She stated that without further clarification she was not convinced that the annual report would require the entire package before it is submitted to Council. Ms. Sadora stated that the Council questioned whether the minimum amount allotted from the real property taxes should change from .5% to 1%. She stated that Deputy County Attorney Jung suggested that it should be a separate amendment from what was being submitted. She stated that the next question was how feasible it would be to submit a triennial report instead of a biennial report. She stated that the Planning Department would be open to a triennial report. She stated that the Planning Director noted that an increase from an annual to biennial report is already a significant change and suggested that the biennial report be introduced first to explore if that time period is sufficient. She stated that if the report were submitted triennially, there might be the possibility that certain Commissioners would be present for the input process but not for the report submittal to Council. Commissioner Souza stated it is important for the Commission to receive the whole package including attachments for anything that involves action that the Commission has taken. She stated that a packet should have been mailed prior to the meeting. Ms. Sadora stated that the packet was at the Mayor's office and the Department only had confirmation yesterday that it was received at the Council. She noted that Council did not receive it until the day before the meeting. Commissioner Souza stated that if it was not available ahead of time, it would have been nice to have the complete packet at the meeting. She stated that whenever there is a hearing or scheduled meeting on the Ordinance amendments or the dossier for access to Kukuiula, the Commission should receive notification of the hearing. She stated that she found out about it from a member of the public. She felt that it is 5 important for the Commission to also have a presence at the Council meetings in addition to the staff. Ms. Sadora stated that the notification should have gone out. She stated that staff receives the email from Council when the agenda is posted. She stated that they will make sure that future information is circulated by email and a call made to Commissioner Kinnaman. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that she usually sees the agendas in the Sunday paper. She noted that meetings are usually posted a week in advance. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that he did not check the agenda so he was not aware that it was on until that Monday. Ms. Sadora stated that staff will be sure to forward the notices to Commissioners as soon as they are received by the Department. Commissioner Souza clarified that the Commission is interested in the Ordinance amendments and the dossier regarding access to Kukuiula Bay through the former Hoban property. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the intent of the dossier was to feel if Council would be interested in the site. He stated that the last time the Commission tried to pursue this acquisition via condemnation resolution, it was not acted upon. He stated that the Council was interested, so staff will move forward with an acquisition plan. He stated that before Council takes action to approve the funds all of the appraisals and negotiations need to be done. Commissioner Souza stated that the significance of the Hoban easement acquisition is that it is the first time the Commission has used the dossier process to take a recommendation from an annual report to recommend a strategy. She stated that it is more than just the Hoban easement acquisition, but the process. She stated that it would have been good for a commissioner to speak as a commissioner since Commissioner Kinnaman testified as a member of the public. She stated that commissioners should attend subsequent hearings if they possible, but for sure either she, Commissioner Kinnaman, Chair Figaroa should attend. Ms. Sadora stated that per Commissioner Souza's suggestion, urgent emails will contain in the subject line "911" or "411" if it is just informational. She stated that the second handout was the floor amendments that were introduced by Councilmember Rapozo, but they were still seeking clarifications before they will re-introduce it to the committee. Commissioner Souza noted that the new committee considerations are highlighted in the handouts. She stated that there was a proposal to delete the section on initial terms appointment terms since the initial terms occurred many years ago. She stated that the 6 most recent discussion would be for a triennial report. She stated that the rationale was that staff would have more time to work on implementation rather than working on two meetings a month. She stated that former Commissioner Blaich was concerned about not being able to respond quickly to special opportunities if the reports are submitted infrequently, but she noted that the Commission would still be providing annual updates and the list could be amended at any time. She stated that the difference between an annual update and the report is that the report would include the component of public input. She questioned how the Commissioners felt about a triennial report. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that at the last meeting the Commission voted to re- affirm their preference for a biennial report. She stated that some of the Commissioners' terms are longer than some of the Council members and she would feel more comfortable with a biennial report. Vice Chair Nakahara noted that half of their time is spent on the annual report. He stated that a biennial or triennial report sounds reasonable depending upon what is attached to the recommendations. He expressed concern if a package would be required for each recommendation. He felt that recommendations should be made first and then if the Administration and the Council are supportive, then the money should be spent to assemble a package. Commissioner Dela Cruz stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kinnaman that most of the Commissioners' terms are three years. She noted that there have not been any acquisitions since she has served for almost three years. Commissioner Lydgate stated that in three years he will be 79. He stated that two or three years would be good, but five years would be too long because he won't be available to do Commission work. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that he felt that the Planning Director's response was good in that the biennial report should be implemented first to explore whether the time period is sufficient. Ms. Sadora suggested that the commissioners view the online webcast of the Council meeting so they can hear Councilwoman Nakamura's rationale behind a triennial report and putting the priorities into something that can be acquired. She stated that Councilwoman Yukimura mentioned that if something comes up, it would still allow the Commission to produce annual status reports. She stated that staff did not have an opportunity to review the floor amendments before they were introduced so they were not aware of the proposals. She stated that it will probably go to full Council to be introduced after the next committee meeting. Commissioner Souza questioned when the committees meet. Ms. Sadora stated that committee meetings are every other Wednesday and the next committee meeting would be on March 21. 7 Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that Council members were concerned with private owners with regards to conservation easements. He stated that if owner A has a house and is entitled to two more houses on his property, but owner B who is adjacent wants to purchase rights to a certain area on owner A's land to restrict density for open space or some kind of habitat, they could go to the County and create a sense of preservation where it also benefits the owner to jointly purchase a conservation easement. He stated that a lot of times with conservation easements, there is no public access onto the property, but it falls under natural resources preservation. He stated that the Council would like to restrict it to other government entities, or non-profit organizations. He stated that the preservation would have to be in perpetuity, so it would need to run with the land for the life of the land. Ms. Sadora stated that it was deferred to be able to research that there are private land owners and the committee will redo the floor amendment. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the questions are being forwarded to the Attorney's office. He stated that the theory is they can always add it later, but test out the use of conservation easement s on other government entities or non-profits. He stated that the land owner is the grantor and the holder of the easement is the grantee and there has to be a negotiation of terms as to what uses and developments are restricted and what benefits will the holder or grantee gain. He stated that it is all about natural resources preservation. He stated that ultimately whatever the body recommends, the Council still has to choose. Commissioner Souza noted that a conservation easement doesn't necessarily have to involve public access. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that is what Council will have to balance. He stated that Council member Rapozo stated that he would be voting for public access and fee simple properties or grants of easement to the beach versus preserving one larger area up in the mountains for an area that should be preserved in perpetuity to avoid development. Commissioner Souza stated that the examples being provided as illustrations today by Deputy County Attorney Jung were not discussed at the Council. She stated that the Council is still talking about the same purposes of the fund which include natural resource conservation or cultural preservation which may or may not involve public access. She stated that her take is that the more tools they have the more partnerships could happen. She stated that if someone from the public sector wants to pay staff to manage a conservation easement then that would be great. She stated that performance is the key, whether private, non-profit or government. She said it doesn't make much difference to her as long as it is preserved in perpetuity and there is performance. She stated that she appreciates Councilwoman Nakamura's request for more information and follow-up. 8 Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the increase to the fund from .5% to 1% should be in a separate Bill because it would affect the budget process. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that he felt it should be decided by ballot. Commissioner Souza stated that a ballot may not be necessary. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it sets the floor at a minimum of .5%. Commissioner Souza stated that the way it was worded in the Charter is a minimum of .5%. She stated that the Council is supportive of an increase to 1%. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that he was comparing it to the situation at KIUC and the smart meters. Commissioner Souza stated that the Commission didn't make a formal recommendation to increase the fund. She stated that it was mentioned to the Council because in a prior composition of the Commission at one of the meetings, commissioners wanted to increase the percentage to 2%, but she was a declining vote so there wasn't enough for the motion to pass. She stated that in fairness to the other commissioners she mentioned it and the Council was receptive to it. She stated that the Commission deferred to the Council because they have a bigger picture of what is available. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that Council can always appropriate funds independent of the Open Space Fund. Commissioner Souza stated that Council member Chang strongly suggested that commissioners view the webcast. She stated that they discussed educating staff and commissioners to be able to take the recommendations for each project to acquisition. She stated that money available for operations is important because some Councilmembers felt that people should be brought in to train the Commission on issues, and tools so they know what is out there, how things can be packaged, and to help the staff to become more capable to carry it out. She stated that the Council did not see the Commission providing assistance to the Planning Department such as volunteering and doing some of the work. She stated that the Council saw the Commission giving feedback and direction to the Planning Department, but not actually doing the work. She asked for clarified that the Commission does not have a strong preference on whether or not the report is done biennial or triennial. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that he Commission already voted on a biennial report. Vice Chair Nakahara asked about Councilwoman Nakamura's explanations regarding a triennial report. Commissioner Souza questioned if she should state at the next committee meeting that the Commission preferred a biennial or triennial and not every five years. 9 Commissioner Lydgate questioned the staff's reflections. Ms. Sadora stated that the Department has stated that a biennial report would act as a gauge, but she noted that the Council may decide on the floor amendment that they would like a triennial report. Commissioner Souza noted that there was one year that the Commission submitted a two year report. Ms. Sadora noted that it was due to lack of staff report, so the reports were combined. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that she preferred a biennial report. She stated that if the report were triennial she would expect all of the acquisition planning to be submitted with the report so that the projects are ready to go. She noted that it would take at least a year to do the acquisition planning on whatever priorities are chosen. Deputy County Attorney stated that he felt a two year report is more appropriate because every other year could be used to prepare acquisition plans. He stated that if they go forward with the model of the dossier to get a feel from Council which they might be interested in, they can prepare acquisition plans for one or two of the priorities. He stated that if they submit a triennial plan, some of the Commissioners who only do one term would only see one report. He stated that if they submit one report, and then start working on the next report, they may see an accomplishment in their tenure. He noted that if staff has more time they would be able to start the acquisition plan to move on projects. He stated that the Commission has been providing the lists, but it takes someone from Council to state which priority they want taken care of and to state which office should move on it. He stated that the only project that was acquired was Black Pot Park Expansion. He stated that they needed a mechanism like the dossier to request assistance. Commissioner Souza stated that if she heard Councilman Rapozo correctly, he stated that he was not going to tell the Commission what the annual report should be about. She stated that she is torn because the Commission is required to gather public input for their report of recommendations. She stated that she doesn't know what can be stated to the public that is different if it is every two years without an accomplishment to report. She stated that if the Commission can come to an understanding with the Council on who is responsible for what and when, and make the annual status reports be substantial without needing a public input component, the triennial may work but it's up to the staff and the Commission to make it work and not just wait until the end of the period to rush. She stated that if the Council has a strong opinion that the report be triennial then she would defer to them because the Commission is advisory to the Council but there should be agreement on the process. Vice Chair Nakahara questioned if meeting less than twice a month was discussed at Council. 10 Commissioner Souza stated that Council mentioned that the Commission spends six months designing public input sessions and prioritizing, not including editing the final report. She stated that if the Commission doesn't have to go out to the public as often, staff could be working on putting packaging together and implementation rather than preparing for meetings. Commissioner Dela Cruz noted that prior once a month meetings used to be all day. Vice Chair Nakahara asked Commissioner Lydgate how often the Historic Preservation Review Commission met. Commissioner Lydgate stated that they used to meet from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and some sessions went until 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that when the Commission was first started, they met twice a month, all day and their meetings were on Wednesdays. She stated that after the first year, they only met on Thursday afternoons. Commissioner Lydgate stated that the Historic Preservation Review Commission tried to limit their discussions to the salient facts. Commissioner Souza stated that if the Commission and staff have new responsibilities, there could be more committee work, so things can still happen, but they have to be self-motivated. Commissioner Lydgate stated that to get up to speed, newer Commissioners need to know what is happening in the background. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that if the report is biennial or triennial and the meetings are reduced, she didn't feel that they would be accomplishing much. Commissioner Souza stated that substantial education sessions need to be videotaped so newer commissioners can borrow and learn. She stated that education sessions should be open to the public so they can build capacity within the community and the public can also learn from the sessions. Review and discussion on the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the County of Kauai, Public Access, Open Space & Natural Resources Preservation Fund Commission and policy on communications. MOTION: It was moved by Jean Souza and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to defer this agenda item. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. 11 Vice Chair Nakahara requested keeping this item on the agenda for the next meeting. Update and discussion of the Commission's work plan/timeline of events and activities through 2012, to include future Commission education topics. Commissioner Kinnaman noted that the Commission came up with a list at the last meeting. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that based on the 2011 report the Commission decided that they should take a field trip to visit the recommended sites. Commissioner Souza noted that four of the Commissioners haven't seen the sites. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that he hasn't been to Piwai but he has visited the Kaneiolouma complex. He stated that they had hoped that more Commissioners would be in attendance so they could set up some dates for staff to try to arrange. Commissioner Kinnaman noted that the field trip is listed as an agenda item under new business for discussion. Commissioner Souza stated that it is a critical time to make sure that the Commission is going to meet and discuss what is happening at the Council. She questioned if the field trips could be planed two months from now. Vice Chair Nakahara suggested delaying the field trip until the passage of Ordinance 812. Commissioner Souza stated that there may be a possibility of working on the unresolved issues list and some other problem areas that need to be researched so there may be more than just the recommended sites. Commissioner Dela Cruz stated that they need to consider that Commissioner Kinnaman's and Commissioner Souza's terms will expire in May. Commissioner Souza noted that she has declined the 90 day holdover. Commissioner Kinnaman questioned if the holdover could be 30 days. Commissioner Souza noted that the holdover could be 30 days up to 90 days. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that the Commission education can also be discussed after the passage of Ordinance 812. He stated that the Commission was looking at speakers regarding shoreline access enforcement, etc. 12 Commissioner Souza stated that the sessions could include assembling packages, realty specialists, conservation easements, land trust, etc. She stated that the Commissioners will be inspired to think of more when they watch the Council Planning Committee meeting. Commissioner Kinnaman questioned if the Ordinance is being referred to the full Council. Ms. Sadora stated that it was deferred pending more information on conservation easements. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that if Ordinance 812 passes they may not have to do a public input process this year. Commissioner Souza stated that it is highly likely that it will be a biennial or triennial report. She stated that there needs to be clear documentation on what happened in past years because there may be a different composition of Commissioners in three years. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that Commissioners Kinnaman and Souza will be willing to return as guest speakers for historical perspectives. Commissioner Lydgate stated that continuity is essential. Commissioner Souza stated that she and Commissioner Kinnaman discussed an agenda item to discuss past actions and recommendations of the Council, what the Commission may want to think about for the future, as well as things to keep on the radar. Vice Chair Nakahara suggested that Commissioners Souza and Kinnaman present sometime in April. Commissioner Souza stated that she may be off island on April 26. Commissioner Kinnaman suggested waiting for the new commissioners to be appointed. Vice Chair Nakahara agreed that might be better. He noted that technically, Commissioners Souza and Kinnaman have only 3 more meetings. Commissioner Kinnaman noted that the Mayor will also need to fill Commissioner Childs' vacancy. Ms. Sadora noted that Commissioner Childs has not officially resigned. 13 Commissioner Souza offered to be on the agenda for April 12. She stated that they will try to provide handouts. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that hopefully they will have an inclination of a 9th Commissioner by then. He summarized that the Commission has decided to hold off on the field trip and Commission education until the passage of Ordinance 812. Review and discussion on draft dossier for Council's consideration on recommended sites for acquisition. • Access to Kukuiula Bay through former Hoban property (previously listed as Former Hoban property.) Commissioner Souza stated that a final draft has been submitted to the Council and suggested that the wording on future agendas be changed. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that this particular item doesn't need to be discussed. He stated that the more important item would be New Business Item C. He stated that they will discuss all matters pertinent to this property under that agenda item. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that this item should be removed from the next agenda. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it will probably fall under status of acquisition plan regarding access to Kukuiula Bay. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of itinerary for upcoming field trip to sites recommended in the Commission's 2011 Report to the Kauai County Council and the Mayor including logistics and discussion of issues relevant to sites on the trip itinerary. (Public input may be offered at this time.) Commissioner Kinnaman questioned if staff did any planning for the field trip. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that staff would arrange the dates and transportation and he would work on notices to meet Sunshine Law requirements. Commissioner Lydgate questioned if the site visits would be open to the public. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that they would document where the Commission would be going but they would not be able to engage the public until they reconvene the meeting. 14 Commissioner Souza stated that the Commission has strict protocols so that they are in compliance with Sunshine Law. Commissioner Lydgate agreed that protocol has to be observed. Update and discussion of the 2012 public input process pursuant to Ordinance No. 812 for development of an annual list of priority projects to be reported to the Kauai County Council and the Mayor. It was moved by Jean Souza and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to defer agenda items VII A and VII B. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. Commissioner Kinnaman questioned if these items will be listed as old business or new business when they are posted on future agendas. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that they will probably be listed as old business since they are being deferred. Request from Planning Department to prepare an acquisition plan for a portion of TMK (4) 2-6-003:017 to obtain a pedestrian public beach access easement. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that this agenda item is a formal request from the Planning Department to move forward on an acquisition plan that identifies the current owner, utilizes the 2012 assessment, compares the price range with the 2006 assessment, engages with an independent consultant for an appraisal, and then begins negotiations with the land owner. He stated that if the land owner is unwilling then they can move forward with condemnation resolution. Commissioner Lydgate questioned the size of the easement. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that the easement is 1 ,517 square feet. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that they would only be going after a portion so they can acquire a 10' pedestrian public access easement. Commissioner Souza clarified that it would be over an existing County drainage easement. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that he would need to see what the terms are. Commissioner Kinnaman stated that it is an underground, circular, concrete drainage easement. 15 Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the request is for the Commission to allow staff to prepare an acquisition plan which would be a formal submittal. He stated that he would guess that it would be a 10-15 page report after some preliminary legwork. He stated that they didn't have to prepare an acquisition plan for Black Pot because they wheels were already spun by the Kauai Public Land Trust. He stated that if they develop a good model, they can use it for the next properties they look at. Commissioner Souza requested that it be well documented to the Commission so that it can be used as a template. She suggested that the agenda item be specified as access to Kukuiula Bay. She stated that the Commission has been pushing since the beginning and encouraged staff to keep the momentum going. Commissioner Kinnaman questioned if there would also be an in-house appraisal. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the last appraisal was in-house but stated that if the land owner is not willing to convey, they would have to do independent land appraisals anyway. He stated that it may be more credible for an independent appraiser. He stated that they would need to abide by procurement laws so it may be a month before they get an appraiser on board, but then it shouldn't take too long to appraise because it's a simple property. Commissioner Souza stated that the other advantage would be that they would utilize the money that the Council Chair says is available. Commissioner Kinnaman questioned the time frame for the whole process. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it could take a while to finalize through Purchasing. He stated that it is hard to gauge when working with other agencies, but he estimated about a month following the appraisal. He suggested an agenda item for a status update on the acquisition plan. Vice Chair Nakahara stated that it shows something in motion and would be a good template. He stated that it is at least something positive that is happening. Commissioner Lydgate mentioned that the S.M.A.R.T. approach involves something that is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time bound. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it would be a good model to incorporate into the plan. Commissioner Souza questioned if there was anything before the Council. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that they were before the Council two weeks ago and the Council was receptive to the idea of pursuing the access. 16 Ms. Sadora stated that they sent the packet to Council that was prepared in 2006 with photos, the appraisal, and the resolution that was sent previously. Commissioner Souza requested that the Commission receive the entire packet. MOTION: It was moved by Tessie Kinnaman and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to approve the request from the Planning Department to prepare the acquisition plan for TMK (4) 2-6-003-017 to obtain a pedestrian public beach access easement. All were in favor by unanimous roll call vote — motion passed. Commissioner Souza questioned the status of the annual report. Ms. Sadora stated the Planning Director requested that the Commission elaborate on the section on the Ordinance amendment. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that technically the Commission approves the report but the Director submits it to the Council. Commissioner Souza stated that the Director's comments were untimely. Deputy County Attorney Jung suggested including the purpose section of the proposed amendments as the elaboration in the report. Commissioner Souza stated that the Commission already approved the report and now the Director is requesting a change. She stated that the Commission would have to take action but it's not even on the agenda. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the Director can add comments because it is ultimately his submittal to Council. He stated that the Commission could amend the agenda by 2/3 vote to discuss and take action on it. He stated that because the Director is not here to discuss his intentions, he suggested adding the purpose section of the proposed Bill as a mutual compromise. MOTION: It was moved by Jean Souza and seconded by Tessie Kinnaman to amend the meeting agenda to include the final review of the final 2011 Report to the County Council and the Administration. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. 17 MOTION: It was moved by Tessie Kinnaman and seconded by Linda Dela Cruz to send the Planning Director's comments to Commissioner Souza and to delegate the authority to Commissioner Souza to review and submit the final wording on behalf of the Commission. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. Ms. Sadora stated that she will email the report to Commissioner Souza. Commissioner Souza stated that she will work on the report tomorrow. NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION Vice Chair Nakahara stated that the next meeting will be on March 22. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: It was moved by Linda Dela Cruz and seconded by John Lydgate to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor by unanimous voice vote — motion passed. Meeting Adjourned at 4:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Duke Nakamatsu, Support Clerk 18