2024-11-01 Janice Palma-glennie Testimony GP 2045 LPC

Home

From:janice glennie To:LPCtestimony Cc:Planning Internet Mail; Surprenant, April; Villegas, Rebecca Subject:General plan comments Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 12:25:09 PM Aloha Leeward Planning commissioners, Mahalo for taking our testimony today. Hopefully you and staff will understand more deeply the frustrations being expressed about the process that continues to leave interested members of the public unwilling to devote more time to learning a platform that’s been beyond glitchy, sometimes not opening depending on the day and, in my case, none of my comments included after I’d typed them in. In 40 years of political engagement in this county, this last two has been the most frustrating as far as feeling uninclusive. Housekeeping: in order to watch the video from today, one must sign up for google rather than access it through the county website which would be more Akamai and not require signing up to yet another email-generating website. Other issues: Today’s meeting was cut short despite it being meant to cover such an important topic. Having to ask ommissioners to individually ask staff to further explain the konveio platform rather than do it at the meeting was a missed opportunity that could’ve given commissioners and the general public a shared experience learning to understand its use. That kind of activity would help the public feel more included in what’s been a mystifying process. Sending everyone off on their own to make their way through the existing weeds hasn’t been and isn't helpful and is, again, one of the main reasons this plan is receiving such unfavorable public reaction. It also takes staff time to answer the same questions over and over in a vacuum of two (email of phone) instead of doing it in a group setting — which is exactly how this all process should’ve been done from 2020 when this administration took the reigns. Please hear me: I’m not asking to start the process over. However, I am asking, and have continued to ask from the beginning of this process, for there to be charette-style meetings where the public, as a group, could engage to discuss the plan, ask questions, and provide fresh ideas with planners without constant overlap and confusion of having to do it on-the-fly or in a vacuum. The public should’ve been taught and practiced using whatever platform was going to be used to take comments interactively in a large, public group setting (aka charette). Time and again I tried the platform, contacted April about issues, couldn’t see my comments on the maps, etc., etc.. Those interactions made me feel even more separate as well as guilty for taking up April’s time which is already too stretched. Not having any guarantee that the public can initiate and expect substantive changes to the GP at council level is another reason for public feelings of disenfranchisement. We’re sitting on pins and needles waiting to see if councilman Inaba’s bill passes. Even if it does, it may not insure that the public will be heard. (And by “be heard”, no one expects that everything they want to be included in the plan will be; But we do expect some substantive changes where needed as there are lots of changes being made by the administration.) As I testified, just adding new zones to the GP and LUPAG is a big deal. It’s another perfect example of where an interactive-type public meeting was/is needed — not with 3-minute, staid