2018-05-03 Hearing Transcript - Hamakua CDP

Home

So, that was the draft of the CDP. The next phase was really to get that broader input from the community and stakeholders. They have the same opportunity to review the draft, and the Steering Committee used that input to make further revisions before it finalized the CDP. Oops, sorry—stakeholders were engaged through newsletters, bulletin boards, email, the CDP website, social media, focus discussions, and speak -out opportunities. During that community review, the draft was available for review in digital and print copies at various locations throughout the planning area. Feedback could be provided on line by email, fax, or mail. The Planning team also conducted three speak -outs which served as drop-in listening sessions. And, finally, the Planning team held focus discussions on coastal, Waipi`o Valley, agricultural, and strong town topics. This information was all then provided to the Steering Committee for their review. After their review, the Steering Committee provided their final recommendations on December 19, 2016. In order for them to review all of the community input that came in, the Steering Committee had facilitated discussions while maintaining an objective viewpoint. The Steering Committee was provided a summary of all the community input sorted by subject matter. They were provided the proposed minor edits, proposed revisions, and additions consistent with community objectives. And, finally, potential revisions on issues requiring Steering Committee deliberation. The facilitated discussions helped the Steering Committee with incremental affirmations at an appropriate pace because there was a lot of information to, to review. So, it was done incrementally until they were able to provide final recommendations. After the Steering Committee provided their recommendations for the CDP revisions and adoption, the Planning Director initiated an agency review after which the Planning Director recommended additional revisions to include pertinent agency feedback. The Department reached out to County agencies, relevant State and Federal agencies, as well as some private organizations. Generally, the agency comments were sorted into three categories. Some comments included non -substantive changes such as typographical errors or formatting inconsistencies. Some required substantive changes regarding recommendations for revisions on the CDP strategies. And, a third category was information that really was inconsistent with what the CDP's authority was where agencies might not have understood what was appropriate to be included in the CDP. Exhibit 3 of your document binders includes the revision summary, but it does not include revisions that were made to glossary edits or additions or format changes. It only includes those substantive changes. If you want to see all of the changes that were done, they are available from the track changes version linked on Page 13 of the Background and Recommendation report. After reviewing the comments, the CDP project team and the Planning Director saw additional opportunities for strengthening the CDP and subsequently recommended revisions to the CDP. EXHIBIT D 7