Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-11 Puna CDP Meeting PacketMitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 1 Monday, February 27, 2023 1 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Brewer called the Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) Action Committee (AC) to 4 order at 2:05 P.M. This meeting was held online via Zoom, with one on-site location for 5 community members at the Hilo Planning Department Conference Room. Quorum was not 6 established at this meeting. 7 ROLL CALL 8 AC Members Present: Franny Brewer (Chair), Susie Osborne (Vice-Chair), Leilani DeMello, Kanoe 9 Wilson 10 AC Members Absent-Excused: Leila Kealoha 11 County Staff: Heather Bartlett, April Surprenant (Planners) 12 County Officials: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Suzanna Tiapula 13 Members of the public attended the meeting via Zoom and two (2) members of the public 14 attended in person. The meeting was also available for synchronous viewing via the COH 15 Planning Department YouTube Livestream. The livestream is available at Puna CDP AC Meeting - 16 February 27, 2023 - YouTube 17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 18 Consideration of the draft minutes for the Puna CDP Action Committee Meeting on May 5, 2022 19 was deferred to the next meeting as quorum was not established. 20 PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: Six (6) members of the public provided oral testimony: 21 1. Community member Indy Rishi Singh, representing himself, provided testimony. He 22 began by stating that he was thankful to be part of the process and to see everyone 23 working toward building a stronger and more resilient community. He shared that he was 24 from the Hāmākua community but was interested in learning about Puna as some of the 25 same actions could be translated to Hāmākua with regard to farming and housing. He 26 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 2 encouraged everyone to get out of the space of feeling occupied, hurt and angry, and to 27 shift towards possibilities, creativity, and love. He also encouraged everyone to be more 28 pono and find solutions, and to have more in-person meetings. 29 2. Community member Hannah, representing herself, provided testimony on Agenda Item 30 #1. She shared that she was very grateful and happy to see the project come to fruition 31 as it was a primary recommendation from the PCDP. She praised the new administrator 32 of the Hawaiʻi County Mass Transit Agency, for moving the project forward as they have 33 had many discussions in the past about this and after all these years it is now happening. 34 She hoped that the project would also focus on the Glenwood area. The Glenwood 35 transit station is one of the main bus stops on Highway 11 and it is currently without a 36 restroom. She would like to see this issue resolved. 37 3. Community member Robert Golden provided testimony on Agenda Items #2 and #3. He 38 began by stating that he was originally from New York, but now lives in Leilani Estates 39 and considers Puna to be his home after residing there for 10 years. He shared that he 40 co-founded the Puna Rising website and is president of Lower Puna Rising. Mr. Golden 41 shared his excitement for the opportunities that the AC provides with regard to 42 decentralizing government and getting more citizens involved. He also expressed his 43 concern as it seemed like the Puna CDP AC had not been very active in the last few years 44 since the Kilauea eruption and quorum had not been met at this meeting. He would like 45 the AC to play a more active role, so community feels as though they have influence on 46 County policies. 47 4. Community member Madeline Whitehill, representing herself, shared testimony to echo 48 Mr. Golden’s statements about the desire to make changes in order to see that quorum 49 for the Puna AC meetings is met. She shared that she hoped the topic of intentional 50 communities would be added to the next meeting agenda and how the County could 51 work to support intentional communities. 52 5. Community member Elliot Fabri, representing himself, provided testimony. He shared 53 that he would like to see more discussion related to zoning and to acknowledge 54 intentional communities and different ways of living for residents in lava zones 1 and 2. 55 He would like to bring awareness to the disaster-prone areas in Puna where temporary 56 housing is not allowable with regard to zoning designation. He would like there to be 57 more alignment with zoning and the creative solutions that people in Puna have found 58 for their way of living in order to bring the County and community together to 59 acknowledge these issues. Mr. Fabri felt that it was unfortunate that certain aspects of 60 codes are enforced on other people more so than they are on the general community. He 61 would like to create a path for these places to exist in a way that is acknowledged by the 62 County and not in a way that has to be in the shadows and only brought up for specific 63 issues or when something is needed. He explained that residents in lava zones 1 and 2 64 are unable to get insurance or bank loans and the building and zoning policies have not 65 adapted to these types of places where residents are grounded in sustainability and living 66 cooperatively and pono with the ʻāina. 67 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 3 6. Community member Tomas Mendola, representing himself, provided testimony to 68 address Mr. Fabri’s statements. He introduced the idea of creating a new zoning 69 classification that would recognize the things that are happening and changing. He 70 suggested a classification related to non-profit sustainable community which would allow 71 those types of communities to contribute culturally as they proceed. 72 BUSINESS: 73 1. Pāhoa Transit Hub and Library Presentation: 74 Representatives of SSFM International, Melissa May and Austen Drake, led a presentation on 75 the Pāhoa Transit Hub and Library project. Ms. May started by giving an overview of the 76 project with regard to the history, defining hub and spoke, explaining the work done and 77 how they got to the current phase today. She informed that the project had been funded 78 through the planning phase and explained the overall project goals, tasks and next steps. 79 Mr. Austen Drake provided an overview of the site selection process. He explained the site 80 suitability criteria and discussed the top preferred sites. He acknowledged that the design 81 features to reflect Pahoa would be considered as well as those related to ADA compliance, 82 lighting and security. 83 Ms. May also provided information on the teaming partners of the project, an anticipated 84 schedule, and how community members could get involved and contribute. She encouraged 85 everyone to check out the project website, sign up for email updates, and to participate in 86 the virtual open house to provide feedback. 87 Community member Indy asked if there would be opportunity for community to participate 88 in a civic hackathon for this project where people could come together to make different 89 presentations on their ideas and wisdom. He encouraged creating more regenerative and 90 inclusive spaces for ideas to flow from the community. 91 Ms. May acknowledged that this would be a great time to put those ideas forward as they 92 are open to any and all input. She shared that there was a virtual forum on the project 93 website that allowed people to share their ideas and respond to others’ ideas. She noted 94 that the upcoming community meeting would provide another forum for sharing as well. She 95 also noted that this project would only take it through the conceptual design phase, so there 96 would be more opportunities to provide ideas and input as it progressed into the full design. 97 Committee Member DeMello questioned if the private landowners, of the potential sites, 98 were aware that they were contenders in this process. She also suggested that materials for 99 construction be considered, to account for the weather in the location, in order to prevent 100 deterioration in just a few years. She also expressed her support for using native plants on 101 the site. 102 Ms. May confirmed that all property owners had been reached out to and have been 103 responsive in varying degrees. She noted that that was also considered in the criteria for the 104 site selection. 105 Community member Mia Luciano questioned who or what entity was providing funding for 106 the development of this hub. 107 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 4 Hawaiʻi County Mass Transit Agency Administrator, John Andoh, informed that funds were 108 received by the State of Hawaiʻi Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, Hawaiʻi 109 Public Library System, Federal Transit Administration and County of Hawai'i General Excise 110 Tax Fund. 111 Community member Lanell Lua-Dillard questioned why the bus loop was smaller than the 112 parking lot in the design plan. 113 Mr. Andoh informed they were just conceptual design plans and would be refined once a site 114 was selected. 115 Community member Elliot Fabri questioned if the transit hub and library must be on the 116 same site. He noted that the transit hub was appropriate to the Puna Kai area, but the 117 community buildings and library would be better placed close to the new park, closer to the 118 school. 119 Ms. Malory Fujitani, of the Office of the State Librarian, informed that when conducting the 120 latest planning study, the focus was on government owned properties, which at the time 121 required substantial infrastructure build out for the library by itself. It was decided to pursue 122 the opportunity to pair with the TOD transit hub as an opportunity to leverage infrastructure 123 build out and be closer to areas where people would be transiting through. They also felt 124 that this was a good opportunity to work with the County. 125 Mr. Andoh added that the whole intent of the partnership with the library was to make the 126 transit hub a community space. Transit is a part of a community and as livable communities 127 are built with libraries, shopping, drug stores, dry cleaning, day care, bikes, and bike lanes, 128 within a walkable distance of a transit hub, residents could start living car free and take 129 advantage of the benefits that the transit hub could offer. He noted that this was the goal of 130 the project and is a very common design in Europe. 131 Committee member Wilson questioned which group would be conducting the Environmental 132 Assessment (EA) and if it would include an archaeology inventory study. 133 Ms. Jennifer Scheffel, of SSFM, confirmed that as the consultants for this project, they would 134 be conducting the EA. She noted that an archaeological study and a cultural impact study 135 would be included as part of the EA work, but whether or not an archaeological inventory 136 survey would actually be completed would depend on what the State Historic Preservation 137 Division (SHPD) requires. 138 Committee member Osborne would like the buildings to be solarized to address the state’s 139 goal for energy efficiency. She encouraged innovative and forward thinking in that element 140 of the design. 141 Community member Lanell Lua-Dillard asked what would happen if something were to be 142 found during the archaeological study. 143 Ms. Scheffel shared that if something were to be identified, then consultation would concur 144 with SHPD and any type of mitigation for what was found would be done with consultation 145 with SHPD as well. 146 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 5 2. Action Committee Recruitment Strategy: 147 Planning staff informed that there are currently five AC members seated on this board. The 148 department has sent out press releases for new membership but have not received a lot of 149 applications. It was noted that applications could be found on the mayor’s office website and 150 would be processed by the mayor’s office. As the onboarding process is time intensive for 151 staff, it was noted that a good pool of applicants are required before moving forward. Staff 152 encouraged getting the word out through networking and expressed appreciation for the 153 Puna AC’s recruiting efforts as well. 154 3. Puna Action Committee Meeting Schedule Discussion: 155 This item was deferred as quorum was not established. 156 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. 157 These meeting minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s 158 Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public 159 Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department 160 by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@hawaiicounty.gov. 161 Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 1 Thursday, May 5, 2022 1 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Brewer called the Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) Action Committee (AC) to 4 order at 5:06 P.M. Due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was held 5 via the Zoom interactive video platform with one on-site location for community members at the 6 Pāhoa County Council Office. 7 ROLL CALL 8 AC Members Present: Franny Brewer (Chair), Susie Osborne (Vice-Chair), Leilani DeMello, Leila 9 Kealoha, Kanoe Wilson 10 AC Members Absent-Excused: none 11 County Staff: Planners –Keiko Mercado, Heather Bartlett, Elyse Stevens; Kīlauea Recovery and 12 Redevelopment Manager Garrett Smith 13 County Officials: Councilmember Matt Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder 14 State Official: Representative Greggor Ilagan 15 Four (4) members of the public attended the meeting via Zoom and one (1) member of the 16 public attended in person. The meeting was also available for synchronous viewing via the COH 17 Planning Department YouTube Livestream. The livestream is available at Puna CDP AC Meeting - 18 May 5 - YouTube 19 ANNOUNCEMENTS: Update from State Representative Greggor Ilagan 20 May 5th marked the close of the 2022 Legislative Session and State Representative Ilagan 21 provided the Action Committee with session updates relative to the Puna community. 22 • An alternate route for Puna: a district-wide project that included 1.5 million for a site 23 selection study for the best location for an alternate route. This will include a monetary 24 match from the County of Hawai'i, resulting in a joint effort between the County and 25 State. 26 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 2 • Widening a section of Highway 130: a State-wide initiative, with a 35 million budget. He 27 stated he would follow up with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) with a 28 focus on which portion of Highway 130 will be widened. 29 • Funding for albizia abatement along the Highway. 30 • Four (4) Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were also discussed for Pāhoa High School 31 girl's gym locker room, Pāhoa Elementary and High-School covered walkway, upgrades to 32 Science Facility, and Keonepoko playground upgrades. 33 • 1.2 million for Emergency Medical Services islandwide, with a focus on facilitating an 34 ambulance for Puna. 35 • Grants-in-Aid funding was earmarked for: 36 o the Pāhoa Museum - $400,000, 37 o Project Vision - $600,000, 38 o Makuʻu Community Center - $220,000, 39 o the Aloha ʻIlio Rescue - $50,000, 40 • Collaboration with the County of Hawai'i Prosecutorʻs Office to pass a bill related to the 41 high volume of auto theft by increasing the penalty from a Class C Felony to a Class B 42 Felony. 43 Action Committee Member Kealoha asked about funding for the Pohoiki Boat Ramp. 44 Representative Ilagan stated that the bill requesting 1.5 million in additional funds for the Boat 45 Ramp did not pass the House reading but would be addressed at the next legislative session. 46 Garrett Smith shared that the Recovery Team had an internal meeting with the Department of 47 Parks and Recreation and DLNR that week which discussed the Pohoki Boat Ramp. Discussion 48 centered around the EA process and the dredging to get the Boat Ramp functional. He stated 49 that public sentiment centered around a safe swimming area and a boat washing area. 50 Vice-Chair Osborne asked whether the albizia mitigation funding received by the State 51 Department of Transportation (DOT) could provide training and education for eradication. Chair 52 Brewer asked how DOT prioritizes funding for albizia treatment and whether educational training 53 for eradication was a possibility, as the ramification of poor eradication allows for continuous re-54 growth. Representative Ilagan agreed to follow up and get back to the Action Committee. Vice-55 Chair Osborne reiterated the need for albizia treatment and education asking for continued 56 County and State support. She mentioned a free virtual albizia mitigation education session on 57 June 30th and a hands-on training on August 20th. Staff will send additional information to the 58 Puna CDP AC mailing list. 59 Vice-Chair Osborne shared that Kua O Ka Lā PCS Pre-k school in Nanāwale had applied for Grant-60 in-Aid funding though their NPO Hoʻoulu Lāhui and asked if it had been granted. Representative 61 Ilagan agreed to follow up on this. 62 Community Member Stephanie Bath discussed the need for roadway redundancy for emergency 63 preparedness from upper to lower Puna. She asked for this connectivity issue to be highlighted 64 at the State level. Representative Ilagan shared that a resolution requesting the Hawai'i 65 Emergency Management Agency to develop a preliminary draft evacuation plan for lava zones 1, 66 2, 3, 4, and 6 passed in both the House and Senate. He also shared there is an upcoming 67 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 3 Legislative session to discuss utilizing State money to assist subdivisions with private roads that 68 are open to the public. He reiterated that an alternate route in Puna would assist with road 69 redundancy, decrease traffic flow, and provide more access. 70 Representative Ilagan expressed interest in collaborating more intentionally with the Puna CDP 71 Action Committee and requested priority projects from the Puna Action Committee, specifically 72 within Punaʻs town centers, before the start of the next legislation session. 73 Action Committee Member Wilson asked if the Puna Action Committee could meet with 74 Representative Ilagan prior to the next Legislative session to galvanize and strategize for more 75 community support when Legislative measures are moving forward. Representative Ilagan 76 agreed, noting the value and benefit of collaboration with the Puna Action Committee and 77 suggested the AC prioritize three projects for him to advocate for. 78 Ms. Mercado suggested the Puna Action Committee Chair and Vice-Chair could establish an 79 investigatory subcommittee with up to four members that could work directly with 80 Representative Ilagan. They discussed the idea of having the Puna AC Chair and Vice-Chair meet 81 with him in the meantime. 82 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 83 Committee Member Kealoha made a motion to approve the March 3, 2022 meeting minutes. 84 Motion seconded by Vice-Chair Osborne. Motion passed with 5 votes aye, 0 votes nay. 85 PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: Three (3) members of the public and one (1) County 86 Councilmember provided testimony: 87 Community Member Stephanie Bath, representing herself, testified on Agenda Item 1. She 88 expressed her concerns about emergency preparedness sharing that infrastructure redundancy 89 should continue to be a top priority. She stated that there continue to be concerns within the 90 community about the implementation of proposed connectivity locations, noting that securing 91 funding to acquire the connectivity locations identified by the community is the first step. She 92 encouraged the AC to continue to push and stay on top of this issue. She reiterated the need for 93 health and safety redundancy from upper to lower Puna with the need for State and County 94 support. 95 Community Member Jon Olson, representing himself, testified on Agenda Item 1. He discussed 96 the need for action regarding infrastructure to the Pohoiki Boat Ramp and described the 97 significant amount of debris that is consistently washing out into the bay. He also emphasized 98 the immediate need for an alternative route for Puna with hurricane season quickly approaching. 99 He expressed that these issues were urgent over 10 years ago and that, with a quickly growing 100 population in Puna, we need to address the problem as if “our hair was on fire.” 101 Councilmember Matt Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder testified on Agenda Item 1. He said that with an 102 increase in population and heavy road use in Puna, implementing an alternative route in Puna is 103 imperative. He expressed that we are not prepared for continued growth or potential 104 emergencies and that there needs to be a solution in which the County, State, and Federal 105 government work together. He also discussed directing growth in Puna to the primary areas 106 such as Keaʻau, followed by secondary areas. He continued to express how connectivity to 107 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 4 Stainback Highway is a long-term goal that could be achieved by connecting North Kulani Road 108 and Stainback to Saddle Road. This would alleviate traffic and create space for workforce and 109 affordable housing in those areas. 110 Garrett Smith, representing himself, testified on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Smith commented on the 111 road connectivity in Puna, specifically that the County and State do not spend funds on private 112 roads. He commented that community members would benefit if the County or State could 113 allocate funds for private infrastructure. He also discussed how FEMA funds were allocated for 114 water, roads, and park improvements from the lava eruption. He stated that community 115 members have been pushing for water improvements, and suggested we identify problems 116 through the use of infrastructure standards. 117 BUSINESS: 118 1. Infrastructure Priority Discussion: 119 Ms. Mercado explained how Planning Director Kern has requested that Action Committee 120 members and the community provide a list of needed infrastructure projects in their area. 121 She stated that a lot has changed since the establishment of the Puna CDP making it 122 necessary to look at needs beyond what is written in the plan. Ms. Mercado explained that 123 Director Kern wants to be prepared for the federal infrastructure bill conversation. She 124 explained that Planning Staff will summarize and provide the summary to the Director. She 125 hoped that by being open to suggestions for State projects we could encourage cohesion 126 between the State and the County. Planning Staff provided an infrastructure handout with 127 information from the Puna CDP implementation table. 128 Chair Brewer voiced improvements for Stainback Highway and Kulani Road. She expressed 129 that there needs to be more connectivity between subdivisions and furthered that existing 130 subdivisions with no access should be prioritized. 131 Ms. Mercado mentioned the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Puna Connectivity 132 (Communication number 2016-25), sharing that much of the work is there and that funding 133 was the major barrier. 134 You may find the Ad Hoc Committee on Puna Connectivity report (Communication Number 2016-25) in our 135 public folders here: https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/doc/82167/Page1.aspx 136 Action Committee Member DeMello agreed that the Action Committee could help to 137 facilitate conversations to access funding for these projects. She stated that there is a need 138 to assist communities with connectivity access for both upper and lower Puna. 139 Action Committee Member Kealoha stated that more than 20,000 people have moved into 140 Puna since the pandemic started. She discussed the need to review or amend the CDP, 141 control traffic congestion, and direct development toward town centers 142 Councilmember Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder discussed the direct health and safety issues along the 143 Panaewa stretch. He mentioned the need to implement acceleration and deceleration lanes 144 on the sides of Highway 11. He hoped that the State could expand Stainback Highway by also 145 adding an acceleration lane as well. He shared that future projects could include a new fire 146 station and police station in Keaʻau that could tie into the town center with mass transit. He 147 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 5 reiterated that there is a 1.6 billion budget surplus at the State level. General expenditures 148 revenue is high and the fuel tax and highway fund amassed a surplus of more than 20 million. 149 Ms. Mercado gave the Puna Action Committee and community members two weeks from 150 the meeting date to send any additional infrastructure priorities so staff could compile the 151 feedback to relay to the Planning Director. 152 2. Building in Puna Brochure: 153 Due to the increase in residency over the years and the Kīlauea eruption in 2019, the Action 154 Committee proposed revisiting the 2018 Building in Puna Brochure. 155 Chair Brewer shared feedback she had heard suggesting the Building in Puna Brochure be 156 made digital, easily accessible and mobile-friendly for broader public use. She suggested an 157 additional need to include information about safe catchment tank use, County mulch 158 sources, native plant landscaping, rat-lung worm, and little fire ant management in the 159 brochure as well. She also expressed how different building needs are in Volcano due to the 160 different climate and landscape. 161 Vice-Chair Osborne and Action Committee Member Kealoha agreed with the need for a 162 Permitted Interaction Group (investigatory sub-committee) to revise the Building in Puna 163 Brochure before bringing it back to the Action Committee for further discussion. 164 Committee Member DeMello shared manaʻo from Volcano community members who were 165 concerned about pin-to-pin clearing and maintaining pono practices to protect Hawaiʻiʻs 166 delicate ecosystems. She stated that the Action Committee needed to be assertive with 167 language; maintain kūpaʻa and protect our land and natural resources. She reiterated the 168 need to share this information to those moving to the State. 169 Councilmember Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder stated that pin-to-pin clearing is a huge issue. He 170 shared about the Real Property Tax Conservation Allowance that provides a property tax 171 break for those with two acres or more who preserve native forest on their property. He 172 also shared about the Puna flood study that was completed, but not implemented and how 173 that information would provide the public with surface water inundation risk for their 174 properties. 175 Committee Member Wilson agreed with creating an Permitted Interaction Group. She 176 stressed including the ideas and language of aloha ʻāina and mālama ʻāina. 177 Chair Brewer moved to establish a Permitted Interaction Group that would re-evaluate and 178 update the Building in Puna Brochure for the full Action Committee to review and approve. 179 Vice-Chair Osborne seconded the motion. It was decided that Chair Brewer; Action Committee 180 Members Kealoha, DeMello and Wilson would serve on the Permitted Interaction Group. On 181 this motion a roll-call vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember 182 Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder also expressed interest in participating in the group. 183 3. Synergies Between Implementation of the Puna CDP and the Kīlauea Recovery and Resilience 184 Plan (KRRP): 185 With consensus from the committee, Chair Brewer took agenda items 3 and 4 out of order. 186 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 6 Staff shared a spreadsheet with the goals and action items that were identified at the 187 previous meeting. Action Committee members used the spreadsheet to explore mutual 188 interests and discuss possible implementation actions. The goal was to provide updates and 189 identify projects the Resilience Capacity Area (RCA) groups are currently working on and how 190 that work is connected to their roles as AC members. 191 Chair Brewer praised the idea of bringing Puna AC items into the Puna RCA work. Committee 192 Member Kealoha suggested converting the implementation table into a working document 193 for AC members to work on. Ms. Mercado agreed that Planning Staff would include the 194 Implementation Table working document in a follow-up email. 195 Information on the Kīlauea Eruption Recovery Planning Process available here: 196 https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/planning-56 197 Information about the Resilience Capacity Area Teams available here: 198 https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/revitalize-puna/resilience-capacity-areas. 199 Presentation slides available here: 200 https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/edoc/115524/Communication%20No.%202022-08%20-201 Puna%20AC.RCA%20Synergies.pdf 202 4. Update on the budget: Staff shared the FY2022-23 CIP (Capital Improvement Project) Budget 203 spreadsheet that outlined capital project appropriations submitted to the County Council 204 relating to the Puna District. Ms. Mercado offered to provide Financial Impact Statement 205 (FIS) sheets with more information on specific projects as requested. 206 Vice-Chair Osborne asked about the status of the Pāhoa Master Plan and if a vendor had 207 been selected. Mr. Smith confirmed that the panel was currently reviewing applications. He 208 stated that the target was to have a firm identified, get the contract signed, and have the 209 work initiated within the next couple of months. 210 Ms. Mercado stated that County Council would be having their budget meetings on May 17-211 19 and that Planning Staff would send the information and links to the budget meetings to 212 AC members. She also reminded Puna AC members that they could provide testimony as 213 individual community members, but not on behalf of the AC. 214 Committee Member Kealoha questioned the appropriation for mass transit in relation to the 215 estimated cost. Ms. Mercado discussed the free mass transit system and offered to connect 216 the AC Members with the Planning Department’s Transportation Planner and with Mass 217 Transit Administrator, John Andoh. 218 Chair Brewer reshared Councilmember Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder’s comments in the Zoom chat, 219 stating that there was time until the last Council reading of the budget to add or amend CIP 220 projects. Ms. Mercado added that Action Committee members interested in adding or 221 amending CIP projects should work directly with their councilmembers. 222 The handout listing Capital Improvement Projects related to the Puna area (Communication Number 2022-10) 223 may be viewed in our public meeting folder here: 224 https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/edoc/115834/Communication%20No.%202022-225 10%20March%20CIP%20FY2022-23.pdf 226 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 7 PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: 227 1. Puna Brochure - relay information from investigatory subcommittee 228 2. Representative Ilagan to provide budget follow up and priority discussion 229 3. FEMA update on submitted proposals for Kīlauea Recovery 230 4. HDOT roundabouts/albizia update 231 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Kealoha moved to adjourn. Seconded by Committee 232 Member DeMello. The motion passes with 5 votes aye, 0 votes nay. 233 The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M. 234 These meeting minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s 235 Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public 236 Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department 237 by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@hawaiicounty.gov. 238 1  Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 1)  (Revised July 2018)  OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to the board’s staff, members of the public,  or one another in various situations when not in a meeting.  To help board members understand what  they can talk about outside a meeting, and with whom, OIP has put together a three‐part Quick Review.    1.Topics that Are Not ‘Board Business’ The Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board business, i.e., specific  matters within the board’s authority that are on a board’s upcoming agenda or reasonably likely to  appear on an agenda in the foreseeable future.  When board members are discussing matters that are  not board business, the Sunshine Law does not apply to restrict the discussion.  Thus, board members  could discuss with one another, or with anyone else:  o Matters unrelated to what the board does, such as the weather, sports teams, personal news, vacation plans, world events, or similar topics beyond the scope of the board’s responsibilities; o Matters related to what the board does, but that are not being considered by the board as a whole or a committee of the board at a meeting because they are ministerial (i.e., handled by staff) or within the Chair’s sole purview, such as scheduling of meetings, including which items will appear on which meeting’s agenda, members’ travel arrangements, logistical arrangements for an award ceremony, or similar topics; or o Matters that the board considered in the past but does not expect to reconsider in the foreseeable future because the matter has concluded, such as dedication of a completed baseball field that the board gave approval to at an earlier stage, or a report that the board was required to and did submit to a legislative body by a now‐past date. These sorts of matters can be discussed by board members in any number, and need not be discussed in  a meeting, because they are not board business at the time they are being discussed and, thus, the  discussion is not controlled by the Sunshine Law.   Board members may also attend lunches, social and ceremonial events, or board retreats,  without violating the Sunshine Law, so long as board business is not discussed, deliberated, or decided  upon.  Communication Number 2023-03 2    2. Staff, Lobbyists, and the General Public     The Sunshine Law only applies to boards and their discussions, deliberations, decisions, and  actions.  Because the Sunshine Law does not apply to a board member’s communications with people  who are not members of the covered board, a member may discuss board business with people who  are not board members outside of a meeting, without needing to fall into one of the permitted  interactions.  Board members, therefore, can freely talk or otherwise communicate with:     Citizens concerned about a particular issue   Reporters   Lobbyists   Board or agency staff   Other government officials, and   The general public.     It is possible that in some of those cases, the information from one board member will be  transmitted to other board members.  For instance, a lobbyist may be going from one county council  member’s office to the next to talk about a piece of board business and may carry information over, as  in, “Councilmember A said she’d be willing to support us on this if the bill is amended to cover frogs as  well.  Could you support that?”  However, this would not be considered a discussion directly between  the council members.  Similarly, a reporter might speak to multiple council members and say something  like, “Member B told me that the Board expects to reconsider the motion next month.  Can you confirm  that?”  Again, even though information was passed on, because the actual communication was through  a third party, it would not be considered a discussion between the board members.     Note: If board members would like to discuss board business with individuals who are not board  members, members should be mindful not to improperly disclose information that was part of an  executive meeting closed to the public, and may wish to consult with the board’s attorney in such  situations.   Information and materials provided by members to the staff may be incorporated into the  staff’s own analysis or report on a board matter and may be distributed by staff to the board  members in advance of a meeting.  The staff’s report should not identify individual board members’  positions on an issue, but can recognize and discuss the various viewpoints in general and provide  recommendations for actions.     Board members should also refrain from using staffers as mere go‐betweens to carry  messages between board members, as that could be found to be a discussion directly between board  members, depending on the circumstances.  Telling a staffer, “I have concerns about the direction we’re  taking on this issue and I’d like you to do some research on this aspect of it,” is fine, even if the staffer  tells other members, “Member C asked me to research this topic because of her concerns about the way  the board is handling the issue.”  But telling a staffer, “Please go tell Members D and E that I have  3    concerns about the way we’re handing this issue,” would be inadvisable, as it could be construed as a  serial communication with members D and E.     3. Other Board Members     As discussed above, the Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board  business.  When board members communicate to one another about board business, they need to do  so either in (1) a properly noticed meeting, or (2) in circumstances where the discussion is specifically  permitted by one of the Sunshine Law’s exceptions.  When board members are prohibited by the  Sunshine Law from discussing or communicating about board business face to face, they also cannot do  so by telephone, e‐mail, letters or memoranda, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, or any other  means of communication.      Before communicating with other board members outside a meeting, a board member should  check whether one of the Sunshine Law’s permitted interactions applies.  Permitted interactions are  specific circumstances in which the law permits board members to discuss board business outside a  meeting, so long as the statutory requirements are met.       The most frequently used permitted interaction, section 92‐2.5(a), HRS, allows two board  members to discuss any board business, without limitation, so long as they do not make or seek a  commitment to vote and do not constitute a quorum of their board.  This limitation on making a  commitment to vote does allow discussion of the two board members’ views and inclinations on an  issue, but prohibits, for example, horse‐trading of votes such as, “If you’ll agree to vote my way on this  issue, I’ll give you my vote on your pet project next month.”       The two‐person permitted interaction does not require any prior arrangement on the part of the  two members using it; they can run into each other on the street, e‐mail each other, or telephone each  other, so long as only two members are part of the discussion.  Other people who are not members of  the board can be present, as their discussions with board members are not regulated by the Sunshine  Law.     Permitted interactions cannot be used to circumvent the requirements or the spirit of the law  to make a decision or to deliberate towards a decision upon a matter over which the board has  supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.  Specifically, where two members have discussed an  issue using the two‐person permitted interaction, they cannot then extend the discussion out to other  board members through serial use of the permitted interaction.  If Member X called Member Y to talk  about the feral cat issue on the upcoming agenda, Member Y cannot then stop in the hallway to talk to  Member Z about it, as there would then be three members who were privy to the discussion.  Both  Member X and Member Y must refrain from discussing the feral cat issue with other members until after  the board has next discussed it at a meeting, which essentially clears the slate as to members’ previous  discussions.    4     The other permitted interactions listed in section 92‐2.5, HRS, generally require prior planning,  or apply only in certain circumstances, or both.  OIP will discuss them in the forthcoming Parts 2 and 3 of  this Quick Review series.  Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 1 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 2) (Revised August 2022) Hawaii’s Sunshine Law, Part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), generally requires board members to discuss all board business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to one another in various situations when not in a meeting. To help board members understand when they can talk to each other outside a meeting, OIP put together a three-part Quick Review. This Quick Review is the second in the series. Part 1 concerned discussions of matters that are not board business, and Part 3 will follow and explain “permitted interaction groups” (“PIGs”). The entire series, along with other educational materials, is posted on the training page of OIP’s website at oip.hawaii.gov. What constitutes board business was discussed in Part I. There are, however, a number of exceptions and “permitted interactions” that allow board members to have discussions outside of a meeting, even on matters that constitute board business. A few of these exceptions and permitted interactions are described below. Members should note that the Sunshine Law expressly states that no permitted interaction shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of the Sunshine Law to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. For this reason, permitted interactions generally may not be mixed and matched or used serially, as doing so can result in a discussion of board business outside a meeting that does not fit within the limits of any one of the permitted interactions and thus is not authorized under the Sunshine Law. 1.Selection of Board Officers (HRS § 92-2.5(c)) The selection of the board's officers may be discussed between two or more board members, but less than a quorum, in private without limitation or subsequent reporting. 2.Members May Continue to Accept Testimony When a Multi-site MeetingMust be Cancelled or Terminated (HRS §§ 92-2.5(d) and 92-3.5(c)) The Sunshine Law defines a “meeting” at HRS § 92-2 as the convening of a board for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. When a meeting must be cancelled for lack of quorum or terminated when quorum is lost during the meeting, the board members present may Communication Number 2023-04 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 2 nevertheless receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters under HRS § 92-2.5(d). Under HRS § 92-3.5(c), when a board is holding a multi-site meeting by interactive conference technology (ICT) and an audio connection to all meeting locations is interrupted for more than 30 minutes, the meeting must be terminated, even if a quorum of the board is physically present in one location. However, under HRS § 92-2.5(d), members present at one location may continue to receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters, but cannot discuss, deliberate, or decide such matters. Note that the permitted interaction under HRS § 92-2.5(d) specifically applies to HRS § 92-3.5(c) regarding multi-site meetings, and not when remote meetings held by ICT under HRS § 92-3.7 lose their audio or video connection. Also note that this permitted interaction does not address Sunshine Law requirements to continue a meeting, instead of terminating it, which are addressed in a different training document posted on OIP’s website at oip.hawaii.gov/training, “Quick Review: Continuance of a Meeting Under the Sunshine Law.” For both cancelled and terminated meetings, HRS § 92-2.5(d) requires that board members’ discussion, deliberation and decision-making on agenda items for which testimony or presentations are received must occur only at a subsequent, properly noticed meeting held after the cancelled or terminated meeting at which the testimony and presentations were received. And, members who received the testimony at a cancelled or terminated meeting are required to create a record of the oral testimony or presentations in the same manner as would be required for testimony or presentations heard during a meeting of the board. In other words, the members must keep notes of the receipt of testimony and presentations in the same manner that the board would keep minutes of testimony and presentations received at a meeting. Before deliberation or decision-making at a subsequent meeting, the board must provide copies of the testimony and presentations received at the cancelled meeting to all members. The members who were present at the cancelled or terminated meeting must also report about the testimony and presentations received. 3. Informational Meetings (HRS § 92-2.5(e)) Two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, may attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to official board business, including a meeting of another entity, legislative hearing, convention, seminar, or community meeting; provided that the meeting or presentation is not specifically and exclusively organized for or directed toward members of the board. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 3 The board members in attendance may participate in discussions, including discussions among themselves, provided that the discussions occur during and as part of the informational meeting or presentation and that no commitment relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought. At the next board meeting, the members who attended the informational meeting are required to report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to official board business at the informational meeting. 4. Circulation of Proposed Legislative Testimony (HRS § 92-2.5(h) A board that has previously adopted a position on a legislative measure may circulate its proposed testimony among board members for review and written comment when it does not have enough time to notice a meeting before a legislative deadline, so long as all proposed testimony drafts and board member communications about the testimony are publicly posted online within 48 hours of the testimony’s circulation to the board. This permitted interaction is best used for proposed testimony drafted by board staff or a single member, rather than by multiple board members using another permitted interaction to confer, in order to avoid conflicts with other permitted interactions as discussed in OIP’s Quick Review on Sunshine Law Options to Address State Legislative Issues and Measures, which is posted on the Training page at oip.hawaii.gov. 5. Discussions with the Governor (HRS § 92-2.5(f)) Discussions between the Governor and one or more board members may be conducted in private without limitation or subsequent reporting; provided that the discussion does not relate to a matter over which a board is exercising its adjudicatory function. Some boards that have adjudicatory powers include the: Hawaii Labor Relations Board; Labor and Industrial Relations Board; Hawaii Paroling Authority; Civil Service Commission; Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees; Crime Victim Compensation; and State Ethics Commission. 6. Discussions with Department Head (HRS § 92-2.5(g)) Discussions between two or more members of a board and the head of a department to which the board is administratively attached may be conducted in private without limitation; provided that the discussion is limited to matters specified in section 26-35, HRS. Section 26-35, HRS, provides that: Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 4 • department heads shall represent attached boards in communications with the Governor and the Legislature, unless otherwise requested by the Legislature; • a board’s financial requirements from state funds shall be submitted through the department head and included in the department’s budget; • rules adopted by the board are subject to approval of the Governor; • employment, appointment, promotion, transfer, demotion, discharge, and job descriptions of officers and employees of or under a board must be determined by the board subject to approval of the department head, and subject to applicable personnel laws; • purchases of supplies, equipment, or furniture by a board are subject to approval by the department head; • the department head has the power to allocate the spaces available for the board to occupy; • quasi-judicial functions of a board are not be subject to the approval, review, or control of the department head; and • the department head shall not have the power to supervise or control the board in the exercise of its functions, duties, and powers. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 1 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 3) (Revised December 2022) OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to one another in various situations when not in a meeting. To help board members understand what they can talk about when they are not in a meeting, OIP put together a three-part Quick Review. The entire series can be found online on OIP’s Sunshine Law training webpage at oip.hawaii.gov. Boards subject to the Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), are generally required to conduct all business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. This Quick Review discusses an exception to the open meeting requirement for “permitted interaction groups” or “PIGs,” as set forth in section 92-2.5(b), HRS. While other types of permitted interactions were previously discussed in Part 2 of this Quick Review series, this article explains how members of a board may form a PIG to investigate or to negotiate a matter. PIGs Established to Investigate Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum, may be assigned to investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board. In order for a board to take action on a matter investigated by a PIG, three separate board meetings must occur in the order described below. At the FIRST meeting of the full board, the investigative PIG is formed and the scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined. No new members or issues can be added to the PIG after the first board meeting. The PIG may then conduct its investigation outside of open meetings, which may take months to complete. At a SECOND meeting of the full board, the findings and recommendations of the PIG are presented to the board, but the board cannot discuss or act on the report at this meeting. •A PIG may present its findings to the full board in an executive session if the reason for entering into the executive meeting is one of those set forth insection 92-5(a), HRS, or other law. For example, if a PIG was created toinvestigate whether to take certain disciplinary action against an employee, itmay present its findings to the full board in accordance with section92-5(a)(2), HRS, which allows boards to enter executive meetings to consider the discipline of an employee. In such a situation, OIP generally recommends Communication Number 2023-05 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 2 that the PIG also present a “sanitized” report during the public session that omits the confidential information but informs the public of the general nature of the PIG’s findings and recommendations, so the public is at least generally informed of the PIG’s work and has something upon which to base testimony at the subsequent meeting where the board will discuss and perhaps act on the report. After the PIG makes its report to the board at the second meeting, the PIG is automatically dissolved and should not continue working. The Sunshine Law does not allow a PIG to make more than one report or to continue working on its assignment after its report, so a PIG should not be providing “updates” on its work or more than one report. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 on OIP’s Opinions page for an in-depth discussion on investigative PIGs. The board cannot discuss, deliberate, or make any decisions regarding the PIG’s report until a THIRD meeting held separately and after the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented by the PIG. Waiting until a subsequent board meeting to discuss and act on the PIG’s report gives the public the opportunity to present informed testimony at the meeting where the board will discuss and act on the report. Some Practical Considerations for Investigative PIGs • A PIG is fundamentally a permitted interaction with detailed reporting requirements, not a special type of committee. • Because they are a permitted interaction rather than a type of committee, PIGs are not subject to the Sunshine Law’s requirements for giving notice, holding open meetings, or keeping minutes. • PIG members may communicate by interactive technology (Skype, teleconference, etc.), and by email, telephone, etc., on matters within the scope of the PIG’s authority without violating the Sunshine Law. • Although a PIG is not required to hold public meetings, it can choose to do so if it wishes. • PIGs may solicit input from the public as part of an investigation without the need of filing a meeting agenda in accordance with the Sunshine Law. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 3 • A PIG may include among its members people who are not members of the board that created the PIG. A PIG may also consult with others (i.e., staff, members of the public, individuals with expertise in a field, stakeholders, etc.) in furtherance of its investigation, but should NOT consult with other members of its parent board. • Members of a board who are not part of the PIG may NOT attend PIG meetings or be included in PIG communications. • Before the PIG reports to the board, PIG members should not discuss the status of their investigation with other board members who are not part of the PIG. • A standing committee of a board may create a PIG, and such PIGs must follow all the requirements of section 92-2.5(b), HRS, including reporting back to the committee that created them. • Sometimes, it may be better for a board to establish a temporary committee instead of a PIG, or to delegate authority to one member to perform a task and report back to the board. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 at 15-16 for more information. • A PIG may continue its work after the loss of a PIG member. For example, if a PIG’s member’s term on the board ends, that member also ceases to be a PIG member, but the PIG can continue working with the remaining original members. The board should not substitute another board member into that vacant PIG position. The PIG’s membership was previously established at the initial meeting that created the PIG and new members cannot be added. The PIG can continue without the now-departed member, but if a board wants to change the PIG’s membership, it should first allow the current PIG to report back and automatically dissolve. After hearing the investigative PIG’s report and waiting until a subsequent board meeting to discuss and act on the report, the board can then create a new PIG to carry on the now-dissolved PIG’s work. • Similarly, once a PIG is formed, the board may not add new assigned tasks to an existing PIG. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 4 PIGs Established to Negotiate Another less common type of PIG can be formed when two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, are assigned to present, discuss, or negotiate any position adopted by the board at a meeting. The assignment of members to a PIG for the purpose of negotiation, and the scope of each member's authority, must be defined at a board meeting prior to the presentation, discussion, or negotiation. The three-meeting requirement for investigative PIGs does not apply to PIGs established to negotiate. As a final note, boards should keep in mind that they may be subject to other laws or rules in addition to the Sunshine Law, which could affect members’ ability to discuss pending matters. This may be particularly relevant for boards that exercise adjudicatory functions (which are not subject to the Sunshine Law), as they must generally avoid ex parte communications. Similarly, some boards are subject to confidentiality provisions outside the Sunshine Law, and if a board is involved in a procurement, it must follow procurement laws. Boards should consult with their own attorneys on the application of such laws and rules.