Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION     NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 11, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. Kapālama Hale – Room 153 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96817 AND VIA WEBEX This meeting location is open to public participation. Other available options include participating by computer, phone or by video system. WebEx and phone-in instructions are as follows: Meeting Link: https://cchnl.webex.com/cchnl/j.php?MTID=mc3d32a91bb535825f8aff5d667a31a6a Meeting Number / Access Code: 2483 468 0105 Password: NC00 (6200 from phones and video systems) Join by Phone: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll MEETING POLICIES – Adopted July 25, 2023 Recordings of Board meetings can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@NeighborhoodCommissionOffice Meeting Materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0 Rules of Speaking: Anyone wishing to speak is asked to raise his or her hand, and when recognized by the Chair, to address comments to the Chair. Speakers are to keep their comments under two (2) minutes. Public testimony taken on each agenda item. Please silence all electronic devices. Note: The Commission may take action on any agenda item. As required by the State Sunshine Law (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92), specific issues not noted on this agenda cannot be voted on, unless properly added to the agenda. I. CALL TO ORDER – Committee Chair Larry Veray A. Time Limit Policy and Procedures B. All participants are to sign in for in-person or virtually identify yourself on WEBEX C. Roll Call of Neighborhood Plan Committee Members (All committee members must have their video turned on) II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES A. Monday, April 20, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record III. NEW BUSINESS A. Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No 34 and Nanakuli Neighborhood Board 36 is proposing a Ko Olina joint jurisdiction change to the Neighborhood Plan boundaries for their respective areas B. Neighborhood Commission Office to brief their survey results on items related to potential changes to the Neighborhood Plan C. Committee to review Chapter 14 Rules of Neighborhood Boards of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required. Committee Review: 1. §2-14-106 Absences and removal process; resignation 2. §2-14-107 Reporting change of residency 3. §2-14-108 Disqualification by relocation (REPEALED) 4. §2-14-109 Meetings 5. §2-14-110 Executive meetings 6. §2-14-111 Meeting notice and agendas 7. §2-14-112 Priority of business 8. §2-14-113 Meeting minutes IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153. B. Next Committee Meeting: The Committee will be in recess for the month of June and the next meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153. V. ADJOURNMENT A mailing list is maintained for interested persons and agencies to receive this board’s agenda and minutes. Additions, corrections, and deletions to the mailing list may be directed to the Neighborhood Commission Office (NCO) at Kapālama Hale, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96817, by telephone on (808) 768-3710, fax (808) 768-3711, or e-mailing nco@honolulu.gov. Agenda documents and minutes are also available online at http://www.honolulu.gov/nco/boards.html All written testimony must be received in the Neighborhood Commission Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. If within 48 hours of the meeting, written and/or oral testimony may be submitted directly to the Board at the meeting. If submitting written testimony, please note the Board and agenda item(s) your testimony concerns. Send to: Neighborhood Commission Office, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, HI 96817, fax (808) 768-3711, or email nbtestimony@honolulu.gov. If you need an auxiliary aid/service or other accommodation due to a disability or an interpreter for a language other than English, please call the Neighborhood Commission Office at (808) 768-3710 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. or send an email to nco@honolulu.gov as soon as possible, preferably at least three (3) business days before the scheduled meeting. If a request is received with fewer than three (3) business days remaining before the meeting, we will try to obtain the auxiliary aid/service or accommodation, but it may not be possible to fulfill requests received after this date.   DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026 – 6:00 P.M. KAPĀLAMA HALE CONFERENCE ROOM 153 – 925 DILLINGHAM BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HI 96817 AND VIA WEBEX TELECONFERENCING Video recording of this meeting can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3hW1rYTPz8 Meeting materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0 I. CALL TO ORDER – [0:00:01]: Committee Chair Veray called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Committee Members Present: Angie Knight, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, and Lloyd Yonenaka. Committee Members Absent: Mahealani Bernal, Cross Crabbe, and Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui. Guests: Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Bob Finley (Waikiki Neighborhood Board No.09); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka Neighborhood Board No.35); Tom Heinrich, Gregory Misakian (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 14 total participants. Name not included if not legible on sign-in sheet, not signed in and/or not participated in discussion. II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES – [0:01:17] Monday, March 16, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record – [0:01:26]: Chair Veray opened the floor for any corrections. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:01:36]: 1. January Minutes Technical Correction: Lye raised a concern not about the March 16 minutes themselves but about an outstanding technical issue with the January 2026 meeting record that he had emailed to staff. Buck confirmed the correction had already been made and no committee action was needed. 2. Meeting Minutes Posting Location: Misakian asked whether the meeting minutes needed to be posted under the “meeting materials” link on the commission website, in addition to the committee minutes section, since he had not seen any materials posted under that link for the current month. Smith clarified that the meeting materials link is reserved for items the committee will be voting on, and that the minutes are posted separately under the committees section. Misakian suggested that posting meeting minutes as an additional item under meeting materials would be a helpful courtesy, particularly for consistency with other boards. Hearing no corrections, the minutes were approved as written; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:04:17] Review of Chapter 13, §2-13-105(a)(3) Potential Amendment to Paragraph – [0:04:17]: Chair Veray noted that Commissioner Smith had requested a return to §2-13-105(a)(3) to address a potential ambiguity in the recusal language that had been raised at the prior meeting. Smith MOVED and Yonenaka SECONDED to insert “,or both,” in §2-13-105(a)(3), clarifying that a recused member cannot engage in discussion, vote, or both. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:05:57]: 1. Additional Technical Concerns for §2-13-105: Lye noted he had submitted written testimony with additional items to consider for §2-13-105, including: (a) a technical enumeration error within the section; (b) noun-verb mismatches; and (c) a question of whether the phrase “under this section” in A3 refers only to the third condition or to the section as a whole—which would affect whether recusal applies to all three conditions. He asked whether the committee could clarify the scope of the recusal requirement. 2. Defer Additional Items to Overall Review: Smith suggested that Lye’s additional items be taken under advisement and revisited during the overall comprehensive review. Heinrich agreed with Smith and confirmed that §2-13-105 as published on the website contains only subsection A and no subsection B, and that the “or both” condition relates directly to item A3 only. He recommended addressing the broader amendments during the final review. Committee to review Chapter 14, Rules of Neighborhood Boards of the Neighborhood Plan, and determine if any changes or updates are required – [0:10:20]: Chair Veray announced that the committee would begin its review of Chapter 14, estimating that the review would take at least three meetings to complete. He indicated that for each section he would read the provision aloud, take public testimony first, and then take committee comments. §2-14-101 Oath of Office – [0:10:54]: Chair Veray read §2-14-101 aloud. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:13:04]: 1. Clarification of Extension Parameters: Misakian raised concern about the open-ended nature of subsection D, noting that while a member may “request” an extension, the provision does not specify what the Executive Secretary may grant or under what conditions. He argued this creates a contradiction between the mandatory 60-day requirement and the ability to waive it without defined parameters. Smith responded that he preferred leaving the language slightly vague, as specifying exact parameters might inadvertently exclude legitimate circumstances. He expressed trust in the Executive Secretary’s ability to exercise sound judgment based on the circumstances presented. Knight agreed with Smith. Chair Veray concurred with Smith’s position. He noted that military deployments and health emergencies are the most likely scenarios and that common sense should govern the decision. 2. Oath Enforceability and Mandatory Training: Lye raised the issue that a 2020 hearings officer ruling found the oath of office was not applicable to complaints and could not be used as grounds for a plan violation. He proposed three changes: (a) carving the oath out from the complaint process and revising the associated complaint form accordingly; (b) adding a new subsection B stating that the oath is an enforceable standard of behavior and that failure to abide by its sworn commitments constitutes a violation of §2-13-104 (Standards of Conduct) subject to sanctions under §2-18-104; and (c) amending the existing subsection B (to become subsection C) to include a requirement that members complete mandatory training administered or authorized by the commission—covering the Sunshine Law, Robert’s Rules of Order, and the Neighborhood Plan—before assuming board duties. Smith responded that the commission does not have adjudicatory authority to enforce all laws referenced in the oath, and treating oath compliance as a plan violation would exceed the commission’s jurisdiction. He supported leaving the oath as is. On mandatory training, he agreed it is valuable but cautioned against making it a prerequisite for assuming office, noting it could create administrative burdens for boards. Yonenaka noted the inherent tension in the oath: board members are asked to uphold laws that, per the ethics office and the state office of elections, technically do not apply to them (such as ethics and election laws). He agreed with the intent of the oath as an aspirational statement and supported leaving it as is. 3. Oath as Standalone Section: Heinrich clarified that the distinction between commissioners and board members is critical—commissioners are officers of the city, board members are not—making the nature and enforceability of their respective obligations fundamentally different. He recommended that §2-14-101 remain a standalone section and that any training requirements be addressed in a separate provision, not embedded in the oath section. 4. Prompt Oath-Taking Concerns: Misakian raised a specific concern about the open-endedness of extension provisions, using the example of a deployed military board member who misses the first three meetings without being sworn in. He argued that the oath should be taken promptly—as with city council members—and that extensive flexibility undermines its importance. Chair Veray responded that each chair is responsible for proactively managing these situations, including reaching out to deployed members to determine their status and, if necessary, requesting their resignation so the seat can be filled. 5. Impartiality Standard and Typographical Correction: Lye raised a broader concern about the phrase “impartially discharge my duties” in the oath—specifically, whether a board member who does not act in an impartial fashion can be held accountable under the plan. He also requested a technical correction to add a hyphen to “60-day” as a compound adjective in subsection D. Smith MOVED and Yonenaka SECONDED to retain §2-14-101 as written. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). §2-14-102 Board Term – [0:28:02]: Chair Veray read §2-14-102 aloud. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:29:44]: 1. Odd vs. Even Election Years: Yonenaka noted that a proposal was before the Charter Commission to change Neighborhood Board elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. He observed that if the change were adopted by the charter, it would be locked in, whereas the Neighborhood Plan could currently be amended to reflect even-year elections without charter action. Heinrich confirmed that the Charter Commission did not advance the proposal to change election years, citing an excess of side issues. He recommended the committee focus on the commission’s management of the Neighborhood Plan. 2. Term Limits Discussion: Lye raised whether the committee wished to add term limits for board members while reviewing §2-14-102, given that the section addresses board terms. He asked this as an opportunity for discussion, not necessarily a formal amendment. Smith raised the question of whether term limits for board members could be established in the Neighborhood Plan or required a charter amendment, suggesting corporate counsel may be needed to answer this definitively. Heinrich clarified that under Article 14 of the charter, term limits as applied to commissioners are set forth in the charter, but anything relating to Neighborhood Board members falls under the Neighborhood Plan—which is the commission’s jurisdiction. 3. Extension Provision Interpretation: Misakian asked about the interpretation of subsection C, which allows the commission to extend all board member terms by one two-year term, effectively allowing members to serve four years without an election. He expressed concern that this provision allows the commission to keep existing members in place without a vote of the public. Heinrich explained that the extension authority was established to address specific circumstances related to election interference, weather events, or other disruptions (citing COVID as an example), with a maximum of one extension term now codified to prevent overuse. 4. Transition Planning and Hyphenation: Lye asked whether a transition plan would be needed if the committee ever switched from odd- to even-numbered years, noting there would need to be a one-year or bridging period. He also requested that “odd-numbered” be hyphenated in all instances throughout the section. 5. Starting Cap for Term Limits: Knight raised the topic of term limits for board members, floating numbers such as 40, 30, and 20 years in discussion, with a grandfather clause to avoid immediately displacing long-serving members. She acknowledged the value of institutional knowledge but expressed concern that long tenures may discourage new community members from joining. Misakian supported exploring term limits, suggesting a model consistent with comparable entities: four consecutive terms (eight years), followed by at least one term off, after which a member could run again. He referenced the city council model and indicated this would help stimulate new participation. 6. Term Limits Belong in §2-13-108(D): Heinrich clarified that term limits for board members belong in §2-13-108(D)—which currently states “no term limits shall apply to board members”—not in §2-14-102, which addresses board term length. He suggested that a proposal of five consecutive terms could be forwarded for the full commission’s consideration, while acknowledging the matter deserves fuller discussion. 7. Referral to Full Commission: Chair Veray indicated he would place term limits on the upcoming commission meeting agenda as a general discussion item, so the full commission could weigh in before any specific amendment is drafted. Smith MOVED and Knight SECONDED to retain §2-14-102 as currently written, with the understanding that term limits would be referred to the full commission for broader discussion. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). §2-14-103 Transition and Initial Convening – [0:45:46]: Chair Veray read §2-14-103 aloud. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:48:05]: 1. Meaning of “Decided by Lot”: Knight asked what “decided by lot” means in subsection C. Yonenaka clarified that it means decided by chance, such as a drawing. 2. Technical and Substantive Amendments: Lye proposed several amendments: (a) spelling out “chair pro tempore” in full on its first appearance in section A, with “chair pro tem” acceptable thereafter; (b) hyphenating “vice chair” consistently throughout the document; (c) specifying in subsection C whether consecutive tenure carries more weight than non-contiguous tenure when drawing lots; (d) clarifying what happens if the member with the longest tenure declines to serve as chair pro tem; (e) replacing the phrase “no agenda item may be taken out of order except for the actions” in subsection D with clearer language such as “no agenda item may be undertaken except for the following actions,” to prevent confusion about whether items may be reordered or addressed at a different point in the meeting. 3. First Responders Priority Conflict: Whitsell raised a conflict between subsection A—which requires the election of officers as the first item of business at the inaugural board meeting—and the priority-of-business rule in another section of the plan, which requires that HPD and HFD representatives always be heard first at any regular meeting. He suggested that the principle of prioritizing first responders should be preserved at all times, including the initial convening meeting, and that the language in §2-14-103 be clarified to reflect this. 4. Outdated Videography Reference in D4: Whitsell noted that subsection D4, which authorizes the board to adopt formal requests for the NCO to enter into contracts for facility rentals and videography services, is outdated. He explained that the NCO now routinely provides video recording services at all board meetings as a standard practice and no longer requires a formal board request to do so. He proposed simplifying item 4 to read: “Adopt any formal request for the Neighborhood Commission Office to enter into contracts on behalf of the board,” removing the specific examples. 5. Casting of Lots and Vacancy Filling at Convening: Lye raised additional questions about subsection C: whether lots would ever need to be drawn prior to a meeting so that an agenda could be properly developed and submitted seven days in advance, and who would oversee the process. He also asked whether filling a board vacancy should be a default agenda item at every initial convening meeting, given its significance to the community and to quorum. Smith agreed that filling vacancies should be scheduled before the election of officers at the initial convening meeting, so that as many members as possible are seated before voting. He noted this should also be addressed in the priority-of-business section when the committee returns to it. Smith MOVED and Knight SECONDED to adopt §2-14-103 with two amendments: (1) modifying subsection A to address the priority-of-business conflict with first responders; and (2) amending subsection D4 to remove the outdated examples and read “Adopt any formal request for the Neighborhood Commission Office to enter into contracts on behalf of the board.” Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). §2-14-104 Membership Vacancy – [1:00:01]: Chair Veray read §2-14-104 aloud. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:01:49]: 1. Evidence Requirement Not Followed: Misakian noted that subsection D—which requires candidates for a vacancy to provide evidence of qualification to the Executive Secretary before a vote is taken—does not appear to be followed in practice. He observed that candidates generally simply show up and speak, and no evidence of residency or qualifications is gathered in advance. Smith acknowledged that §2-14-104(D) had not been properly followed at recent board meeting and accepted responsibility for the oversight, stating the commission will address this going forward. Steven Melendrez suggested that subsection D be amended to reference the “board chair” in addition to or instead of “Executive Secretary or designee,” noting the Executive Secretary is typically not present at board meetings. Chair Veray clarified that the Neighborhood Assistant (NA) is the Executive Secretary’s designee and currently fulfills this role. 2. Sunshine Law Protections for Vacancy Filling: Lye proposed adding a new provision stating that filling a vacancy is not exempt from Sunshine Law protections, citing a recent board meeting at which the process was incorrectly characterized as an administrative matter not subject to public input. Smith acknowledged that the Downtown-Chinatown board meeting in question was not conducted appropriately, noting a discrepancy between what the NCO communicated and how the chair characterized it at the meeting. He confirmed the commission will address this as an institutional matter and stated that the proposed new provision, while well-intentioned, is not strictly necessary since Sunshine Law protections already apply. 3. Reducing Intervention Threshold to Two Meetings: Lye also proposed reducing the threshold in subsection F from three to two successive meetings before the commission may intervene to fill a vacancy, arguing that missing two consecutive meetings due to quorum failure is already a serious problem that warrants commission action. Heinrich responded that the three-meeting threshold was established intentionally to keep the pressure on boards to manage their own attendance and vacancies, rather than shifting the burden to the commission. 4. Simplifying Roll Call Vote Language: Whitsell raised a concern about subsection E, which requires each board member to state the name of the nominee during a roll call vote. He noted this is consistently confusing when only one candidate is running, since there is no practical reason to name that candidate. He proposed simplifying the language to read: “The method of voting shall be a roll call vote.” 5. Candidate Introduction Before Vote: Buck raised a related concern that vacancy candidates—unlike elected board members, who are simply voted on based on submitted bios—are sometimes subjected to extended questioning and “grilling” by board members before a vote, particularly regarding policy positions. He suggested that the section should specify that before a vote, the board shall provide an opportunity for a candidate to briefly introduce themselves, in the nature of an introduction rather than a policy discussion. 6. Single-Candidate Exception: Smith proposed retaining the name-stating requirement but adding a clarifying exception: if only one candidate is running, a simple affirmative roll call vote is sufficient, so that members need not state a name when the choice is singular. 7. Microphone Use During Roll Call: Misakian emphasized the importance of using microphones during roll call votes, particularly for meetings with both in-person and WebEx participants, to ensure all votes are clearly heard and accurately recorded. 8. Gaming of Vacancy Process: Lye raised concerns about the gaming of the vacancy-filling process, such as a board member deferring a vote on a ready candidate until their preferred candidate arrives. He asked whether there is clarity on how many times a board may attempt to fill a vacancy within a single meeting. 9. Proper Procedure for Deferred Candidates: Chair Veray described the correct procedure: the sponsor of a late candidate notifies the chair, who informs the board. Before any vote change, the chair asks whether there are objections to proceeding with the new candidate when they arrive. A simple majority is needed; any board member may object. He noted this is a matter of proper chair management. 10. Chair’s Role in Objections: Smith agreed with Chair Veray’s description of the procedure and noted that while a chair may defer an agenda item, they should allow any objection to go forward. Knight MOVED and Smith SECONDED to adopt §2-14-104 with amendments to: (1) add a provision allowing the board to ask a vacancy candidate to briefly introduce themselves before a vote, in the nature of an introduction rather than a policy Q&A; and (2) retain the name-stating requirement in subsection E with an exception for a single-candidate race, in which case a simple affirmative roll call vote suffices. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). §2-14-105 Attendance of Members – [1:25:19]: Chair Veray read §2-14-105 aloud. Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:25:54]: 1. “In Full” Addition to Subsection A: Smith noted that Lye had suggested adding the phrase “in full” after “attend all meetings of the board” in subsection A, setting an aspirational expectation of full meeting attendance rather than mere presence. He supported the addition as a standard, while acknowledging it would require corresponding clarification of what constitutes an absence. Knight agreed the expectation of full attendance is reasonable, noting that the language is aspirational and leaves discretion to the Executive Secretary as to what constitutes a justified departure. 2. Definition of Absence Needed: Smith noted that if “in full” is added, the section should also clarify what constitutes an absence. Under the current language, any presence—however brief—does not count as an absence, which creates an exploitable loophole. 3. Tracking Burden on Neighborhood Assistants: Buck acknowledged the concern but noted that tracking partial attendance would place a significant burden on Neighborhood Assistants. 4. Distracted Board Members at Waikiki: Misakian raised a concern that board members at the Waikiki Neighborhood Board have been observed playing video games on their phones and leaving the meeting area without cause, and that chairs are not addressing the behavior. He urged that this be addressed in training for chairs, noting that the situation at Waikiki is particularly poor. Chair Veray responded that in his own meetings, he calls board members back to attention when they are not engaged. He acknowledged that not all chairs manage this effectively and agreed it should be addressed in chair training. 5. Caution Against Over-Regulation: Heinrich defended the NCO and Neighborhood Assistants from being burdened with enforcement, arguing that the obligation for attendance must rest with the board members and chairs themselves. He cautioned against over-regulating volunteer board members to a degree exceeding standard for elected officials. 6. Detailed Attendance Classification System: Lye proposed a detailed attendance classification system to replace the current subsection B language, including: (a) a full absence—a member fails to attend any portion of a noticed regular meeting, counting as one absence; (b) a partial absence—a member arrives more than 10 minutes late, cumulatively departs more than 20 minutes without notice, or leaves more than 10 minutes before adjournment without returning, each counting as one-half of an absence toward the removal threshold under §2-14-106; and (c) a temporary departure exception for restroom breaks and technical disconnections during WebEx. He argued this system would clarify the three-absence rule, exempt necessary departures, and leverage existing minute-taking practices. 7. Keep Attendance Language Simple: Buck recommended keeping the language simple and expressed openness to something along the lines of what Knight had described—clarifying a minimum presence threshold—but expressed concern about the practicality of enforcing specific time-based rules across all neighborhood boards. 8. Good-Cause Exceptions: Misakian suggested simplifying the language to make full attendance an expectation while acknowledging that good-cause exceptions—such as traffic, health, or other emergencies—apply. He encouraged the committee to land on clear language for the next meeting. 9. Pending Legislation and Optimal Board Size: Yonenaka shared that pending state legislation would allow board vacancies not to count toward quorum, which could allow as few as four members to pass resolutions on a 15-member board with two vacancies. He expressed concern about this trend and indicated the NCO is exploring whether standardizing boards to nine at-large members would better mitigate quorum and vacancy challenges. He suggested the commission consider a broader discussion on whether optimal board size should be codified in the plan. Knight MOVED and Yonenaka SECONDED to adopt §2-14-105 with the amendment to change “shall be expected” to “are expected” in subsection A, and to add the phrase “in full” after “attend all meetings.” Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None). §2-14-106 Absences and removal process; resignation: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-107 Reporting change of residency: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-108 Disqualification by relocation (REPEALED): Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-109 Meetings: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-110 Executive meetings: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-111 Meeting notice and agendas: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-112 Priority of business: Deferred to the next meeting. §2-14-113 Meeting minutes: Deferred to the next meeting. IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:50:43] Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission – [1:50:43]: The next meeting of the Neighborhood Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153, and on Webex. Next Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting – [1:50:52]: The next Neighborhood Plan Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 11, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153. V. ADJOURNMENT – [1:50:55]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Submitted by: Dylan Buck, Community Relations Specialist, NCO Reviewed by: Dylan Whitsell, Deputy, NCO Finalized by: To view agenda and minutes, visit our board website. Event shows physical location; however, other options of participation may also include WebEx and phone.  If available, instructions for WebEx and phone can be found at the top of the agenda.