November 21, 2015 FINAL SC Minutes

Home

Ms. Gloor went over the timeline and next steps for the Hamakua CDP, pointing out that the Steering Committee is very close to moving on to the community review phase. She outlined the strategy for reviewing the Steering Committee's input from the September 26th meeting, explaining that there would be two phases of the discussion. 1) A brief review of the reference document, and 2) An in- depth discussion on the identified strategies that are significant and/or new. Ms. Gloor emphasized the main goal of the meeting, which is to provide Steering Committee members with a clear understanding of the revisions to the Preliminary Working Draft of the Hamakua CDP. Bob Agres, from HACBED, provided an overview of the Yrevious meetings and the phases of review that were covered, restating the goal of the September 26 meeting to identify key questions, concerns, and informational needs. The desired outcome for this meeting would be the Steering Committees confirmation that the CDP is ready for the community review phase and the agreement on a community review process. Mr. Agres emphasized the importance of the Steering Committees input regarding the community review process. Mr. Agres explained the process of "temperature checks" that would take place to ensure the Steering Committees understanding of suggested revisions. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: There was no public comment at this time. BUSINESS: Discussion of and Recommendations for the "Preliminary Working Draft" of the Hamakua CDP: Ms. Gloor began with commending the Steering Committee for their hard work and thanked them for the impact they have made — the CDP is stronger because of the Steering Committees input. As mentioned during the meeting overview, Ms. Gloor began with the Reference Materials: Preliminary Working Draft Revisions document. The document contains a summary of new polices/actions, based on Steering Committee input, that have been clearly identified on pages 2 & 3. Most of the revisions were "easy" fixes, based on questions and/or suggestions from the Steering Committee (i.e. Policy 8 change "encourage" to "educate"). There were a few suggestions/questions that did not result in change (i.e. Policy 71, change "may" to "shall") and these are explained in the Reference Materials document. Several suggestions and questions raised by the Steering Committee resulted in entirely new polices, or corresponding K6kua Actions or Community Actions. In a few instances, questions about the clarity of a policy's language also resulted in changes. Mr. Agres summarized the process used to get to these proposed changes and facilitated a discussion to help the Steering Committee engage in meaningful discussion. Steering Committee members asked questions to ensure their understanding of each policy. The Steering Committee discussed at length specific language used in Community Objective 13. Mr. Carvalho suggested changing "Hawai`i's host culture" to "Hawai`i's culture". The Steering Committee was divided in their opinion, and continued to work together for a solution. Page 12