NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2026 at 6:00 P.M.
Kapālama Hale – Room 153
925 Dillingham Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX

This meeting location is open to public participation.
Other available options include participating by computer, phone or by video system.
WebEx and phone-in instructions are as follows:

Meeting Link: https://cchnl.webex.com/cchnl/j.php?MTID=mc8023845fcbc6fdd8c1b88c31e18461a
Meeting Number / Access Code: 2497 252 0532
Password: NC00 (6200 from phones and video systems)
Join by Phone: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll

MEETING POLICIES – Adopted July 25, 2023

Recordings of Board meetings can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@NeighborhoodCommissionOffice

Meeting Materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

Rules of Speaking: Anyone wishing to speak is asked to raise his or her hand, and when recognized by the Chair, to address comments to the Chair. Speakers are to keep their comments under two (2) minutes. Public testimony taken on each agenda item. Please silence all electronic devices.

Note: The Commission may take action on any agenda item. As required by the State Sunshine Law (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92), specific issues not noted on this agenda cannot be voted on, unless properly added to the agenda.

I. CALL TO ORDER – Committee Chair Larry Veray

A. Time Limit Policy and Procedures

B. All participants are to sign in for in-person or virtually identify yourself on WEBEX

C. Roll Call of Neighborhood Plan Committee Members (All committee members must have their video turned on)

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES

A. Monday, November 17, 2025 Written Summary for Video Record

III. NEW BUSINESS

A. Neighborhood Plan Committee will conduct outreach to all Neighborhood Boards asking them to review their designated boundaries and determine if they have a requirement to make any changes. They will be asked to investigate and directly coordinate with the respective Neighborhood Board related to the boundary change. The Neighborhood Board requesting the boundary change will be required to initiate a board approved resolution submitted to the Neighborhood Commission for review, potential approval and recommended change to the Neighborhood Plan. All submissions should be submitted to the Neighborhood Commission by proposed Monday, April 27, 2026. Committee approval required.

B. Committee to review changes of the proposed revision of Chapter 18 of the Neighborhood Plan

C. Committee to review Chapter 13 of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required for Powers, Duties, and Functions of Neighborhood Boards
1. §2-13-103 Political Activity
2. §2-13-104 Standards of Conduct
3. §2-13-105 Conflicts of Interest
4. §2-13-106 Community Forum limitations
5. §2-13-107 Representative capacity of board members
6. §2-13-108 Membership
7. §2-13-109 Concurrent holding of elective public office prohibition

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

A. Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

B. Next Committee Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

V. ADJOURNMENT

A mailing list is maintained for interested persons and agencies to receive this board’s agenda and minutes. Additions, corrections, and deletions to the mailing list may be directed to the Neighborhood Commission Office (NCO) at Kapālama Hale, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96817, by telephone on (808) 768-3710, fax (808) 768-3711, or e-mailing nco@honolulu.gov. Agenda documents and minutes are also available online at http://www.honolulu.gov/nco/boards.html

All written testimony must be received in the Neighborhood Commission Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. If within 48 hours of the meeting, written and/or oral testimony may be submitted directly to the Board at the meeting. If submitting written testimony, please note the Board and agenda item(s) your testimony concerns. Send to: Neighborhood Commission Office, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, HI 96817, fax (808) 768-3711, or email nbtestimony@honolulu.gov.

If you need an auxiliary aid/service or other accommodation due to a disability or an interpreter for a language other than English, please call the Neighborhood Commission Office at (808) 768-3710 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. or send an email to nco@honolulu.gov as soon as possible, preferably at least three (3) business days before the scheduled meeting. If a request is received with fewer than three (3) business days remaining before the meeting, we will try to obtain the auxiliary aid/service or accommodation, but it may not be possible to fulfill requests received after this date.

DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2025 – 6:00 P.M.
KAPĀLAMA HALE CONFERENCE ROOM 153 – 925 DILLINGHAM BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX TELECONFERENCING

Video recording of this meeting can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQj7LiTOqCE

Meeting materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

I. CALL TO ORDER – [0:00:01]: Patrick Smith called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Mahealani Bernal, Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui, Patrick Smith, and Lloyd Yonenaka.

Committee Members Absent: Cross Crabbe and Larry Veray.

Guests: Michelle Matson (Diamond Head Neighborhood Board No.05); Bob Finley (Waikiki Neighborhood Board No.09); Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka Neighborhood Board No.35); Malia Agustin, Germaine Meyers (Nanakuli-Maili Neighborhood Board No.36); Tom Heinrich, Claire Santos, Jacob Wiencek, Greg Misakian (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 20 total participants. Name not included if not legible on sign-in sheet, not signed in and/or not participated in discussion.

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES – [0:02:38]

Monday, October 20, 2025 Memorandum for the Record – [0:02:38]: Hearing no corrections, the minutes were approved as written.

III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:02:56]

Final review and vote on the Committee’s complaint process proposal – [0:02:56]: Smith explained that the committee would not be taking a final vote at this meeting. He reported having a meeting with Kevin Lye, who provided valuable feedback and observations on the proposal.
• Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fdvVW–LhkeoFtS99foX_x0ZvSvWZoKJ/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=112972764551395013814&rtpof=true&sd=true

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:05:17]
1. Technical Comments – [0:05:17]: Heinrich noted he had a few cleanup items that were largely drafting-related rather than substantive. He praised the brevity and comprehensiveness of the October meeting minutes.
2. Next Steps – [0:06:36]: Smith stated the committee could incorporate technical issues and bring the draft back at the next meeting, potentially for approval at a subsequent meeting. He thanked Heinrich and Lye for their helpful contributions.
3. Distribution to Boards – [0:08:50]: Smith reported that Chair Veray wanted to send the draft proposal to all neighborhood boards, noting it would be clearly marked as a draft and not a final proposal. This would give boards substantial time to review and provide input before the committee’s approval and subsequent commission consideration.
4. Format for Distribution – [0:11:12]: Heinrich recommended sending only the clean draft to boards rather than side-by-side comparisons, as the document would eventually need to be in Ramseyer format for the full commission.

Proposal for the Neighborhood Plan Committee to conduct outreach to all Neighborhood Boards asking if they require any boundary changes – [0:12:09]: Smith explained there had been an informal request to modify one board’s boundaries, but no official board action had been taken. The purpose of this agenda item was to give Chair Veray permission to reach out to all boards simultaneously to ask if they were considering any boundary changes.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:13:36]
1. Waikiki Boundary Concerns – [0:13:36]: Wiencek requested that Waikiki’s boundaries remain unchanged, noting they work well for the peninsula area.
2. Nanakuli-Maili and Kapolei Boundary Issues – [0:15:00]: Agustin (Nanakuli-Maili NB36 Chair) explained that Kapolei previously fell under their board’s jurisdiction, matching their representative districts (Senate District 22, House District 44). Major developments in Kapolei impact their district through traffic and ocean access, yet approvals now go through the Kapolei board. She requested boundaries be clarified to match representative districts.
3. Process Clarification – [0:17:26]: Smith confirmed Chair Veray would reach out to all boards asking for their thoughts and likely requesting formal board action to provide clear direction.
4. Communication Strategy – [0:18:13]: Yonenaka emphasized the importance of clear communication so boards don’t think the commission is dictating or recommending boundary changes. He also stressed that information must reach all board members, not just chairs, to ensure complete transparency.
5. Ripple Effect Concerns – [0:19:45]: Smith noted that boundary changes create a ripple effect on neighboring boards, which is why asking all boards simultaneously is important.
6. Historical Boundary Information – [0:20:18]: Santos requested that when proposals go out, they become formal agenda items so community members can participate in discussions, even if they’re no longer serving on boards.
7. Request for Historical Records – [0:23:29]: Agustin asked the NCO to provide transparency about when boundaries were established and changed. She also recommended all Neighborhood Board agendas include boundary maps so the public knows what applies to them.
8. Nanakuli-Maili Historical Context – [0:25:51]: Meyers echoed Agustin’s concerns, noting that since joining the board in 2017, Kapolei was initially part of their district, with representatives from Kapolei attending their meetings. She discovered Kapolei had been rezoned to the Kapolei-Makakilo-Honokai Hale board when projects stopped coming before their board.
9. Origins and Deadlines – [0:28:23]: Heinrich noted his original suggestion months ago was for the NCO to start with deadlines, considering the ripple effect on elections if boundaries change through the initiative petition process. The key is that ideas begin with communities, not the commission.
10. Timeline Considerations – [0:29:41]: There was discussion about whether changes could be made before the 2027 election, with Yonenaka noting a February 2027 candidate deadline and Smith suggesting 2029 elections would be more realistic.
11. Census and Population Data – [0:30:20]: Finley suggested using the latest census data to determine how many people live in districts, noting these should be commission decisions based on population numbers.

Hearing no objections, the Committee approved Veray’s request to begin outreach to the Neighborhood Boards regarding potential boundary changes.

Committee to review Chapter 13 of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required for Powers, Duties, and Functions of Neighborhood Boards – [0:33:30]:

§2-13-101 Purpose – [0:34:01]: The purpose of this plan and the Neighborhood Boards is to increase and assure the effective citizen participation in the decisions of government.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Charter Language and Additional References – [0:34:39]: Heinrich explained this language comes directly from Charter Section 14-101. He noted he’s researching two other places in the charter’s preamble and Article 1 that make strong statements about citizen participation.
2. Proposal to Add “County” – [0:37:15]: Yonenaka suggested adding the word “county” before “government” for discussion, noting the Neighborhood Board system is derived from, supported by, and funded solely by the county. He acknowledged the system is used by state and federal entities for their platforms but believes it should focus on county issues.
3. Opposition to Limiting Scope – [0:38:48]: Pahinui strongly disagreed, noting Neighborhood Boards provide access to state representatives and senators who inform communities about state issues and provide opportunities to propose and support legislation.
4. Additional Opposition – [0:41:05]: Matson agreed with Pahinui, noting Neighborhood Boards provide input to city, county, state, and federal elected officials as quasi-governmental elected organizations not subject to Executive Secretary policies. She supported keeping the broad scope.
5. Federal and State Connections – [0:42:52]: Misakian reinforced that neighborhood boards connect communities to legislators and representatives at all levels, noting it’s implicit in the system’s setup that it covers county and state. He suggested federal representatives might also make rounds to communicate with communities.
6. Charter Amendment History – [0:45:46]: Heinrich explained the original 1972 charter amendment included the word “city” before “government,” which was subsequently deleted by charter amendment for the reasons stated, emphasizing community forums.
7. Agenda Management Concerns – [0:47:53]: Santos noted that multiple levels of government representatives bog down agendas, leaving no time for community issues. She suggested rethinking mandatory agenda items and meeting structure.

The committee decided to preserve the existing language without adding “county.”

§2-13-102 General Powers, Duties and Functions of Boards – [0:48:42]:

Section A – [0:48:55]: Boards are responsible for actively participating in government functions, identifying and addressing neighborhood issues, with actions reflecting neighborhood needs, wants, and interests. Boards may take initiative in selecting activities and ensuring effective citizen participation.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Board Responsibility vs. Chair Authority – [0:50:37]: Misakian stressed that Section A states that boards (not chairs) are responsible, and their actions should reflect the needs, wants, and interests of the neighborhood, noting this is the most important part.
2. Board Member Representation – [0:54:03]: Smith responded that elected board members who believe something is important to the neighborhood make it important, with other board members able to disagree. He noted participation levels depend on neighborhood issues.

Section B (Powers, Duties and Functions 1-4) – [0:56:25]: Section B outlines seven powers, duties, and functions, including: (1) increasing citizen participation through improved opportunities for input; (2) initiating review and making recommendations on planning and land use issues; (3) identifying and making recommendations on capital improvement projects; and (4) assisting with evaluation of government services.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Land Use Focus and Technology – [0:57:26]: Heinrich noted land use was one of the original main focuses, reflected in these first four items. He asked whether mentioning technology (like WebEx meetings) would be appropriate to improve citizen access, possibly in item one. Yonenaka responded that boards have never been restricted in what they discuss, questioning whether specific technology language is needed since technology is just a tool and changes over time.
2. Oversight Language Concerns – [0:59:28]: Santos felt sections 2-5 make Neighborhood Boards seem like they’re taking on oversight positions over government. She questioned the “make recommendations” language, noting she’s not a traffic engineer and can’t make technical recommendations, suggesting softening the language to “share ideas.”
3. Consolidation Suggestion – [1:00:32]: Wiencek suggested consolidating the subsections into one paragraph describing Neighborhood Boards as community advisory, consultative, liaison entities, noting the subsections seem repetitive.

Sections B (5-7) continued – [1:02:23]: The remaining items include: (5) initiating review on any substantive issue related to government; (6) encouraging understanding of government decision-making; and (7) encouraging the board’s role as a public informational forum.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Legal Framework for Authority – [1:02:31]: Misakian emphasized this section provides a legal framework for what boards are allowed to do, making it important to have substantive language rather than vague language that could be legally challenged. Pahinui disagreed about it being a legal framework but agreed the language is important for pointing to authority when agencies or individuals claim boards have no jurisdiction. She noted planning and development issues are huge problems in her community requiring all available support.
2. City Agency Expectations – [1:04:50]: Finley agreed with the language but wanted definition about what city agencies can ask of boards, noting they’re sometimes asked to review massive projects in short timeframes and questioned whether responses should be opinions rather than decisions. Smith noted boards are advisory and can say they don’t know enough about an issue or can’t weigh in.
3. Advanced Notice Requirements – [1:07:52]: Matson emphasized the need for full advanced notice of projects, noting her board has been shortchanged on timing and ability to respond, especially for projects affecting preservation and zoning districts.
4. Power of Community Voice – [1:08:50]: Melendrez shared an example of stopping a proposed correctional facility through Neighborhood Board action and a letter to the governor, illustrating the formidable power of boards representing community voice.

The committee found no need to change the language in Section B.

§2-13-102 Section C – [1:12:57]: No comments were made. The committee was satisfied with the language.

§2-13-102 Section D – [1:13:13]: No substantive comments were made. The committee was satisfied with the language.

§2-13-102 Section E – [1:13:33]: No comments were made. The committee was satisfied with the language.

§2-13-102 Section F – [1:13:56]: The commission shall provide reasonable assistance and reasonable operating expenses for boards’ performance of their duties.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Assistance Definition Concerns – [1:14:51]: Misakian noted he had problems getting what he felt was reasonable assistance in many cases, suggesting the section needs more verbiage or clarification about clear-cut assistance for board members with concerns to help mitigate complaints. Smith responded that the reasonableness of requests is within the commission’s purview to determine in conjunction with the NCO, encouraging Misakian to submit specific language suggestions.
2. Decision-Making Authority – [1:17:44]: Matson clarified that the NCO should not make decisions—the commission is the ultimate decision-maker for the plan that guides boards. The NCO serves the commission and boards.
3. Budget Process Context – [1:19:24]: Heinrich noted that the brief statement encompasses the whole budget process through city administration and council, recognizing volunteer contributions while ensuring reasonable support is a city charter requirement.
4. Sections C, D, E Redundancy Question – [1:19:46]: Lye asked whether sections C, D, and E are redundant with Section B and questioned the history behind Section D’s language about one board not needing to defer to another.
5. Historical Context – [1:20:43]: Heinrich explained there were instances where boards strongly took positions that issues were in their district and they didn’t want to opine, or wanted to avoid the issue. He also referenced Section 2-13-107 about representative capacity, noting some board members believed they were only supposed to talk about their subdistricts. The language ensures each Neighborhood Board has its own voice.

The committee agreed to preserve the existing language in Section F.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:27:03]

Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 24, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

Next Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting: The Committee will recess in December 2025. The next meeting is rescheduled for Monday, January 12, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153 (due to Martin Luther King Jr. Day).

Charter Commission: Heinrich reminded attendees that the Charter Commission received over 225 (possibly close to 300) proposals by the November 7 deadline. He encouraged people to review them as some likely relate to the neighborhood board system. Yonenaka noted the Neighborhood Commission opted not to submit recommendations this term. For more information about the Charter Commission, visit: http://www.honolulucitycouncil.org/charter-commission

V. ADJOURNMENT – [1:29:40]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Submitted by: Dylan Buck, Community Relations Specialist, NCO
Reviewed by: Dylan Whitsell, Deputy, NCO
Finalized by:

To view agenda and minutes, visit our board website.

Event shows physical location; however, other options of participation may also include WebEx and phone.  If available, instructions for WebEx and phone can be found at the top of the agenda.