Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2015 FINAL SC MinutesWilliam P. Kenoi Mayor County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Duane Kanuha Director Bobby Command Deputy Director HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Saturday, November 21, 2015 Meeting Minutes CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Chairperson Farrah -Marie Gomes called the Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP) Steering Committee to order at 9:08 a.m. at the Laupahoehoe Library Humanities Room. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Brad Kurokawa, Farrah -Marie Gomes, Glenn Carvalho, Scott Enright, Lorraine Mendoza, and Craig Neff. Members Absent: Ku`ulei Badua, Jason Moniz, and Ka`iulani Pahi`6. Staff. LeAna Gloor — Hamakua CDP Project Manager, Planner, Ron Whitmore — Hawai`i County Planner, Keiko Mercado — Hdmakua CDP Planning Assistant, and Bob Agres — HACBED. Members of the public: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kurokawa moved to defer approval of the September 26, 2015 draft minutes until the next Steering Committee meeting. Second by Mr. Neff. Mr. Carvalho asked for clarification on the process of public comment and requested more consistency in terms of procedure. The written testimony that was submitted on October 10th will be attached to the minutes. It was reiterated that while public comment is always welcome, the September 26th meeting was in a workshop format, primarily dedicated to providing the Steering Committee with the foundation they would need as they moved into the community review phase, but it had also provided for public participation in the review exercises. Motion to defer passed with S votes aye, 0 votes nay, and I vote to abstain (Mr. Carvalho). MEETING OVERVIEW: Ms. Gomes (Vice -Chair) provided an overview of the meeting, including a brief reminder of the purpose and scope of the CDP, and the role of the Steering Committee. Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page I 1 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 Mr. Kurokawa moved to amend Community Objective 13 to read "Promote appropriate rural tourism that welcomes guests for an alternative visitor experience. Promote Hawai `i's host culture and Hamakua's heritage, including historic roads and plantation towns, and festivals that celebrate our rich multi -cultural music, art and agriculture. Second by Ms. Mendoza. Motion passed with S votes aye and I vote nay (Mr. Carvalho). Steering Committee discussion continued until Mr. Agres confirmed agreement from each member. The committee took a short break and then reconvened to discuss the items needing more in-depth conversation. Included in the in-depth conversation were: • Village Character o Policy 7 o New County Action o Additional information added to Rationale o Revised Community Action 46 • The Urban/Rural/Agriculture Interface o Revised Policy 4 o New County Action o New Land Use Policy • LUPAG Discussion o LUPAG revisions ■ Honomu ■ Kaiwiki & Pauka`a ■ Papa`ikou Following Ms. Gloor's presentation of each of the aforementioned issues, Mr. Agres facilitated discussion with the Steering Committee and checked in with each member to confirm understanding and agreement. Mr. Neff moved that the Preliminary Working Draft of the Hamakua CDP, as revised, is ready for community review. Second by Mr. Kurokawa. Motion passed with 6 votes aye and 0 votes nay. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: There was no public comment at this time. 2. Review of and Recommendations for the Proposed Approach to Community Review of the Draft CDP: Mr. Agres presented the proposed approach for community review of the draft CDP, beginning with the desired outcomes, target audiences, assumptions, and proposed elements: • Desired Outcomes o Summary of community feedback in the context of the CDP analysis and strategy identification process o Identification of any follow-up stakeholder engagement necessary • Target Audiences o Hamakua residents o People interested in particular communities or places Page 13 o People interested in particular issues • Assumptions o Keep it user-friendly — avoid formal meeting and testimony format o Vary times and locations o "Executive Summary" level of detail is appropriate for most o A small number may want a more detailed explanation and discussion (similar to SC review) o Options for providing feedback: verbal, written, online o Allow enough time but don't drag it out (e.g., 8 weeks) • Proposed Elements o Copies of CDP available in hard copy and on web, including the rationale for each strategy o "Speak outs" in Papa`ikou, Laupahoehoe, Honoka`a ■ Mornings and/or afternoons on Saturdays o "Focused Discussions" ■ Organized and publicized by the County ■ Pre -scheduled and publicized time for each topic o Participation in meetings organized by others, by request Mr. Agres asked the Steering Committee if they thought agriculture, economic development, and coastal protection would be appropriate topics for the focus meetings and asked for additional suggestions. Mr. Carvalho suggested Public Access and Mr. Kurokawa suggested Rural Character. Mr. Agres assured the SC that this discussion would be on-going throughout the process. The committee took a quick break and returned to continue the discussion on the community review process. Mr. Agres continued with the proposed approach to community review of the Draft CDP by discussing speak outs and publicity tools: • Speak Outs o "start here"/overview station o Other stations by topic/area o Stations include ■ Written summaries (e.g., from Executive Summary) ■ Visual images (e.g., timeline, pie graphic, maps) ■ Resources person & recorder o No presentation SC members suggested having a "drop box" for comments, possibly at libraries or community centers, also the possibility of adding a more technology based outreach. Also important to reach the elderly community who may not be able to attend the speak outs, or may not feel comfortable speaking in large groups. Mr. Agres suggested identifying specific groups for focused discussion. Mr. Agres went on to speak about the potential publicity tools that would be used to generate public attendance and asked the SC for additional ideas. • Publicity Tools o Web site o Email o Facebook o Hamakua Times o Community Association Newsletters Page 14 SC members suggested using the radio, Hawaii Tribune Herald, different signage throughout the planning area, flyers, Dept. of Aging newsletter, interview with Dr. Kimo Alameda, and Big Island Video News. Mr. Agres explained the Steering Committee roles during the Community Review to be: • Explain o Be available to answer questions, orient people, and connect them with Planning Team members o Represent the CDP/Steering Committee at community meetings • Listen o Be accessible o Organize "small group" talk story meetings, if desired o Participate in "speak outs" and other events but carefully avoid potential Sunshine Law violations • Have people submit comment if they want it recorded It will be the job of the planning team to compile all the input that is submitted during the community review phase: • Outputs from the Planning Team o "Raw" data — summaries of comments with minimal re -organization o Comments organized by topic and strategy o Identification of options for revisions Mr. Agres explained the Steering Committee roles after community review to be: • Dialogue around community input o Review of options for revisions o If necessary, conduct dialogue with stakeholders and resource partners • Outcomes o Incremental affirmation of revisions o Final recommendations Ms. Gomes led a discussion to clarify a realistic timeline and ensure continued commitment. Ms. Gloor explained that while quorum will not be essential for the speak outs or focused discussions, assistance from the Steering Committee will be much needed. Discussion continued regarding the expectations of commitment to see the CDP through to the end. The Steering Committee will have a meeting prior to the launch of community review in order to: • Ensure understanding • Have enough lead time to review information • Clear understanding of what the community roll out will be and specific rolls PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: There was no public comment at this time. EVALUATION OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 2015 MEETING: Steering Committee members identified the following positive aspect of the meeting: • Delicious lunch that supported a local business Page 15 • All the preparation by the Planning Team allowed for a smooth and efficient meeting • Appreciation for the Steering Committees commitment and hard work Steering Committee members also identified the following aspects of the meeting that weren't quite as they expected: • AC was broken FUTURE MEETINGS: A prep meeting will be held prior to initial community roll out. The date for the prep meeting will is yet to be determined. Communication will continue via email. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Mendoza moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Kurokawa. Motion passed with 6 votes aye and 0 votes nay. The meeting adjourned at 1: 04pm. Page 16