Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-10 Minutes DRAFT PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT 1 March 10, 2025 Public Meeting West Hawai'i Civic Center 74-5044 Keohokalole Hwy., Building A Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 I. CALL TO ORDER: On March 10, 2025, the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC) meeting was called to order at 10:12 a.m. by Chair Rosam, who welcomed all in attendance and introduced the Commissioners and PONC Staff.Those who were present constituted a quorum. Present: Deborah Chang, Commissioner CD-1 Amedeo Markoff, Commissioner CD-4 Deborah J. Ward, Commissioner CD-5 Jodie Rosam, Chair CD-6 La Crivello, Vice Chair CD-8 Vacant: District 2 District 3 District 7 District 9 Support Staff: Sylvia Wan, Deputy Corporation Counsel Representative (DCC) Hamana Ventura, Property Manager Department of Finance II. STATEMENT(S) FROM THE PUBLIC: Chr. Rosam opened the floor for public testimony and explained that testimony may be made at the beginning of the meeting or immediately preceding the agenda item being opened for deliberation by the Commission. JEROME KANUHA testified on Sugg. 25-03. Mr. Kanuha testified that the site should not be a parking lot but a historical site. DOUGLAS SIMMONS testified on Sugg. 25-03. Mr Simmons is the Executive Director for the Kailua Village Business Improvement District and says parking is a big issue; however, he feels turning the site into a parking lot is a mistake and should be green space. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 1 CHARLES YUNG testified; however, he did not specify which agenda he was testifying on. Based on his testimony, it is assumed he spoke on Sugg. 25-03. He said it would not be the right thing to build a parking lot, hotel, or any of their infrastructure. KARI KIMURA, SHANE AKONI PALACAT-NELSON, KEONE KALAWE, GRANT UYEHARA,JIM MEDEIROS, EDWARD RAPOZA; NOEAU O'BRIAN testified; however, they did not specify which agenda item(s)they were testifying on (though based on their testimony they were likely speaking in reference to Sugg. 25-03). All of these testifiers spoke in support of a site containing a "spring." There being no further testifiers at that time, Chr. Rosam continued to the next agenda item. V. NEW BUSINESS: 1. 2025 Suggestions: Commission will be reviewed, discussed, and interviewed the nominators of each suggestion (20 minutes per suggestion). a. Sugg. 25-01, Waiakahi'ula Burial &Agricultural Complex, Puna, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 1-5-063:042, 043 Chr. Rosam opened the floor to those wanting to testify on this suggestion. OLIA KAUKA testified in support of Suggestion 25-01 and emphasized the urgency of acquiring those properties. She said the landowner is planning to develop a vacation rental adjacent to the burial site and has violated the burial treatment plan and destroyed a portion outside the burial site within the last seven months. She also stated that the owner ran a machine to make a buffer zone which violates the burial treatment plan. ASHLEY KIERKIEWICZ, Council Member representing District 4, testified in support of Suggestion 25-01. She said her office was contacted by Noeau O'Brien to report findings of archaeological studies from the 1970s which identified a number of cultural and historical artifacts on this particular site. KEONE KALAWE testified in support of Suggestion 25-01. He said Waiakahi'ula is under threat right now because of the landowner and a resolution is needed to stop further desecration as there are burials and other important structures on the site. There being no further testifiers for this suggestion, Chr. Rosam invited the nominators of these parcels to the microphone. Chr. Rosam asked the nominator to share more about the investigation. The nominator Leah Gouker explained that state and county agencies had been to the site due to an infraction involving a known grave and there being machines in the area. SHIPD & BLNR will need to make a recommendation, which could take years. Cmr. Chang asked the nominator if it is possible for a vacation rental to operate there, Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 2 given the new changes that have occurred to the Planning Department's codes. Gouker responded by stating that there are all kinds of loopholes to get around things and it is unknown what kind of permit the owner would apply for. She continued by saying that no matter what is there to protect the site, she has zero faith in the owner to follow or uphold any requirements. No'eau Woo-O'Brien spoke and said the owner said that because he owns the property, he can do what he wants with it. V. Chair Crivello asked the nominator to provide the commission with the BTP (burial treatment plan) and then a conversation ensued regarding the BTP and the activities that the owner is conducting on the property. Cmr. Markoff apologized for being late, he joined he meeting at 10:12 am and then asked the nominator what the maximum fine is for this violation. The nominator stating that it is $25,000 per incident but isn't sure what constitutes an incident. Cmr. Ward asked if there could be an alternative buyer because the County process takes about two years and definitely will not be purchased in April 2025. Cmr. Ward continued her questioning and asked if other groups such as Nature Conservancy,Trust for Public Land, HILT, or any other potential buyers have been approached. The nominator said they have not looked into other groups because they feel this would be most appropriate and regardless of the owner's timeline, the owner will not build as they will not let that happen. They are strategizing and understand that the owner's timeline does not align with the reality of transferring the property into public ownership. Cmr. Ward then commented and said if takes a long time, there might be other sources that could hold the property in lieu of the County being able to purchase it so it is something to think about. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam continued to the next suggestion listed on the agenda. b. Sugg. 25-02, Kuamo'o Ahupua'a, North Kona, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 7-9-005:004, 005, 014, 015, 089 Chr. Rosam opened the floor to those wanting to testify on this suggestion. JIM VALDEZ testified in support of this nomination and said that all sacred sites need to be preserved. There being no further testifiers for this suggestion, Chr. Rosam invited the nominators of Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 3 these parcels to the microphone. Cmr. Chang first made a comment and thanked the nominator for this nomination as it is a very important property. She continued by stating that she didn't have many questions but noticed that there was one parcel on the archaeological report,the Schattauer property, which is 59.4 acres, but now it is 29.7 acres, so she wonders if it got subdivided. The nominator, who did not state their name, introduced Keoki Schattauer, who is one of the landowners and part of the family and has been steward of these properties for generations. He continued by saying that the parcel was 59 acres but was subdivided into two pieces to separate the family interest, but all of the family is in full support of this application for open space. He said his goal is to advocate for the entire coastline from Keauhou to Kealakekua Bay to be preserved. Cmr. Ward asked if this parcel is directly adjacent to the nomination submitted last year. The nominator said it is not directly adjacent. Chr. Rosam said when she googled the TMKs, it looked like there was a house on one of the properties. The nominator said yes,there's a small house and then asked Keoki Schattauer to speak to that. Keoki Schattauer introduced himself and then said that his uncle Bailey Paris told him the house was used as a bunkhouse for a few years for workers that worked in the area to rebuild rock walls that had been damaged by earthquakes. The bunkhouse hasn't really been used since then. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam continued to the next suggestion listed on the agenda. c. Sugg. 25-03, Kuakini Parking Lot, North Kona, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 7-5-006:001 Chr. Rosam opened the floor to those wanting to testify on this suggestion. There being no testifiers, Chr. Rosam called the nominators up to the microphone. Lynn Taube introduced herself by stating her name and said she is the nominator of this suggestion. V. Chr. Crivello began by asking Ms. Taube to confirm that the property was being nominated with the intent to develop a parking lot. Ms. Taube replied that the parking lot was presented as an option, and her thoughts were for it to be single-story. She acknowledged that a previous testifier mentioned it being a six-story parking lot, which isn't what she imagined, although it could happen. She continued by saying that even if a partial parking lot was put there, it would preserve the open space, and the spring could Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 4 still be preserved on the lower part of the property. V. Chr. Crivello continued by stating that it is apparent that the community is in support of the preservation of the property and that PONC may be an appropriate venue for acquiring the property for the protection of open space; however, the community does not seem to be in support of the intent to develop a parking lot, and the preservation of the spring is paramount over parking. She then asked the nominator if she would be open to the conversation of preservation rather than developing a parking lot. Ms.Taube said "Yes, absolutely." V. Chr. Crivello then asked if the landowner is open to allowing a site visit with community members and others who may be invested in the longevity of the space and its protection so that they can have further engagement with everyone present. Ms. Taube replied, "Yes,yes, yes." Cmr. Ward then addressed the nominator by expressing concern that if the land was purchased with the intention of building a parking lot, it could complicate future decisions about maintenance funding and community use if the parking lot is not ultimately constructed. She then asked the nominator if she would consider taking the emphasis of a parking lot off the purchase of the property. Ms. Taube said they would consider doing that. Cmr. Chang asked Ms. Taube if she was the one who applied for the SMA permit for the parking lot,to which Ms.Taube replied that she was. Cmr. Chang then asked why it was not pursued. Ms.Taube said the SMA permit was done in 2007, and the community in Kona was not ready to pay for parking at the time, and now, in 2025,they still are not ready to pay for parking. Vice Chr. Rosam was next to ask the nominator questions. She asked Ms.Taube where the spring is located on the property. Ms. Taube said the spring is on the lower part of the property. Cmr. Chang spoke again and asked if there is any trace of the spring. Ms. Taube said she isn't sure. Cmr. Markoff asked whether her intent of the proposed parking lot would be free or paid. Ms. Taube responded that she had assumed it would be free when presenting it to the County. She added that she does not intend to pursue development on the property but noted receiving significant interest from parties looking to develop a boutique hotel, which could be built up to six stories and obstruct ocean views. V. Chr. Crivello asked the nominator if she nominated the property to prevent a potential buyer from developing it into a boutique hotel. Ms. Taube said they have had a lot of interest from developers and people interested in hotels specifically, but they have not followed through with those interests because they knew there was a lot of community Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 5 support for preserving the historical significance of the property. Cmr. Markoff asked if the purpose of the park purchase is preservation, how does a parking lot facilitate that? Ms. Taube explained that the spring is located on the lower part of the property, which was included in the proposal in response to public opposition to paid parking. The idea was to possibly offer free parking that could connect to the existing county free parking lot nearby. It was also emphasized that the lower portion, where the spring is located, was always intended to be preserved. Cmr. Markoff then asked Ms. Taube if she could identify the square footage of the area to be preserved compared to the part that is intended for the parking lot. Ms. Taube said it is probably the lower third of the property. V. Chr. Crivello asked whether the proposed parking lot on the upper portion of the property would impact the springs located on the lower portion. She expressed concern about potential ground disturbance affecting the delicate springs and asked if any surveys or studies had been conducted to confirm that the development would not impact the springs. Ms. Taube said she is not qualified to answer that question and thinks a civil engineer may better answer it. V. Chr. Crivello then asked if anyone had been contacted and asked to provide that qualified information, to which Ms. Taube replied, "No. And after the testimony today, which this is the first time I've heard it too, there seems to be a lot of support for keeping the entire property,you know, preserved. No parking lot." Cmr. Markoff asked the nominator to clarify if they would be ok with there being no parking lot at all. Ms.Taube said yes. Cmr. Ward addressed the nominator and said the parking lot doesn't fit in with PONC's mission, so it is hard for the commissioners to imagine improvements for it, but for protection, it would be conceivable. Cmr. Markoff commented that there are usage issues with parking lots and then asked how a parking lot development and the preservation of a spring could co-exist. DCC Wan reminded the Commission that per the County Charter and Hawaii County Code, PONC funds are intended for acquiring land for public outdoor recreation, education, access, preservation, and protection of natural and cultural resources. She noted that limited infrastructure—such as parking lots or ADA-accessible walkways—may be permitted to support public access and emphasized that preservation and development are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam continued to the next suggestion listed on the agenda. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 6 d. Sugg. 25-04, Lyman Point, North Kona, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 7-7-004:025 Heidi Kent, representing the property owner and Lava Lecture Realty, presented updated diagrams and highlighted the property's alignment with PONC's mission. She emphasized the site's community access potential, waterfront location, and cultural and recreational values including surfing, reef fishing, and educational opportunities. Ms. Kent noted that the property contains two permitted homes and a permitted oceanfront swimming pool. She explained that the property currently has a tenant who must turn away people trying to access the water due to liability concerns. Ms. Kent proposed future uses such as a surf park, cultural center, music venue, visitor information center, or community gathering space. She also referenced the site's historical significance and archaeological context, stating that while nearby areas have documented ruins, this property has a clean archaeological report. Ms. Kent added that the property has been listed for two years and stressed the importance of preserving it rather than allowing redevelopment, given past public opposition to condominium development. Cmr. Chang asked Ms. Kent what condition the oceanfront swimming pool is in. Ms. Kent explained that the two homes on the property were built in the late 1950s and have had minimal remodeling since then.They are single-wall redwood construction with fir wood window framing,which is now heavily infested with termites. A caretaker currently resides in both the main house and the 'ohana, maintaining basic habitability, including roof repairs. The property has county sewer, water, and electricity,though the electrical and plumbing systems are not up to code. Ms. Kent noted that a previous proposal to turn the site into a cultural center raised concerns about long-term operational costs, and she suggested an alternative concept of converting the structures into a surf or viewing park with basic facilities like bathrooms and showers. Cmr. Ward asked Ms. Kent if she was privy to former Mayor Mitch Roth's discussion of not purchasing the property and if she knew why he felt that way. Ms. Kent replied that she became involved after the mayor turned it down. Cmr. Ward then asked Ms. Kent whether, given the expected high visitor traffic and related safety requirements, she had considered approaching the County's Parks and Recreation Department to purchase the property as a park, rather than pursuing acquisition through the PONC program. Ms. Kent responded that they had not approached the Parks and Recreation Department because they believed PONC was the more appropriate avenue. She shared that Councilwoman Villegas was lukewarm about the County purchasing it as a park due to existing maintenance strains on Parks and Recreation but supported the idea of using PONC funds, given the property's shoreline preservation value and its importance to local fishing and surfing traditions. Cmr. Ward asked whether there would be enough community support to manage the large number of visitors to the area. She questioned if Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 7 nonprofit stewards would have a consistent presence to oversee the property and whether any commitments from such groups had been secured. Ms. Kent stated that she spoke with Mayor Alameda after his election and sent him a full package of information about the property. She explained that public stewards had not yet been secured because the type of stewardship needed would depend on the property's intended use— different stewards would be needed for a cultural center versus a surf park.According to Ms. Kent, Mayor Alameda told her that if PONC was interested in acquiring the property, the County and his office would be willing to work with her to help identify appropriate public stewards to maintain the site. Ms. Kent further explained that if the property becomes a surf park, it would likely require typical Parks and Recreation management practices, including facilities like bathrooms, showers, and scheduled closure times. If used as a cultural center,the stewardship needs would differ, and she noted that the Kanuha Foundation had previously been proposed as a steward for the cultural center use. Cmr. Markoff asked Ms. Kent to confirm if the proposed steward for the cultural center was Betty Kanuha. Ms. Kent confirmed. Cmr. Markoff asked if the Kanuha Foundation is still active and whether it is capable of managing a property of this scale. Ms. Kent responded that while the Kanuha Foundation is still active, she does not believe it is viable enough to manage a cultural center that would require full ADA compliance and daily staffing for six to eight hours. She explained that if the property were instead used as a surf park, music venue, or visitor information center, the management needs and maintenance requirements would be very different. Cmr. Markoff asked Ms. Kent if she had a recent letter of intent from the Kanuha Foundation; Ms. Kent responded that she did not. An unidentified speaker(person did not state their name for the record)then commented that, although they were unsure about the full structure and mission of the Kanuha Foundation, they understood the organization is currently supporting the adjacent state park. V. Chr. Crivello asked Ms. Kent to confirm whether the intent of the application is to first protect the property and then engage with the community—including 'ohana and the County—to determine appropriate future uses. She noted that options such as a surf park remain open, but the final use and stewardship have not yet been decided or formally discussed. Ms. Kent confirmed that the intent to submit the nomination to PONC was based on advice from Mayor Alameda, who suggested submitting the application first and, if PONC showed interest,the County would then assist in identifying appropriate community organizations to support the property's future use, depending on what the community envisions. V. Chr. Crivello then asked whether Ms. Kent had been in contact with any'ohana or descendants from the area. Ms. Kent responded that her only communications so far have been with nearby property owners, including the Kanuha family, Canadian owners across the street, and others along AIN Drive. She noted that while some adjacent parcels could potentially be included in a larger preservation effort, Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 8 no formal discussions with descendant 'ohana or relevant community organizations have yet occurred. Cmr. Ward asked if property number 96 on the map—a 7,000 square foot triangular parcel—also has a willing seller and could be included in the purchase if there were interest. Ms. Kent confirmed that the owner of parcel 96 is a willing seller, even for potential development, but she has deliberately avoided marketing the property to commercial developers to prevent repeating past conflicts. She explained that, following discussions with Zendo Kern and the Planning Commission prior to the election, she was advised that the most likely use to gain Planning Commission approval—if the County or PONC did not acquire the property—would be a renovation or remodel of the existing homes. An unidentified commissioner asked whether the state property referenced in the application was considered dangerous. Ms. Kent responded that, based on conversations with surfers and her own experience spending extensive time at the property, many people prefer to access the ocean through Lyman Point due to its tide pools and a cut in the wall that leads to the water. She noted that the current access is challenging, which may explain why people attempt to enter through Lyman Point instead of elsewhere. An unidentified speaker added that they have observed surfers accessing the bay from Lyman Point and noted that the slope leading in and out of the bay appears slippery and difficult to navigate, supporting the concern about safety. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam continued to the next suggestion listed on the agenda. e. Sugg. 25-05, Kealoha Family Lo'i, North Kohala, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 5-2-009:025, 026 Chr. Rosam asked if any members of the public wished to testify on Suggestion 25-05. KEALOHA spoke in support of Suggestion 25-05, explaining that he recently inherited the property from his late mother. The land has been in his family for over 100 years and includes historic lo'i terraces and a stream that feeds into K26kea Bay. He emphasized his intent to honor his mother's wish to protect the land by placing it in conservation, preventing it from ever being sold. His son is currently stewarding the land, and they have made significant progress in restoring the lo'i. He also spoke about past efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to restore water flow to the stream after it was cut off, successfully proving it was not intermittent. He concluded by reaffirming his commitment to ensuring the land and waterway remain protected for future generations. BETH ROBINSON testified in support of Suggestion 25-05, speaking as a community Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 9 member, Director of Conservation and Legacy Lands, and Realtor-Broker for Hawai'i Life Real Estate, and a board member of Hawai'i Land Trust—the organization that submitted the suggestion. She highlighted the property's cultural, agricultural, and educational value, noting its location where two historic streams meet and its easy access for the community. She stated there is strong community support for protecting the land. There being no further testifiers, Chr. Rosam opened the floor to commissioners to begin their questioning of the nominator. Cmr. Chang asked about the security of the NRCS ACPP funding. The nominator(person did not state their name for the record) explained that while the funds are contracted and set to be released during escrow, they are not guaranteed and could be affected by a potential federal shutdown. If NRCS funding is lost, they hope the County would consider covering the full appraised value of the conservation easement. Cmr. Markoff noted that NRCS funding is currently frozen. The nominator clarified that while the funding is not officially frozen yet,they are monitoring the situation closely with USDA NRCS partners.They explained that NRCS covers up to 50%of the appraised value and that the project has applied for$150,000 based on an estimated $300,000 conservation easement value. They also noted a strong working relationship with NRCS and success with similar past projects. Cmr. Ward asked how critical the conservation easement is to supporting the lo'i and continued cultural practices. The nominator responded that it is essential, explaining that the current landowner inherited the property after his mother's passing and faces financial pressures to maintain ownership.The conservation easement would make it feasible for him to retain the land and continue its cultural and agricultural use. Originally, the property had to be listed for sale to help the previous owner qualify for Medicaid, but the family now wishes to preserve it for the community. The easement would ensure the land remains dedicated to stewardship, lo'i cultivation, and community use in perpetuity. Cmr. Ward asked whether having a conservation easement would reduce property taxes. The nominator responded that it might, depending on how the County Real Property Tax Office assesses the property after the easement is recorded. They noted that this would be handled post-closing and could involve potential exemptions. Cmr. Ward commented that the property seems like a gem and asked if, under the proposal, HILT, NRCS, and the County would be co-holders of the conservation easement.The nominator clarified that HILT is proposing to co-hold the easement with the County of Hawai'i,while NRCS does not require co-holdership but does require specific terms to be included in the easement document.The nominator added that these terms are referred to as "minimum gain terms" and offered to share them with the County. Property Manager, Hamana Ventura Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 10 told the nominator she could email the document to Property Management for distribution to the commission. With no more questions from the commission, Chr. Rosam called for a 10-minute break (she did not state a specific time). The meeting was called back to order at 12:15 p.m. f. Sugg. 25-06, Kokua Kealakekua, South Kona, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 8-1-009:007, 008 Chr. Rosam asked if any members of the public wished to testify on Suggestion 25-06. KANANI UNO testified in support of Suggestion 25-06, representing herself as a lineal descendant, cultural practitioner, and Director of Culture and Community Affairs for Ho'ola Kealakekua. She expressed gratitude to the Commission and emphasized the importance of honoring and protecting the land, elements, and ancestral cycles of Kealakekua. Ms. Uno shared an 'oli during her testimony, explaining that it is part of the organization's educational work to teach both residents and visitors how to respectfully engage with the sacred landscape of Kealakekua. She closed by thanking the Commission for their efforts in supporting restoration and stewardship. Shane Akoni Palacat-Nelsen provided testimony for Suggestion 25-06, identifying himself as a lineal descendant and long-time resident of Kealakekua Bay. He emphasized the heavy visitor traffic to the area, with over 700,000 visitors annually and 53,000 using the Ka'awaloa Trail, which lacks basic infrastructure, restrooms, and management. He described ongoing cultural site desecration and stressed the need for community-based stewardship. Mr. Palacat-Nelsen explained that Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui was formed specifically to steward culturally significant sites and to implement a code of conduct rooted in ancestral values. He noted the organization is working with the State to manage part of the trail and is seeking acquisition of the subject property to help guide visitors, protect resources, and restore native ecosystems. He urged the Commission to support the community's efforts, stating that their stewardship is not a project, but a kuleana (responsibility) passed down through generations. A representative from the Trust for Public Land testified in support of Suggestion 25-06, explaining that the organization works to protect land for Native Hawaiian communities through two main programs: Aloha 'Aina (focused on wahi pana and cultural stewardship)and Sustainable Hawai'i (focused on food,forest, and water resources). He emphasized the importance of the Kokua Kealakekua project, which involves two commercially zoned parcels near the Ka'awaloa Trail.The parcels are seen as a key location to educate visitors on cultural protocols before entering sacred areas of Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 11 Kealakekua. He noted that the Trust for Public Land is working in partnership with Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui and local lineal descendants, and that the goal is for Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui to own the land, with the County holding a conservation easement. The land is currently on the market and has received offers, but the landowner is willing to sell for conservation if terms are met. He also reported that the project was recently ranked 4th statewide in the State Legacy Land Conservation Fund cycle and was awarded $700,000, for which PONC funding would serve as the match. REYNA HAYASHI, Project Manager with the Trust for Public Land, testified in support of Suggestion 25-06. She emphasized the strong community backing for the project, noting that they submitted letters of support from about 35 organizations and a petition with approximately 50 signatures. She highlighted Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui's long-standing efforts, including a stewardship agreement with State Parks, and current work toward securing a lease for increased management authority. Hayashi stressed that the community is prepared, organized, and already actively stewarding the area. She described the project as part of a broader movement for community-led, culturally rooted co-management of public lands, and expressed hope that the County will support this effort. CHARLES YOUNG testified in support of Suggestion 25-06, sharing his background as a community member involved in co-managing Ho'okena Beach Park through the organization KUPA Friends of Ho'okena. He noted the impact of community stewardship in managing visitor growth and preserving cultural and natural resources. Young emphasized that while PONC reviews land acquisition proposals, it is ultimately about supporting the people who care for the land. He expressed appreciation for the Commission's work and stated his support for the efforts of Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui, noting that his organization collaborates with them and that Kanani serves on their boa rd. BETH ROBINSON testified again,this time as a member of the State's Legacy Land Conservation Commission. She explained that Kokua Kealakekua was ranked fourth in the most recent Legacy Land funding cycle, noting that the top three projects were separated by only a small margin. She shared that the project's lower score was primarily due to questions about whether the conservation values existed directly on the commercial- zoned parcel. However, the Commission ultimately recognized the importance of the parcel at the ahupua'a level, particularly as a central location for community gathering and education. There being no further testifiers, Chr. Rosam opened the floor to commissioners to begin their questioning of the nominator. Cmr. Chang asked the nominator who within the County they had spoken to regarding Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 12 jurisdiction over the upper part of Ka'awaloa Road.The nominator explained that the issue first arose during little fire ant testing, which led them to reach out to Councilmember Michelle Galimba. Initial research, including a court case involving the Parris family, indicated that the road is a county jeep trail, but the County has not confirmed jurisdiction. It remains unclear whether it falls under the Department of Parks and Recreation or Public Works. Cmr. Chang then inquired about a lease with State Parks. The nominator confirmed that they recently signed a lease for the lower part of the trail, which is within State jurisdiction, and noted that their current focus is on acquiring a property across the street, not the road itself. He added that Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui would assume responsibility for the upper portion if necessary. Cmr. Chang acknowledged that Ka'awaloa Road is likely a public road under County jurisdiction and suggested that Public Works may be the appropriate department to contact. She noted that the lack of clear jurisdiction complicates efforts to manage access and establish rules, which are key to the success of the project. The nominator agreed and stated that they had received advice not to include Ka'awaloa Road in the application due to the jurisdictional uncertainty, though they are open to pursuing a lease if possible. He expressed hope that PONC could support or help endorse those efforts in the future. V. Chr. Crivello asked the nominator to elaborate on how the nominated parcels connect to the broader cultural landscape, including Ka'awaloa, Kealakekua, and Keopuka. She emphasized that the properties are not isolated and are both impacted by, and have an impact on, surrounding areas. She asked for more information on how federal, state, and grassroots organizations are working together across multiple ahupua'a, and how the nominated space would serve not just as a parking area but as a community gathering place.The nominator, President of Ho'ola Kealakekua Nui, explained that the organization was established to unite community efforts in stewarding Kealakekua's natural and cultural resources. He described the nominated property as being located at Kealaehu, an ancient pathway tied to deep ancestral history, and shared a personal story reflecting the property's legacy as a gathering place for'ohana. He emphasized that the land is not intended to be used simply for parking but as a space to reconnect lineal descendants to place and support cultural restoration. He added that community partnerships include a range of collaborators—state, federal, and grassroots—working together to restore the area and reestablish traditional stewardship practices. An unidentified speaker further clarified that the two parcels are envisioned as a grounding space for education, cultural sharing, and stewardship support, potentially including uses such as a seed bank or native plant nursery.The space would serve as an entry point for those engaging with Ka'awaloa and the wider Kealakekua area. DCC Wan briefly interjected to clarify the original question, and V. Chr. Crivello confirmed that the intent was to understand the connectivity and broader purpose of the nominated parcels. Chr. Rosam then reminded attendees that approximately seven minutes remained for questions for this nomination. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 13 Cmr. Ward asked if the Ka'awaloa Trail historically continued mauka beyond the property under consideration.The nominator confirmed that it did, extending up to the forest line and a nearby watershed.Ward then asked about the position of Na Ala Hele on the trail and its mauka continuation. The nominator responded that while they reached out to Jackson at Na Ala Hele,they are not currently working with them. Instead,they are collaborating with the Ala Kahakai and noted that federal restrictions during the Trump administration have limited restoration activities, though some trail maintenance is still being conducted. He clarified that Na Ala Hele is a state agency that would typically work in the lower Kealakekua Bay area, which is not part of the current issue. Cmr. Chang asked about State Historic Site 7253, which was mentioned in the submittal, but for which no description was found. The nominator initially stated the site was believed to be in the state park area, but an unidentified speaker clarified that it appears to be on one of the two subject properties, according to the Kipuka database, although no specific description is provided. Cmr. Chang then asked about the condition of the house on the property. The nominator responded that it was built in the 1930s and is currently not safe to enter. Cmr. Markoff asked whether there were plans to demolish or restore it. The nominator said an assessment would be conducted first and emphasized the house is viewed with cultural respect, referring to it as"kupuna." Restoration is preferred if feasible, but no decision has been made. Cmr. Markoff then asked about what appears to be pavement or structures around the house in the aerial photo and whether those were part of the subject property or neighboring lots. The nominator confirmed that there is a small shed behind the house, which was historically used as a blacksmith shop by the owner's uncle for making horseshoes and recycling materials. When asked if that structure is the historic site, the nominator confirmed that it is, and reiterated that they hope to restore it if feasible, pending a full assessment. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam continued to the next suggestion listed on the agenda. g. Sugg. 25-07, Kumukahi, Puna, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 1-4-002:002, 017, 042, 047, 048, 058, 065, 072, 080, 081, 082, 085, 092, 100 Before opening the floor to any testifiers, Cmr. Markoff disclosed that he has personal ties to the area related to Suggestion 25-07 and recused himself from participating in the discussion, but he would remain present to listen to it. Chr. Rosam welcomed the first testifier to the microphone. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 14 Testifiers Tony Sina and Makua Freitas introduced themselves, with one identifying as the vice president of an organization (name unclear due to audio issues). They testified in support of Ho'oulu Lahui as the proposed steward for the Kumukahi parcel under Suggestion 25-07.The speaker emphasized the organization's 30-year track record in conservation, cultural stewardship, education, and community engagement. They highlighted widespread community support, noting that 14 landowners have agreed to concentrated stewardship in the area. The testimony stressed the urgency of protecting Kumukahi, especially with the reconstruction of Highway 137 underway, and urged the Commission to support Ho'oulu Lahui in ensuring the area's long-term protection for future generations. Kaimi [inaudible] testified in support of Suggestion 25-07, sharing that their'ohana has long-standing ties to Waiakahi'ula, Kumukahi, and Kama'ili.They expressed a strong desire for Kumukahi to remain a place for healing rather than becoming a tourist destination. They emphasized the cultural and familial importance of the area, noting it has historically been a space for their'ohana to heal. He described returning to the area after the 2018 lava flow and observing signs of natural recovery, including the return of native birds.They urged the Commission to support continued healing of the land and community, emphasizing that people have a responsibility to care for the 'aina. Jan Marshall testified in support of Suggestion 25-07, stating that as a local resident, she recognizes the area's significance to the Hawaiian community and its many cultural sites. She emphasized that it is long overdue for the land to be acquired and protected as public land. There being no further testifiers, Chr. Rosam opened the floor to commissioners to begin their questioning of the nominator. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Hawai'i County Council Member for District 4 and co-applicant for Suggestion 25-07, introduced herself and noted that she was joined by Uncle Keoni Kalawe, a lineal descendant of the area and president of the Kuamo'o Family Foundation, which is identified in the application as the lead stewardship entity. She also noted that Susie Ozborn of Ho'oulu Lahui was unable to attend due to a zoning matter being addressed at the Windward Planning Commission meeting in Hilo. In response to Cmr. Ward's question about a management plan, Kierkiewicz explained that while the County Council passed a resolution in 2023 urging property owners to collaborate with OHA and others to develop such a plan, no plan has materialized. She cited challenges with coordinating among the 14 parcels and seven different property owners, including two state agencies, each with differing circumstances. She stated that consolidating ownership under one entity would allow for the development of a comprehensive management plan. When asked if all property owners are aware of and support the proposal, Kierkiewicz confirmed she has spoken with each of them, and some provided Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 15 letters of support included in the application. She also noted that state agencies, including DLNR and the University of Hawai'i, have expressed a willingness to explore efficient pathways to transfer their portions of land through executive order. Cmr. Chang asked about a line in the application referring to Kuki'i Heiau as being associated with navigation, astronomy, and "the art of poison," seeking clarification on the latter term. An unidentified male explained that the "art of poison" involves traditional knowledge of using plants and fish not necessarily to kill, but for purposes such as studying or affecting individuals. He emphasized that the primary traditional practices associated with Kuki'i Heiau are navigation and astronomy, highlighting the cultural connection between Kumukahi, where the sun rises, and Kuki'i, where it sets. He shared that he is the kahu of Kuki'i Heiau and has led its cultural and educational programs for over 30 years. He also described his familial and cultural ties to the area, noting his connection to other significant heiau in Kalapana and Kohala. He recounted visiting coastal cemeteries in Kumukahi from a young age and shared a story of how the 'iwi kupuna from one of the graves was disturbed in 1999 by outsiders.Those remains have yet to be returned, underscoring the urgent need for proper management in the area. He emphasized that numerous nonprofit organizations, hula practitioners, navigators, and cultural groups—including the Royal Order of Kamehameha—are committed to collaborating on stewardship of Kumukahi. Chr. Rosam asked how long it took to contact all of the property owners involved in the Kumukahi proposal. Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz explained that while the Roth administration had been engaging stakeholders since the pandemic, no application had materialized by early 2025. Upon learning that no one planned to submit, she initiated outreach and within 48 hours successfully made voice contact and obtained written communication from all property owners. She stressed the urgency of the situation, noting that since the 2018 lava flow,the lack of a coordinated management plan has remained unresolved. Kierkiewicz warned of increasing public use of the area due to a newly opened road and beach access, and emphasized the critical need to consolidate ownership—especially from the state—in order to move forward. She expressed her commitment to advancing the effort during the remaining 20.5 months of her council term. Cmr. Ward asked whether the property owners would agree to a site visit. Previously, the commission was denied. Kierkiewicz said all property owners have expressed openness and that she would coordinate with them if the Commission wished to proceed with a visit. Cmr. Ward also asked about current tourist activity in the area. An unidentified male speaker noted growing concerns about unmanaged visitor impacts, including people hiking in unprepared, vehicles parking on the beach, and threats to wildlife such as monk seals and turtles. Kierkiewicz added that the lack of restrooms has led to desecration of culturally sensitive sites and stressed the urgency of management. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 16 She said their team has consulted with stewards at H5'ena on Kaua'i,who developed a successful model for managing cultural and environmental access. Cmr. Ward asked whether a similar visitor fee structure could be implemented. Kierkiewicz responded that such conversations are already occurring in Puna, including ideas modeled after Friends of Ho'okena,where non-residents pay higher use fees. She said sustainable funding is essential to support community-based stewardship due to county budget constraints. Cmr. Ward then inquired about the feasibility of lifeguard services. Kierkiewicz said the idea should be explored given past emergencies involving swimmers and fishermen. DCC Wan clarified that lifeguard coverage falls under the Hawai'i Fire Department and would depend on whether the land becomes county property and is designated as a county beach. While not currently feasible, it is a possibility if certain conditions are met. Chr. Rosam asked if any of the properties are actively listed or have a threat of selling in the very near future. Ms. Kierkiewicz said not to her knowledge. There being no further discussion, Chr. Rosam proceeded to the next agenda item. h. Sugg. 25-08, Waiakahi'ula Village Ocean Access, Puna, Hawai'i. TMK(3) 1-5-088:009, 010, 011, 012, 013 Chr. Rosam opened the floor to testifiers for Suggestion 25-08. An unidentified testifier spoke in support of preserving Waiahaki'ula, emphasizing its historical use as a fishing village by 'ohana from the area.They expressed concern about ongoing and potential construction on the property, noting that one house has already been built near the end of Kahakai, obstructing ocean views. The testifier warned that further development could destabilize the coastal land due to erosion from wave action and the impact of construction equipment. They urged the Commission to preserve the site for traditional fishing practices, stressing the importance of allowing families to remain in their ancestral area and maintain their cultural livelihood. No'eau O'Brien testified in support of the nomination for Waiahaki'ula, identifying himself as the kahu 'aina of the area. He shared that on July 3, 2024,the beach park was officially renamed back to Waiakahi'ula Beach Park, and he formally assumed his role as cultural guardian through ceremony and ritual. He emphasized the importance of protecting the burial sites, village areas, and traditional fishing grounds within the ahupua'a. Speaking on behalf of Waiakahi'ula, he urged the Commission to recognize the community's need for protection and preservation of the area. Leah Gouker testified in strong support of the preservation of Waiakahi'ula, describing it as a historically significant and once-extensive fishing village located makai of Pahoa town. She noted that the area spans a large portion of the ahupua'a, including Hawaiian Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 17 Beaches, Pahoa Elementary and Intermediate Schools, and is rich in cultural and archaeological sites—many of which have already been destroyed. Gouker referenced a 1974 Bishop Museum survey that documented the site before burial protections existed and shared that the village was mentioned in early Hawaiian writings by missionary William Ellis. She expressed concern about the disconnect between current residents and the cultural identity of the land, including instances where graves are unacknowledged or disrespected.As a teacher, she emphasized the importance of place-based education for Native Hawaiian students, stating that restoring pride, knowledge, and stewardship among youth is critical for community health and for addressing broader challenges, such as substance abuse. Jan Marshall, co-sponsor of the Waiakahi'ula proposal, addressed the Commission to provide an update and additional context regarding the nomination. She informed the Commission that what she considers the "key parcel" in the proposed area has recently been listed for sale. She noted that while the parcel appears suitable for building, it is vulnerable to ocean wash during storms,which may result in buyer's remorse and present an opportunity for future acquisition. Marshall emphasized the cultural and community importance of the area, particularly for nearby Hawaiian Shores and Hawaiian Beaches residents, many of whom are Native Hawaiian and historically fished these coastal areas. She described the site as one of the few accessible oceanfront spots in the region that is frequently used by local residents for fishing, walking, and gathering. Marshall proposed that five parcels in total could be acquired to create over an acre of protected ocean access and parking. She noted that although the land may not be ideal for development, it has great potential for public use and could be acquired gradually as owners become willing to sell. Cmr. Chang asked why the particular parcel Jan Marshall referred to receives more use than others. Marshall explained that it's due to the topography—the back of the lot is quite steep while the front is flat, making it easily accessible for fishing and ocean viewing. She noted that people often drive down Government Beach Road to stop, take photos, or simply enjoy the view. The lot functions as a small scenic spot amidst a rapidly developing neighborhood, with new houses regularly being built. Chr. Rosam asked Jan Marshall and a previous testifier if they were aware they had both submitted proposals for the same area. Several speakers responded "no," and Marshall explained she had independently developed her proposal after observing significant public use of the site over the years. She noted that although the proposals were submitted separately,they are connected as part of the broader historic village area and align with the previously approved Honolulu Landing site. Chr. Rosam then asked whether a more cohesive stewardship group might now form between the submitters. Marshall replied that the area is already well-maintained by Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 18 local residents who routinely pick up trash during their walks and noted there is minimal litter at the site. She added that community cleanups are already held at nearby Honolulu Landing. Cmr. Ward commented on the broader historical context of the Hawaiian Shores coastline and asked about cooperation among nonprofits. Marshall confirmed she had spoken with Eileen O'Hara of Malama O Puna,who expressed likely interest in participating in stewardship if asked. She acknowledged the proposal was submitted quickly and O'Hara had not yet taken it to her board. Marshall added that, in her view, the neighborhood residents are capable of organizing stewardship efforts themselves. Cmr. Markoff noted that having a non-profit involved is important for accessing PONC maintenance funding and supporting long-term stewardship. Ms. Marshall responded that she was not previously aware of that funding connection but mentioned Malama O Puna as a group that might be interested, along with a Native Hawaiian organization she did not name specifically. Chr. Rosam explained that PONC provides maintenance funds through an annual process. Ms. Marshall inquired if that would strengthen the application. Chr. Rosam confirmed that knowing a property would be actively stewarded is important. Chr. Rosam then asked what kind of stewardship Marshall envisioned. Marshall replied that,given the lot's topography—where the back half is steep and mostly unused— stewardship would likely consist of light maintenance such as litter pickup. She noted the area has a strong history of self-maintenance by local walkers and residents, because the parcel owners are not in Hawai'i. Cmr. Markoff informed the nominator, Ms. Marshall, that PONC maintenance funds may also be used for erosion control and invasive species mitigation. Ms. Marshall acknowledged she was unaware of that and stated she hasn't observed any invasive species on the property but would be open to organizing community efforts if needed. Cmr. Markoff further advised that having more established nonprofits or invested community groups involved would strengthen the application, as it demonstrates community commitment and improves the Commission's confidence in the stewardship plan. Marshall asked whether additional information could still be submitted. Chr. Rosam confirmed that new information or updates could be submitted as communications to the Commission. Cmr. Chang clarified that decisions are expected in July, and Cmr. Ward advised that any supplemental materials should ideally be submitted in May, ahead of site visits scheduled for June. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 19 There being no further discussion regarding the suggestion, Chr. Rosam thanked everyone for their participation and acknowledged the long day and hard work involved. She informed attendees that the Commission would now move into the portion of the meeting where Permitted Interaction Groups (PInGs) are assigned to conduct site visits. The next Commission meeting is scheduled for May, and site visits will need to be conducted promptly. Chr. Rosam added that while attendees are welcome to stay and observe the remainder of the meeting, they may also leave if needed. 2. Form Permitted Interaction Groups (PInG)for site visits to the eight (8) 2025 Suggestions, select commission members, discuss the scope of the Permitted Interaction Groups, and establish the deadline for the reports. Motion by V. Chr. Crivello to form Permitted Interaction Groups (PInGs)for each of the eight nominations was seconded by Cmr. Markoff.The commission engaged in discussion; however,the recording was inaudible due to multiple participants speaking simultaneously. V. Chr. Crivello then made a motion to amend the original motion to specify the composition of each of the eight PINGS. Suggestion 25-01: Crivello, Ward, Rosam, and Markoff Suggestion 25-02: Crivello, Markoff, and Chang Suggestion 25-03: Crivello, Markoff, and Ward Suggestion 25-04: Crivello, Markoff, and Ward Suggestion 25-05: Crivello, Chang, Ward, and Markoff Suggestion 25-06: Crivello and Rosam Suggestion 25-07: Crivello, Ward, and Rosam Suggestion 25-08: Crivello, Rosam, Ward, and Markoff Chr. Rosam requested a roll-call vote on the amended motion, and all commissioners present voted "Aye." Chr. Rosam emphasized the urgency of coordinating site visits for each of the eight nominations. She noted that in order for the commission to complete and submit Permitted Interaction Group (PInG) reports in time for the next meeting, they must be finalized by April 28.To meet this deadline, she advised that all site visits should ideally be completed by April 18. She reminded commissioners that it is the responsibility of the PInG to obtain written permission from landowners before any site visit occurs; email confirmation is sufficient, even if it's a simple "yes." Commissioners were encouraged to begin scheduling immediately and ensure contact information is shared before adjourning. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 20 There being no further discussion regarding New Business, Chr. Rosam returned to the agenda item regarding the approval of previous meeting minutes. III. MINUTES: a. Minutes (draft) of October 7, 2024 meeting. b. Minutes (draft) of November 18, 2024, regular meeting. c. Minutes (draft) of January 13, 2025, regular meeting. Chr. Rosam asked if everyone had reviewed the drafts of the past three meetings. Upon confirmation, she requested a motion to approve the minutes. Cmr. Chang made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2024 meeting. The motion was seconded by Cmr. Markoff. Chr. Rosam then opened the floor for discussion or comments regarding the minutes. Cmr.Ward stated her intention to vote "no" on the motion. She explained that she believed the minutes did not fully capture the pertinent details of the meeting and apologized for having to vote against their approval. Chr. Rosam asked if Cmr. Ward had anything further to add. Cmr. Ward replied that she did not, other than her intention to vote "no." DCC Wan then advised that, because only five commissioners were present(just meeting quorum),the vote on the motion would require unanimous "aye" votes in order to pass. Pursuant to the Hawai'i County Charter, a majority of the membership must vote in the affirmative for the board to take any action. Cmr.Ward then inquired whether the recording of the October 7 meeting was available. She said she would be willing to help revise the minutes if a recording could be accessed. She referenced a rule adopted in 2023 that required the inclusion of commissioner-requested information in the minutes, which she believed had not been followed in this instance. Cmr. Ward explained that Finance had provided a written report at that meeting, but there was no mention of it in the minutes. She also believed that several of her questions during the meeting had not been documented. Cmr. Markoff asked Cmr. Ward what specifically she felt was missing from the minutes. Cmr. Ward reiterated that the Finance report and her questions should be included, and that it was important for commissioners who were absent to be aware of the information shared at the meeting. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 21 DCC Wan explained that Cmr. Ward could suggest a friendly amendment to the motion to approve the minutes, but that any such amendment would need to be clearly stated, including the page and section where changes should be made.This would allow the minutes to be approved "as amended." Chr. Rosam confirmed that the request would need to be explicitly stated. Cmr. Markoff asked Cmr. Ward if she was ready to provide that specific amendment. Cmr. Ward responded that she had the October 7 minutes pulled up on her laptop earlier during the meeting but lost internet connection, preventing her from accessing the document at that moment. Cmr. Markoff suggested that the commission could move on to the next set of minutes and return to this item later. DCC Wan stated that the commission could table the current motion and return to it later in the meeting. Cmr. Chang moved to table the motion for the approval of the October 7, 2024 minutes. The motion was seconded by Cmr. Markoff. Chr. Rosam asked for a vote, and several "aye" votes were heard. Cmr. Ward stated that she was unable to access the internet at the meeting location, preventing her from pulling up the minutes on her device. DCC Wan reiterated that the motion had been tabled and could be brought back later in the meeting. She suggested that the Chair call a short recess to allow Cmr. Ward to prepare a specific amendment.There was overlapping speech between Cmr. Ward and Cmr. Markoff during DCC Wan's comments, but DCCWan continued, recommending that Cmr. Ward use the break to draft her suggested edits. Chr. Rosam asked if a short recess sounded acceptable and proposed a five-minute break. She announced that the meeting would resume at 2:11 p.m. The meeting was called to recess. The meeting was called to order at 2:13 p.m. Chr. Rosam recalled the pending motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2024 meeting. She reminded the group that a motion had already been made and seconded, followed by discussion. She indicated the next step was to hear any proposed amendments. Cmr. Ward stated that she would like to offer a friendly amendment. At that point, Cmr. Markoff began speaking, but his comments were inaudible. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 22 DCC Wan clarified the procedure, stating that as a commissioner, Cmr. Ward could suggest a friendly amendment to the mover of the original motion. Cmr. Ward then formally suggested that the mover adopt the following friendly amendment: that the minutes reflect that Mr. Brown from the Department of Finance provided written communication, followed by discussion. DCC Wan added clarification based on conversations held during the recess, stating for the record that the amendment referred specifically to Section 4 of the draft minutes, titled "Department of Finance Report." Cmr. Ward confirmed that was correct. DCC Wan then reiterated the full language of the proposed addition: "Mr. Brown provided a written communication after which there was a discussion." Chr. Rosam asked the original motion maker, Cmr. Chang, to restate the motion with the amendment included. Cmr. Chang moved that the draft minutes of October 7, 2024 be amended as stated by Cmr. Ward. Chr. Rosam asked for a second. Cmr. Markoff seconded the amended motion. Chr. Rosam asked if there was any further discussion on the amendment. None was offered. Chr. Rosam called for a vote. "Aye"votes were heard from those present. She then confirmed, the motion passed. Following the vote on the amendment, Chr. Rosam noted that the Commission still needed to vote on the original motion to approve the October 7, 2024 minutes, as amended. She called for a vote, and "aye"votes were heard from the commissioners. Chr. Rosam confirmed that the minutes were approved as amended. Chr. Rosam called for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2024 meeting, as corrected. Cmr. Chang made the motion, and Cmr. Markoff seconded. Chr. Rosam asked if there was any discussion; hearing none, she called for a vote. All commissioners present voted "aye," and the motion passed. Chr. Rosam then requested a motion for approval of the January 13, 2025 meeting minutes. Cmr. Chang moved to approve, and Cmr. Markoff seconded. Chr. Rosam again asked if there was any discussion;there was none. She called for a vote, and all present voted "aye."The motion passed. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 23 Chr. Rosam acknowledged that all three sets of minutes had been approved and thanked the commissioners. There being no further discussion regarding the minutes, Chr. Rosam moved on to the next agenda item. IV. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REPORT: Report on signage and access policies. Hamana Ventura, Property Manager, presented the Department of Finance report in response to a question raised at the previous meeting regarding county signage policies for PONC properties. He explained that a unified signage policy has not yet been developed. Because properties acquired under PONC vary in use; some being suited for preservation, others for recreation; the department has been working to coordinate with other departments, such as Parks and Planning, to move toward a more consistent approach. Mr. Ventura showed the commission samples of signs that have been used on properties like Puapua'a and Hale O Ka'ili to educate the public and guide behavior. He mentioned that signs are also used in areas such as La'aloa (Magic Sands), where there have been challenges related to homelessness and improper public use. While there is no formal signage policy at this time, Mr.Ventura stated the department is actively trying to find practical solutions. Cmr. Chang asked what a stewardship group would need to do to post one of the signs Mr. Ventura presented. Mr.Ventura responded that stewards should contact the Department of Finance, which would then assess the request. He shared examples from Kawa where signs have been deployed due to public use and the need to protect sensitive areas, such as archaeological sites. Cmr. Ward inquired whether there is any current provision for groups to request permission to enter the property for larger gatherings (e.g., 30 to 150 people) and whether that process would involve the County or a nonprofit steward. Mr.Ventura replied that no such policy currently exists. Chr. Rosam asked if there was any way the commission could assist. Mr. Ventura said suggestions would be welcome, particularly given the jurisdictional complexity of properties that might have characteristics of Parks-managed lands. Cmr. Ward proposed forming a Permitted Interaction Group (PInG)to explore whether policies similar to Parks and Recreation guidelines could be adapted for PONC properties, with adjustments based on the nature of each site. She added that this topic had been raised at a previous meeting as a potential agenda item but was not placed on the current agenda. Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 24 Chr. Rosam noted that because the topic was not listed on the agenda, the commission could not formally act on it at this meeting. V. Chr. Crivello asked Cmr. Ward to clarify what type of PInG she was proposing. DCC Wan advised that such a discussion should take place under the "Announcements" portion of the meeting agenda (Item II)to comply with meeting procedure. Mr. Ventura confirmed that his report was concluded. Cmr. Chang asked whether there was a target date for completing the signage policy, to which Mr.Ventura replied there was not. Cmr. Chang then asked which departments Finance would need to collaborate with, and Mr. Ventura listed Planning, Parks, and others. DCC Wan asked for clarification on what kind of policy Mr.Ventura was referring to. Mr. Ventura confirmed the department was working on a signage policy specific to open space properties. DCC Wan acknowledged that, clarifying her earlier confusion that multiple policy issues were being discussed simultaneously. She reiterated that Mr. Ventura's work appeared focused on signage policy, while the broader matters raised by Cmr. Ward, such as access and use protocols, could extend beyond the commission's authority and would be revisited later in the meeting under announcements. The discussion on this agenda item concluded. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1. The next public meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 12, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 2:00 p.m. at the Hawai'i County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo Council Chambers, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Chr. Rosam announced that the next meeting is scheduled for May 12 at the Hilo Council Chambers. At that meeting, the site visit reports are tentatively scheduled to appear on the agenda. However, she clarified that the Commission will not engage in discussion of the reports at that meeting, they will simply be acknowledged. She reminded commissioners to submit their site visit reports to the Department of Finance no later than April 28. 2. Suggested agenda items for the regular meeting on Monday, May 12, 2025. Chr. Rosam asked if Cmr.s had any suggestions for future agenda items. Cmr. Ward suggested forming a Permitted Interaction Group (PIG or PInG)to begin developing policies applicable to PONC properties, using existing Parks and Recreation policies as a potential framework. DCC Wan asked if the request was to agendize discussion or to form the PInG. V. Chr. Crivello asked for clarification about the purpose of the proposed PInG and whether Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 25 it was appropriate to have that discussion at the current time. DCC Wan confirmed it was appropriate to ask questions for the purpose of clarifying what should be agendized. Cmr. Ward explained that her intent was to use Parks and Recreation policies—such as those on signage, access permissions, fundraising, and management—as a reference to develop policy suggestions tailored for PONC. DCC Wan responded that the proposed activity sounded beyond the commission's scope as defined in Hawai'i County Code Section 2-217,which limits the commission's authority to matters related to acquisitions, stewardship grants, and the maintenance fund. V. Chr. Crivello attempted to reframe the suggestion as a way to support the Department of Finance, noting that the goal was not to adopt policies but to inform future efforts. Cmr. Ward said the goal was to offer suggestions, not directives, that could be useful to the department. Mr. Ventura clarified that while Finance has not developed official signage policies, they were actively assessing needs and working with limited staff. He said further guidance could be helpful if and when the department moves forward with formal policy development, but noted it was beyond his level to lead that effort. DCC Wan reiterated that while commissioners may want to be helpful, developing or recommending policies beyond maintenance, acquisitions, and grants would exceed their formal duties. V. Chr. Crivello acknowledged that, based on current priorities and readiness, it might not be appropriate for commissioners to engage in policy development at this time. Chr. Rosam concluded that while commissioners were welcome to pursue efforts outside of PONC in their personal capacities,the proposal to form a policy-focused PInG would not be appropriate for this commission at this time. In light of this, Cmr. Chang asked whether forming a PInG focused specifically on signage might fall within the commission's scope. DCC Wan responded that even signage was likely outside the commission's formal responsibilities unless it was tied directly to a stewardship or maintenance grant. V. Chr. Crivello proposed that if commissioners wanted to focus on signage,they could form a PInG to talk with stewards about their signage needs—not to create policies but to gather feedback. She emphasized this would be a more practical and contained action. Chr. Rosam supported this idea, offering advice to focus strictly on signage during those conversations to avoid scope creep into unrelated stewardship concerns. V. Chr. Crivello asked for clarification on the wording of the agenda item. Chr. Rosam suggested it could be "to form a PInG to talk to stewards about signage needs," specifying that the group would engage with current or recent stewardship grant applicants. Cmr. Markoff supported the idea but reiterated that broader issues faced by stewards Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 26 should also be addressed eventually, noting signage is just one of many concerns. Chr. Rosam acknowledged this and referenced prior discussions about convening all stewards for a collective discussion or gathering Cmr. Ward proposed forming a PInG (Permitted Interaction Group)to begin developing policies for PONC properties, possibly drawing from Parks and Recreation's existing policy framework. DCC Wan advised that the commission's authority, as outlined in Hawaii County Code Section 2-217, is limited to reviewing and making recommendations related to land acquisitions, stewardship grant applications, maintenance fund requests, and priority lists. She clarified that creating policy for county-managed lands falls outside the scope of the commission's kuleana. Commissioners discussed whether the idea could still be useful in a supporting role to Finance, with Mr. Ventura noting that Finance has not yet developed sign policies and that such work may be outside his role. Cmr.Ward emphasized that her intention was not to burden staff but to explore ways the commission could be helpful. V. Chr. Crivello suggested that perhaps rather than forming a PInG to create policy, the commission could instead speak with current stewards about their signage needs. Chr. Rosam and DCC Wan agreed this would stay more clearly within the commission's scope, as it could help inform future maintenance fund requests. The discussion shifted to whether a focused PInG could be formed specifically to engage stewards from 2022 to 2024 on signage needs. Chr. Rosam emphasized the importance of maintaining that scope during such outreach so that broader complaints or unrelated issues wouldn't derail the effort.The commission agreed to place this item on the next meeting's agenda. Commissioners also discussed another agenda item: forming a second PInG to begin planning a future stewardship recipient forum. This forum would be a space for stewards to connect with one another and the commission.The term "forum"was selected over "summit"to avoid inflated expectations.The commission agreed to also place this item on the next agenda. Cmr. Chang reminded the group that there were still two outstanding PInGs that had yet to report,though both she and Cmr. Ward confirmed they were not ready to present. The commission chose not to agendize those reports for the upcoming meeting, acknowledging the limited time available due to scheduled site visits. Cmr. Markoff raised concerns about vacant commission seats and asked if any updates were available from the Mayor's Office. V. Chr. Crivello suggested adding PONC recruiting as an agenda item, but DCC Wan clarified that commission appointments fall under the jurisdiction of the Managing Director and Mayor's Office. DCC Wan encouraged members to Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 27 recruit individuals from the districts with vacancies and confirmed that staff regularly follow up on open appointments across boards and commissions. Cmr. Ward asked how to identify the districts referenced in PONC recruitment materials, noting that the terminology sometimes conflicted with council district maps. V. Chr. Crivello and others responded that each district's ahupua'a is listed in the report to the Mayor, and Chr. Rosam confirmed that's where she sees the breakdown as well. With no further items to discuss and Cmr. Markoff needing to leave, Chr. Rosam asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was made and seconded (though the name of the mover was unclear), and the vote passed by voice. (Need to add Adjourned) PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER JODIE ROSAM, Chairperson Draft posted: Draft 2 posted: Draft 3 posted: Approved: Approved posted: Draft 1 -Minutes of March 10, 2025 Page 28