HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-10 Windward Transcript Connections
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 10, 2013
CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL /CBESS (SPP 12-138)
was called to order at 11:08 a.m. in
the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with
Chairman Dean Au presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Raylene Moses
and Stephen Ono
STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning
Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija
Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary)
And approximately 45 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
/CBESS (SPP 12-138)
Continued hearing on an application for a Special Permit to develop a K to 12 charter school
campus with dorm facilities and related uses on approximately 70 acres of land situated in the
State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on both the southwest and
northeast sides of Edita Street near its intersection with Kaūmana Drive and adjoining the Pacific
Plantation Subdivision in Kaūmana, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-5-006:141.
AU: Okay, we’re going on to Unfinished Business, Applicant: Connections New Century Public
Charter School, Special Permit 12-138. Okay, we’ve heard this application, this is the third time.
So, applicants, can you please come forward. Okay, I want to send out a reminder to the
testifiers. We have 15 people testifying. You know, we’re heard a lot of this testimony before,
so let’s try and make it brief. You know, our Commission, we do understand. We were all here
the last two meetings, Mr. Ishibashi came late, we had to wait for him for the first meeting. So,
you know, we are aware of the community’s issues, so let’s try and keep it brief. Okay, so -.
DARROW: Mr. Chair, sorry to interrupt. If I could -
AU: Oh, okay, I’m sorry. Staff presentation, yes.
DARROW: No, no presentation. But I did want to bring to your attention correspondence that
have been submitted to the Planning Commission since our last hearing. At our last hearing, one
of the items that the Commission had requested was that the applicant meet with the community.
1 ATTACHMENT C
th
That was scheduled for December 17. That meeting was held. There was a summary that was
th
submitted dated, well, it was received January 8; and it basically has a sign-in sheet and then it
has a summary. Additionally, the applicant had submitted DVD copies of that meeting; and each
of you have a copy of that. We’ve received a letter from the applicant’s representative in
regards, another letter in regards to the community meeting; and this attempts to address some of
the issues of that meeting. And you’ll see that it addresses certain conditions, either restated or
offered. That was just received today, along with a copy of the lease agreement and the
conditions placed on the property between the State of Hawai‘i and Connections. And that’s this
particular correspondence here. We had received a letter from Monica Morris who is the
attorney representing the Attorney General’s Office that will be representing the applicant, as
well as a letter from John Thatcher. And then we have received numerous correspondence this
morning from surrounding property owners. And the Commission should have copies of each of
these. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
AU: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Okay, so now we have applicant’s -. Can you all raise your hand;
and I’ll swear you all in. Do you all swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter in front of
the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission today?
REPRESENTATIVES: Yes.
AU: Okay, before you get started, please state your name, where you reside, and speak in the
microphone, please.
S. S. LEE LOY: Aloha, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Happy New Year. My name
is Sue Lee Loy. I live in Panaewa. With me today I have the principal of Connections Charter
School, John Thatcher, a resident of Kaumana; Celia Shen from Will Chee Planning Consultants
from Oahu; and Deputy Attorney General Monica Morris also from Oahu. Like staff has stated
and the Chairman has stated, you folks have heard this application three times now.
So what I just want to do is summarize where we are with the request that the Commission asked
of the applicant. There were three items:
The water calculations which we have done and transmitted to the Department of Water Supply.
Celia Shen along with Kevin Luomo is also here to answer any technical questions or other
questions you guys might have related to water.
The other item was meeting with the adjacent property owners. That was also reported in
December. Bill Brilhante, Sr. met with the Planning Director, along with myself, to discuss an
alternative access. That meeting really provided an opportunity to indicate to the Planning
Director and ourselves the timing elements of his construction and the timing elements of our
construction. Unfortunately, the timelines don’t line up. However, he continues to remain open
to an alternative access through his property, and will continue to collaborate in the future with
us, based on some of our proposed design and construction timelines. So he has left that door
very wide open for us to keep checking back with him.
2 ATTACHMENT C
Third was to have a community meeting. Unfortunately based on some professional schedules
and securing of the facility, that didn’t occur prior to the December hearing. We did have that on
th
December 17. But also at the December meeting the Attorney General’s Office, who has the
authority over, or would provide legal representation to Connections Charter School, also
requested a continuance so they would be present to make the record clear here before the
Planning Commission. So my duty today really is to summarize to you folks the hearing that
th
was held with the community on December 17. Just by way of background I want the record to
reflect that this would have been community meeting number five related to this application that
the applicant has participated in or hosted, in addition to all of the notification processes related
to this application, whether it was approvals through the State Department of Land and Natural
Resources, the Office of Environmental Quality Control, public notice processes, and this body.
We are probably at 12 different areas that the community had the opportunity to engage the
applicant.
Based on the community meeting, there seems to be the similar emerging issues related to traffic
and water. What we’d like to do is, again, on behalf of the applicant, restate or reaffirm the
commitment specifically to Condition 3 which addresses water availability for the campus. The
applicant supports this condition which provides assurances to the area residents that the
concerns about water availability and ability to support the campus are met.
To reiterate, should the anticipated water usage exceed 4200 gallons from the existing waterline,
the applicant shall limit the number of students to that which can be supported by potable water
available, until such time additional sources of potable water can be secured or developed. So,
again, this is a firm commitment from the applicant to address the concerns about water for that
area.
The applicant further states for the record Condition 12, the applicant supports this condition
which provides assurances to the area residents that should reasonable opportunities arise with
adjoining lands to provide an alternative means of access to Puainako Extension, the applicant
will provide the necessary improvements within its own property. This also supports the
position of the Planning Director and the County Department of Public Works to create road
connectivities.
So, we heard issues related to Kaumana Drive and the traffic impacts there. This is another
affirmation on behalf of the applicant to keep the door open and come up with other
opportunities to create road connectivity.
th
In addition to that December 17 meeting, I listened very carefully and heard a number of
concerns. And I felt it was my duty to help the community address some of their concerns and
minimize some of the fears that they have related to some of their concerns. So what I’ve done
is prepared three additional conditions of approval.
Condition – A - The applicant, successors and/or assigns shall provide a 50-foot buffer around
the perimeter of the makai parcel in which no occupiable structures will be permitted. The
rationale behind this really is to address the concerns of the adjacent owners and provide the
3 ATTACHMENT C
owners a continued sense of open space and a quality of life previously anticipated while
minimizing impacts. I go ahead and define an occupiable structure to that of the IBC which is
our International Building Code which defines an occupiable space as a room or enclosed space
designed for human occupancy.
A second condition, Condition – B, that’s being proposed, that the applicant shall maintain the
mauka parcel for educational offerings and opportunities related to reforestation, conservation
and open space. What I heard at the meeting was this concern that they may change their mind
later on and amend the plan and so, you know, other things would occur on the mauka property.
I wanted to commit to a condition that this property, the mauka parcel would not be developed in
perpetuity. However, there are other layers related to this application with the direct lease that
has a life, a shelf life of 65 years. So I retooled that to include language for the duration of the
direct lease with the State Department of Hawai‘i. Again, no occupiable structures shall be
permitted on the mauka parcel. I believe this condition really addresses a concern for that
community about what that mauka piece will look like for years to come. The rationale, again, is
to address the concerns of the area residence and provide adjacent property owners with a
continued sense of open space and provide a quality of life they previously anticipated.
Finally, Condition – C which I’m proposing is should the need arise to provide additional lands
to improve Kaumana Drive, the applicant, successors and/or assigns shall solely upon the
direction of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and at the consent of the Board of
Land and Natural Resources amend the direct lease to address real property and its title interest
related to the road right-of-way along Kaumana Drive. The mauka piece is adjacent to Kaumana
Drive. And what I did hear is a concern of Kaumana Drive being narrow. And so this was an
opportunity to have the applicant commit should there be a need by the County or State that they
need a widening opportunity that they will, they’ll get the call from the State Department of
Land and Natural Resources, the Board will direct them to do it, and they are committed to
amending that lease to allow for an expansion, when that need arises. The condition, the
rationale again is to help with that future road widening.
I want to leave the Commission with this, this property, the project has been scrutinized, vetted,
tested, and reviewed since 2008 when they received an approval in principle from the State
Department of Land and Natural Resources. They have done a number of community meetings,
there have been a number of opportunities for the community to engage. I have taken upon
myself and the duty for the applicant to hear those concerns, put them into our conditions of
approval. By my math with the conditions proposed by the Planning Director which is, I believe,
22, along with the conditions of the direct lease, which is 37, and the 3 that I’ve proposed, this
application will have more than 60 conditions of approval that the applicant has to comply with,
in addition to answering to the conditions of the County. They would have to adhere to those of
the direct lease with the State. So there is a number of agencies and oversight here at the County
level and at the State level that will help guide the applicant to do exactly what they represent to
do.
I know it has been challenging for the Commission. I urge you folks to push it up to the State
Land Use through their protocols at the State Land Use level. The community will continue to
4 ATTACHMENT C
have a voice there and, if necessary, we can address a contested case at that level. Earlier on
your agenda you guys heard about a contested case. There’s information that’s stated,
overstated, just taken out of context. The community will continue to have a voice at the State
Land Use level. So if you have any other questions, I’ll be more than happy to answer them.
AU: Any questions for the testifier? No, okay. Ms. Lee Loy, who’s next? You guys are the
applicant, we have to go in order. But please state your name and where you reside.
THATCHER: Aloha. My name is John Thatcher. I reside in Kaumana. And I’m not going to
read all of my testimony, just a portion of it, so bear with me. You won’t be hearing from our
students today, any of our current students, and I don’t think you’ll be hearing from too many
from the school parents. These meetings have given our students that have attended a real
glimpse of how County government works in action. It does sadden me to say that some of our
students feel intimidated by some of those who have given public testimony. Several of these
students live in Kaumana and face a barrage of hateful signs every day. New signs have
appeared recently with cartoon characters on them, Dr. Seuss character. Imagine one of our
kindergarten student who lives up here, he’s seeing the cartoon character and a message “No
Connections in Kaumana.” That same student has been making snowflakes for the Sandy Hook
Elementary. So we choose not to subject our students to any more abusive testimony. The level
of harassment has escalated to the point where two of our staff have restraining orders against the
creator of the “No Connections in Kaumana” signs.
Parents choose to send their children to charter schools. Start-up charter schools are not defined
by geographic boundaries. Why shouldn’t parents from East Hawai‘i be allowed to choose to
send their children to a school with programs focused on agriculture and sustainability? This
Kaumana site is former Crown land. At the time of annexation, the former Crown lands were
ceded to the US Federal Government. When Hawai‘i became a state, the lands were transferred
to the State. The federal act authorizing the transfer required that the lands be used for given
purposes, or at least one of the five purposes. The first being support a public education.
I sincerely hope that this Commission take the high road and send this matter to the State Land
Use Commission. I’d also like to stress a few other points that I made in previous testimony, and
I won’t go through those.
Again I ask, are the issues being brought up to halt the development of Connections in Kaumana
campus only going to be centered around the “not in my backyard” neighbors living on one-acre
agriculture lots? Or will the Windward Planning Commission follow the goals and policies
specified in the General Plan? Thank you.
AU: Any questions for the testifier? Commissioners, no? Okay. Who’s next? Please state your
name, where you reside, and please speak into the microphone.
MORRIS: Good morning, Chairman Au and Members of the Windward Planning Commission.
My name is Monica Morris, Deputy Attorney General. I’m here to represent Connections
Charter School. My primary role as a Deputy Attorney General is to advise and counsel and
5 ATTACHMENT C
represent charter schools here in Hawai‘i. So I’m here today to represent Connections in this
special permit application.
I wanted to, I think it bears reiterating what has happened here so far. There have been a number
of objective State and County agencies that have subjected this special permit to a rigorous
review. So I think it bears a reiteration. And if you would indulge me on this, just to recap what
has happened here so far.
As public lands under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural
Resources, the Board has approved a direct least to Connections at its meeting held on
January 13, 2011. That lease is being finalized, and I’m aware of that because I work in the
Attorney General’s Office and we are finalizing that lease. Another division in the AG’s office
is finalizing that lease. Under that lease, the lease expressly provides that the lands are to be
used solely for school purposes. Also, the lease requires Connections to comply with all
applicable county, state and federal laws pertaining to this property. Therefore, all applicable
laws will need to be complied with or the lease will be subject to termination by the Board of
Land and Natural Resources.
Now the Department of Land and Natural Resources reviewed this project, and determined this
project would have, would not have significant impact and has issued a finding of no significant
impact. That Department notified the Office of Environmental Control of its finding in a letter
dated October 22, 2010.
In addition, the State Office of Planning reviewed and commented on this project and the special
permit application. And in a letter dated October 3, 2012 to the Hawai‘i County Planning
Department stated it has no objection to this project and provided comments and
recommendations.
Also, the Hawai‘i County Planning Director has also reviewed the special permit application and
has recommended that this Commission send a favorable recommendation to the State Land Use
Commission with certain conditions attached to address traffic, water and other issues that have
raised, been raised.
If these, if Connections does not comply with these conditions, the Planning Director may
initiate revocation proceedings with respect to the special permit.
And the applicant has invested a substantial amount of money in its effort to develop this charter
school on state public lands. It has complied with all applicable laws and has submitted to this
Commission evidence of its compliance. It has retained at its cost, substantial cost, engineers
and consultants to conduct studies with respect to traffic, water and other issues, and will
continue to incur expenses to satisfy applicable laws as this special permit application moves
forward.
We respectfully urge this Commission to send a favorable recommendation to the State Land
Use Commission on this permit application.
6 ATTACHMENT C
Persons who are opposed to this project may petition the Land Use Commission to have a
contested case hearing. This will enable all concerned the appropriate due process under the
procedures of the Land Use Commission.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and speak to you today.
AU: Question for the testifier? I have a question. Okay, prior to your involvement, through the
State Attorney General Office’s involvement, Ms. Lee Loy and Mr. Hong represented the
applicant. I’d like to know the reason why the State is getting, exact reason why the State is
getting involved.
MORRIS: I -.
AU: Please speak in the microphone.
MORRIS: There are two applicants for this special permit. One is Connections Charter School.
Charter Schools in Hawai‘i have nonprofits that support it for fundraising purposes. With
respect to financing of charter schools, charter schools don’t get as much money as the
Department of Education schools. So they have to, and they also don’t have the facilities that the
DOE schools have. So they have to be creative in how they’re going to secure facilities. Most
times they rent, sometimes they lease.
With respect to this particular application, Connections and its nonprofit initiated the special
permit application. We don’t represent the nonprofit, CBESS. We represent Connections. To
the extent that the nonprofit supports Connections, their interests are similar to Connections.
How we got involved in this is that, again, as the attorney, Deputy Attorney who advises the
charter schools, I was asked rather recently to be involved. So our involvement is triggered by
our clients asking for our help. We don’t inject ourselves into their matters because sometimes
their matters are policy matters. When questions come up, come to us, we look first to see
whether those questions are policy questions which the client should be addressing or whether
there are legal or constitutional issues for our office to be involved with. In this particular
instance, there are legal questions that are appropriate for us to be involved with; and that is the
legal requirements that are attendant to special permit applications. Does that answer your
question?
S. LEE LOY: Chairman Au, if I may?
AU: Yes, please go ahead.
S. LEE LOY: So our office, Mr. Hong and myself, was kind of hired by this, the nonprofit to
help guide them through this process. Based on community input and some of the concerns that
were being raised we felt that it was wise for Connections as a State agency to have their own
legal representative. That’s where the State Department of Attorney General Office steps in and
7 ATTACHMENT C
basically ensures that their due process through this application is, one, being met. But they’re
providing the appropriate legal counsel for them to get through this process.
So going forward, our office will continue to represent CBESS which is the nonprofit at the
direction of CBESS. Just like Celia Shen and other consultants that have been on the project,
they have been hired by the nonprofit and are paid through that process. To dovetail that in, the
direct lease is issued to Connections, the school, the State Agency. The Special Permit applicant
are co-applicants, Connections Charter School and CBESS the nonprofit. So the School will
have the direct lease. The School and the nonprofit will hold the regulatory permit to move this
project forward.
MORRIS: Correct. And so with respect to any subsequent proceedings, following the
Commission’s action, our office will be representing Connections with respect to the special
permit application.
AU: Okay. So, Ms. Shen, did you want to say something?
SHEN: I’d just like to speak a little -.
AU: Can you please start -.
SHEN: I’m sorry.
AU: State your name, where you reside, and speak into the microphone.
SHEN: Celia Shen and I am, I reside in Honolulu. You know, I’d just like to elaborate a little
bit on what Sue had previously spoken about before regarding the water supply to the property.
As you all know, water is available to the property, although the supply is limited. Department
of Water Supply has stated that there is a 4200 gallon per day allotment to that property. And so
while at this point we are not clear whether that can support the entire project, we do know that
that will support a certain level of development. And as requested by the Planning Commission
at the previous hearing a preliminary water usage report was prepared, the objective of which
was not to provide a precise estimate of water usage but to just kind of generally give a
broadbrushed indication of what the potable water usage might be for the project.
You know, at this stage those estimates are premature. There is further investigation that does
need to occur which will happen if the special permit gets approved. The engineers and
designers will look more specifically at water usage, how water usage, potable and nonpotable,
can be supplied to the project, at which time the estimates will be reworked and submitted to the
Department of Water Supply for approval. And given that and knowing that the community does
have concerns about water supply to the property, and as it was stated, you know, we are
recommending that the condition relative to water supply be revised to state specifically that the
property will not be developed beyond that which can be supported by that 4200 gallons until
additional potable water can be sourced for the project. And what that level of development is
will be determined in that, you know, future investigation. You know they can determine the
8 ATTACHMENT C
number of students that can be supported and what facilities will be serviced by that DWS supply
potable water.
S. LEE LOY: Mr. Au, if I may, Celia’s office did present those preliminary calculations to the
th
Department of Water Supply in December, no, I’m sorry, November, the week of the 19. We
followed up with the Department of Water Supply; and the individual assigned to review the
water calculations has moved on from the Department, so they are in the process of assigning
another individual from the Department of Water Supply to get caught up with the special permit
application and evaluate the water calculations that we presented. Again, it has been our position
that they are relatively premature. There is a level of engineering that has to occur and we’re just
not at that stage yet. But in an effort to address the concerns of the Commission and some of
what we’re hearing from the community, we put together these broadbrushed water calculations,
but beside that insert the condition that we’re not going to develop beyond the amount of water
there until such time we can get another source, whether it’s developing more water, or well.
Those options are still out there. So, again, you know, we’re trying to provide those assurances
that the applicant is working to address the concerns of the community and this Commission.
AU: Okay. Commissioner Ono?
ONO: Yes, I have a question, and it’s only because Brilhante came in at the earlier hearing.
And I realize that we have not received the application. But my concern is should that
development proposal come in, will they be tapping the same water supply? Will they be
developing their own?
S. LEE LOY: I don’t want to go too far because that is another property owner.
LEITHEAD TODD: Perhaps I could say that the way DWS works, Water Supply, is they give
you a certain amount of commitment; and that’s yours. So if somebody comes in with a
subsequent subdivision, they can’t tap into the 4200 that’s already allocated for Connections.
They either have to have separate water commitments from the Water Supply or they have to
somehow find water. They may in fact already have certain commitments. Because the way a
lot of people do it, if you know you’re going to develop, sometimes you prepay. And then, of
course, it may depend on, at the time they come in whether DWS has increased the amount of
water available and what the systems are in place. But they don’t get, this is a commitment to
them. They don’t get an additional over 4200. And Mr. Brilhante can’t get their 4200.
ONO: Thank you.
S. LEE LOY: We can’t swap off water units. It’s allocated to the parcel.
AU: Question for Ms. Morris. So charter schools are, they’re affiliated with nonprofits, right?
And from what I understand the nonprofits pay for their facilities because the State doesn’t give
money to charter schools for facilities. Is that correct?
9 ATTACHMENT C
MORRIS: Not necessarily. No, that would, that’s not always the case. What the nonprofits do
is they engage in fundraising to support the charter school for varying, for various purposes. One
of those purposes could be for rental of facilities. But monies that charter schools use for their
facilities doesn’t come exclusively from the nonprofits. They’re one source.
AU: Okay. Well, I do have an issue about, you know, the build out of this project. But it’s for
us to discuss in discussion. So any more questions for any of the testifiers?
GONZALES: I have a question.
AU: Commissioner -.
GONZALES: I have a question for Ms. Shen on the 4200 gallons a day. And Sue mentioned
that you would regulate the number of students, depending on how much water you can get. Is
there a formula, you know, how many gallons per student per day?
SHEN: If I may, I’d actually like to have Kevin Luomo answer that question.
AU: Okay.
SHEN: He’s the mechanical engineer.
LUOMO: You want me to come up there?
AU: Yes, please. Can we, maybe one person leave. And I do have to swear you in. Can you
please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Windward,
the Hawai‘i County Windward Planning Commission today? Okay, please speak into the
microphone.
LUOMO: Yes, I do.
AU: Okay, please state your name, where you reside, and go ahead.
LUOMO: My name is Kevin Luomo and I reside in Honolulu. To answer your question about
the standard, the standard that we’re using is the, developed by the American Waterworks
Association. This is a, when you’re in a very preliminary stage of a project and you don’t really
know what type of fixture they’re using, how big the building is, anything, then they have these
specific standards for school. One is for, if it’s a day school and it’s with a cafeteria and lunch
room, then the uses averages like 11 to 16 gallons per day. When it is a day school with cafeteria
and showers, then it’s 16 to 21 gallons per day. And when it’s a boarding school where they’d
be living there all throughout the week, throughout the year, then it’s 53 to 106 gallons per day.
But then later on once we actually know how many showers there are, how many students there
are exactly, the type of fixture we’re using, then there’s another standard that we use with the
LEED. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the LEED, where we actually say, okay, students
can be using a restroom three times per day, that’s the typical, you can shower once per day for
10 ATTACHMENT C
five minutes; and then we’d narrow it down even more to get an exact number. And then, of
course, later on when they’re actually occupying the facility every month, you’re going to get
your water bill; and it’s going to give the average gallons per day being used. So if it does
exceed that number then the Department of Water Supply could tell them that they can’t be
using, they have to reduce the amount of water usage and they could, they’d have to take
appropriate measures.
GONZALES: Okay, so low end 11, high end at 106; but you just know at this point.
LUOMO: Yeah, you wouldn’t know.
GONZALES: Okay.
LUOMO: And people, some people take longer showers and some people take shorter showers.
Some people wash their hands for longer. So it’s really a very vague number; and it can vary all
over the place. That’s why they give these large ranges.
GONZALES: Okay, well, that’s something. Thank you, thank you very much.
S. LEE LOY: Commissioner Gonzales, just, again, which is why we continue to be committed
to cap the amount of students based on the water allocation, or until such time when water can be
developed or sourced. You know, we are self-regulating. These conditions were put together
very thoughtfully. I know you folks hear a lot of testimony that is very technical at times and I
just help to try and translate that back, that there are assurances we’re going to do what we say
we’re going to do; and we’re self-regulating.
GONZALES: Okay, thank you.
AU: All right, any more questions? Commissioner Ono?
ONO: Yes. Back to Monica. I’m trying to recap what you had presented. Are you anticipating
a challenge on this, whichever way we recommend the, the decision of this hearing?
MORRIS: A challenge by -?
ONO: You were saying to have the, this should go to the State Land, I forget the Committee, but
you were mentioning that there was another committee -.
MORRIS: Oh, the Land Use Commission?
ONO: Land Use Committee.
MORRIS: Yeah. The Land Use Commission would be the body -. If there’s a favorable
recommendation on this special permit, that would be the body that this measure, this application
would go to. They would, the persons who are opposed to this project could request that the
11 ATTACHMENT C
Land Use Commission have a contested case proceeding, okay, contested case hearing. At that
level should the Land Use Commission decide to have that, then their procedures would be
triggered with respect to that process. And so the whole point of contested case proceedings is to
provide a due process and opportunity for persons to present their evidence, retain counsel if
necessary, or proceed pro se. But at that level there’d be even more objectivity according to their
special permit because persons could then present their evidence, present their experts. Persons
who are opposed to this, this special permit, can then present their experts also. So that’s, that’s
the opportunity for further review, a more objective review, so to speak, because there are due
process considerations that are afforded there.
ONO: So just for my purpose of clarification here -.
MORRIS: Yeah, I don’t think this Commission has the opportunity to hold contested case
hearings on this particular application. That’s, I could be mis -. I mean that’s my understanding.
AU: Yeah, Ivan?
TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, generally speaking on this kind of special permit
where it’s over 15 acres, as the Deputy AG was saying, your job here is basically to, you have
two options. You can either decide to basically kill it here, and then the charter school with the
Deputy AG’s help has the option of filing an appeal to Circuit Court. So if you try to, if you vote
to deny the application here, then they can appeal that to court immediately. Okay? If you vote
to support it and send a positive recommendation, then it goes up to the Land Use Commission,
and there a contested case hearing can be held. And just as this morning you gave standing to
the National Park Service to have a formal contested case hearing, at the LUC similar thing can
happen where if, you know, some of the members of the community want to come in and apply
for standing in a contested case, they could do that there; and they could end up having a trial-
like formal contested case at the LUC. So that’s basically how it works.
AU: Thank you.
ONO: So you were saying the Land Use Commission can, not necessarily will, have a case? I
mean should the opposition, I’ve got to use that term, I guess, say they want to contest the
decision of this Commission, can they -?
TORIGOE: Yeah. You know, and they have to make that decision within the same kind of legal
boundaries as you do. That is if some of the surrounding landowners come in and they can show
that they have a particular interest that’s different from that of the general public and they’ll
likely be damaged, you know, if this school goes in if the permit is granted, then they probably
would be able to get a formal contested case going up there. And if they’re denied that and they
think they should have had it, then they can appeal that too. So, you know, there are all these
legal protections. As the deputy AG was saying there’s due process protections for those who
are concerned about the project, as well as for the applicant. So if the applicant, and even if there
isn’t a formal contested case, then if the applicant is turned down at the LUC, then they might
have an opportunity to appeal that as well.
12 ATTACHMENT C
MORRIS: Correct. Thank you.
S. LEE LOY: And for the record, on behalf of CBESS nonprofit, our office would be
participating in that due process and submit possibly a joinder to any appeal that the school may
have related to this application. So the Attorney General would represent the school and our
office would represent the nonprofit.
AU: Thank you. Any more questions for the applicant?
ISHIBASHI: Brother Chair. Just one point of clarification. We have 4200 gallons per day.
And you made reference we’re going limit the students based on that. So how many students we
allocated for this 4200? How much of our student body is covered under this 4200?
LUOMO: Well, it sort of varies depending how many, how many boarders you’re going to have
and then how many part-time students help, and then employees as well. So they would, one
would, it comes with, we do calculations when we decide how many boarders will be on the
campus and how many students will be on campus, how many part-time employees will be on
campus, how many full-time employees. So the amount of employees also would figure into the
calculations. So we give scenarios initially, so there’s really not, there are different scenarios
where you’re a lot less and then different scenarios where you’re a lot higher. But they would
limit it with the calculations with the Department of Water’s approval. They would, once they
approve it, then they would limit it to that amount of students and employees. So we really can’t
say a definitive number right now because it varies depending how you mix and match with the
boarders, the employees, and the students.
MORRIS: Just to add to what Kevin was saying, you know, I had previously mentioned that if
the permit is approved the school does need to undertake additional investigations, and that’s
part of the additional investigation, is the engineers will look at what type of fixtures will be
used, and, you know, and they will look at like what facilities would be serviced by that 4200
gallons. And so they may initially choose not to put the dorm or the kitchen up. Those are high
water use type facilities. So those decisions will be made at that further investigation stage. And
like Kevin said at this point we can’t really say how many students that would support. You
know, when those investigations are done, when those decisions are made, you know, that
determination will be made, you know, what facilities will be serviced by those, that 4200
gallons and how many students.
LUOMO: In addition to that, if you have a cafeteria then of course that would increase your
water usage as well. So if you could have more students without a cafeteria, then you can just
have a warming kitchen where they’re not actually doing dish washing there. And then also if
you have shower facilities, you do not have shower facilities on the campus then that would
reduce the water usage as well. So it’s varying, there’s many different variables affecting the
water usage calculations.
13 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Ms. Shen, is this going to be rated? I know it’s still early. But do you foresee it being a
Platinum LEED or Gold LEED project?
SHEN: Well, at minimum it would be silver; and I think, you know, the school would try, would
like to achieve the highest level as feasible. But at this point, you know, at least silver.
AU: Okay, any more questions for the testifiers, sorry, applicants? You’re not testifying yet.
Okay, well, you can be seated. Okay, again, I’m going to reiterate - bear in mind testifiers, we
have 15 people testifying - you have three minutes; and, you know, we’ve heard a lot of
testimony before so, you know, please keep that in mind.
ONO: Mr. Chair, can I ask for a five-minute break, please.
AU: Yes, break.
RECESSED – The Chair recessed the meeting at 11:59 a.m.
RECONVENED – The Chair reconvened the meeting at 12:05 p.m.
AU: Okay, we have 19 people signed up to testify. And I will be granting Sidney Fuke to testify
on behalf of himself and four other people, and I’ll give him, I’ll give you 10 minutes. Okay?
I’ll give you 10 minutes to testify. We have a Jeff Gomes here to testify on himself, oh, I’m just
letting you know that I will give you more time cause you’re also testifying on, representing your
wife. Okay? So maybe what I’ll do is we’ll go with Sidney first and then I’ll bring the next four
people up. So can you raise your right hand first, oh, you’re actually already sworn. So you can
go ahead and get started. And your clock starts when, as soon as you speak.
FUKE: Mr. Chairman, you know, the alternative is like we could have the four people and then,
you know, they could just read what I’m doing; and with me it will be total 15 minutes. So, I
mean, you know, just trying to do the math. But, anyway I’m speaking on behalf of like today
not as a consultant but as a citizen, and more so as a member of the affected community. What
I’d like to do today is basically to summarize the community’s concerns; and as you kind of
mentioned earlier, you know, it’s kind of like redundant already. And, however, to frame those
concerns against the criteria for a special permit, I think that, you know, from the community’s
standpoint we believe that there is sufficient basis at this point in time for denial action by the
Commission. These concerns of what I’m going to be sharing with you have been expressed in
the document that was prepared by Retired Judge Yoshioka and a copy of which, with some
editing, was already provided to the Commission this morning.
The question like now is who is the community? And I think the community is really important,
because as was evidenced in your previous application I think there was discussion about the
importance of getting community input. If you purely rely on just don’t worry about it because
the Office of State Plan or another agency, everything is all honky dory, then you really don’t
need to have community input. And that’s the reason why we’re all here today. There are notice
requirements, there’s a public hearing requirement, so on and so forth. Who is the community?
14 ATTACHMENT C
What you see over there is a map. You can see in the dark area, that’s the subject property. The
lighter green area is really within 1,000 feet of the surrounding property owners, although the
requirement for notification is only 500 feet?
Who is the community again? The community when they first heard about it they were
obviously kind of concerned after attending one or two of the community meetings. So they
organized then themselves and they had a petition. That was a petition, I think, a copy of which
you already have. Well, the survey results of the commu -, I kind of like updated that. The
number of lots within the Pacific Plantation is not 76 but in fact it is 106. And of the 106 there
were 90 who were opposed, so essentially 85 percent within the Pacific Plantation Subdivision
were opposed. As far as the surrounding property owner list included in the application, you
know, they filed, you know, who your surrounding property owners were within 500 feet. I
counted 170; but this excludes all government land and roadway parcels. Of these 116 or 68
percent were opposed, 54 or 31 percent basically took no position for or they were not contacted.
Many of them were vacant land or absentee owners. I think that as far as the numbers, others
will testify that it has subsequently been updated by additional names.
The next, what is the community not against? Definitely as you’ve heard many times, the
community is not against the Connections Charter School, especially its students. They’re not
against the school or any educational facility. Many in the community are or were educators or
other professionals who understand and support the value of education.
Now what are the concerns or issues? Basically two things. One is that the land use entitlement
process, it should be a State Land Use Boundary Amendment instead of a Special Permit given
the magnitude of impacts. And, secondly, the location is not appropriate given its adverse
impacts to the neighboring community, and the potential availability of alternative sites.
In terms of the land use entitlement process, schools, especially the K-12, are situated within the
State Land Use Urban and not Agricultural District. The recently constructed schools within the
last 20 years, whether it’s Kealakehe, Keaau, Kamehameha School, they’re all in the SLU Urban
District. As a matter of fact, Kamehameha School in Keaau also came in for a State Land Use
Boundary Amendment.
We’re also saying that the special permits may be appropriate for smaller facilities like a pre-
school, nurseries, or single level schools (such as elementary only), but not for a 70-acre, 400
student, K-12 campus.
What’s the special permit criteria? One is it has got to be an unusualand reasonable useof land
in the Agricultural District. Secondly it has got to promote the effectiveness and objectives of
the SLU Laws and Regulations. In terms of the special permit criteria, the Department’s
rationale is that, first of all, it has a poor soil condition, therefore, not suited for agricultural
activities. Well, this is what the community is saying – Well, you know, in spite of the soil
classification, the site has other agricultural potential: Be it for forestry, citrus, certain
floricultural crops. You have hydroponics which are, that’s not necessarily soil based, and even
has Open space value.
15 ATTACHMENT C
The other criteria is like unusual use. And the Department is saying, well, it’s unusual because
schools are not considered agricultural in nature. That’s true. The community is saying well,
you know, because of the magnitude of the request and its impacts, this unusual request should
be processed via the State Land Use Boundary amendment process and not the Special Permit
process.
Let’s look at the special permit criteria. The Department is saying, well, it’s a reasonable use
because schools are needed to support agricultural community. This is what the community is
saying, no, the proposed location is not needed to support an agricultural community because this
is an urban residential community, not an agricultural community.
The other criteria is that it would not adversely impact surrounding properties. Well, the
Department is saying, well, the adverse impacts are associated with traffic, noise, and visual.
And in terms of traffic, the TIAR states that the Level of Service, the LOS, to operate at
acceptable levels, would operate at acceptable levels with left turn lanes at Edita Street; and
don’t worry about the noise because they’ll provide landscaping.
Okay, in terms of like the traffic, well, at least like, as I mentioned, 70 percent of the community
now basically disagrees; and this is what they’re saying on traffic. They’re saying that, first of
all, the issue on the date of study, the study, in terms of the data collection, was done when the
school was nearing its end. Secondly, it was compiled on May 28, 2009, nearly 3 years from
submittal of application. The other thing is the level of standard is a standard based on, level of
service rather, it’s a standard based on waiting period for movements, which does not necessarily
translate to expected quality of life and, in turn, impact.
The significant traffic impacts, increase on Kaumana Drive and Edita Street, if you use the
“preferred alternative” data (which is the current plan of applicant) which is to use, the mauka
side will be kept open and the makai side would be all, you know, would be the project’s
development. They’re saying that the Project’s Traffic Generation during the a.m. peak, which is
7:00 to 8:00 a.m., would have about 187 movements on Kaumana Drive and Edita Street. If you
look at the existing a.m. peak right now at Kaumana Drive, you have 102 mauka bound on
Kaumana Drive, 219 on the makai bound, for a total of 321 movements on Kaumana Drive.
With the project upon build out, then that would represent about 58% increase over the existing
level. Let’s now turn only onto Edita Street which is going to be the most significantly impacted
area, street. The existing a.m. peak on Edita Street, you have like 13 inbound and 49 outbound
movements, for a total of 62 total movements. If you add 187 projected movements during the
a.m. peak, then you’ll have a total of 249, which represents 330% increase over the existing
level.
The other point I think the community is saying is that there’s no discussion of impacts to the
balance of Kaumana Drive, particularly between Ainako Avenue or at the start of where the
winding road begins to Edita Street, and also from Wilder Street, Wilder Road rather, down to
Edita Street. For example, there is like Terrace Drive, you know, because you’ll have lot of
traffic coming in, going mauka and makai bound on that. So, therefore, like in conclusion,
relative to traffic, the community is saying, first of all, the level of service is not really relevant
because it’s not, it relates to time delay. It has really little to do with the quality of life, the
perceived quality of life. And then the percentage of impact is more critical in establishing level
16 ATTACHMENT C
of impact. And nearly 85 percent of the residents on Edita Street, and 70 percent within 500 feet,
are saying it’s adverse.
When you talk about noise, we all know it’s a very tranquil residential area. People bought
properties with the expectation it was going to be kept in that same tranquil residential
environment. And with the traffic associated from the school activities and the school, there will
be added noise.
The community is also concerned about the real property impact and the possible lower real
estate value resulting from the diminished quality of life. So collectively then, you know, they
all translate to adverse impacts to surrounding properties. The level of impacts and quality of
life, as I mentioned earlier, are really, are perceptual and not necessarily statistical. The question
then, that’s the reason why you have public hearings, who can best determine an adverse impact?
Is it the outsider or the persons who will be most impacted? You know, I just use an analogy
where you have like this, you have a shoe, and, you know, who knows where the “shoe
pinches”? An outsider can say, nah, it doesn’t, you know, “it’s not sore.” But on the other hand
if you were wearing the shoe, you’re going to say, “I’ll tell you where it’s sore.” And the
community for the most part is saying, “It’s sore.”
Now this conclusion about the adverse impact is not necessarily only limited to the people who
have testified or people who have signed the petition, but it’s also shared with the Police
Department. This is what the Police Department stated in their comments, “The proposed school
is being placed in a residential area that will likely effect (sic) the quality of life for residents that
border this proposed site. There will be an increase in noise, crime and traffic.”
AU: Mr. Fuke, can you sum it please.
FUKE: Oh, get plenty more. Can I just get just -.
PUBLIC: I’ll just give you my time.
AU: I’ll give you two more minutes.
FUKE: Okay. Well, about traffic and infrastructure burden, can you move on, the next one.
Okay, in terms of like the water, they talk about 26,100, you know, to answer Commissioner
Gonzales’s question, you know, the total requirement, this is based on the environmental
assessment application, they said they need 26,100, they’ve got only 4,200, which is 16 percent
of the total. But based on what the guy’s, the consultant is saying today, they might need like
about 100 gallons per day per student. So that translates to only 42 students. So the question is
what is before the appli -, what is the Commission considering today? Are we considering like a
small school, or a big school, or what? Because to do over and beyond 4,200 gallons per day,
what the Water Department is saying, it’s not a question of the transmission issue, but it’s a
question of source. And to do a new well, a new source is going to cost you like about
$1,000,000, $1,500,000. That has to be put into the equation of the overall project development.
You can skip on police and fire, drainage, waste water.
17 ATTACHMENT C
YOSHIOKA: Mr. Chairman, I’m scheduled to speak and if you would allow, I would like to
relinquish my time to Mr. Fuke.
AU: Okay, granted. What is your name?
YOSHIOKA: Terence Yoshioka.
AU: Okay, go ahead.
YOSHIOKA: He spoke only - .
AU: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Fuke.
FUKE: Okay. In terms of the unusual conditions, trends, as I mentioned earlier, you know,
we’re saying, the community is saying the boundary amendment process is more appropriate, not
this. And the other thing is that, like the insufficient examination of potential Private Lands or
underutilized Government facilities. And, moving on.
So in terms of the Insufficient Examination of Potential Public Land Alternatives (page 16 of the
environmental assessment)(Considering the student population base – 50% coming in from Puna
District), there’s like State Land fronting the Puainako Extension, the State Land off of
Kawailani Street, so, you know, like those you can barely see, like where the Puainako Extension
is. But I’ve kind of highlighted, you know, those are the States Lands. And the next sheet, that’s
like properties that directly abut the, would be at the end of Puainako Street on one side and the
other end would be Kawailani Street. So, you know, these are really intended to illustrate that
there are options available. And this is not like an, the site that they’re looking at right now is
not like an imminent domain situation where, you know, if you can’t do it then, you know,
there’s no place else that we can. And I think that we’re suggesting that there are alternatives,
and these alternatives were not seriously investigated by the applicant.
We talked about land not being suited within the agricultural district, well, and we covered about
that.
The change in the character, we’re saying that there’s no question, once you have a use over
there, the character of the land will change, the character of the environment will change. And it
will not be contrary to General Plan or other pertinent documents, well, you know, I took only
selected portions. And so this is clearly, you know, the underscored one, in keeping with the
environmental and aesthetic concerns of the community, who is the community?
And the next element is like there we go again, encourage development in keeping with the
community. So the community in this situation here has clearly, at least 75 percent within 500
feet or 80 percent who use Edita Street, they’re saying that it’s not, it’s not appropriate, it’s not
appropriate. It’s going to have an impact on us.So, therefore, in conclusion, what were just
saying is that, No. 1, it does not meet the test for a Special Permit. No. 2 is that between 75 to 80
percent, which is the vast majority of the surrounding residential property owners, they’re saying
that the project will have an adverse impact, no matter what everybody else says.
18 ATTACHMENT C
And lastly is that if approved that the desired level of community support needed to make a
school successful would probably be absent. Thank you.
AU: Madam Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: At the risk of eating up time and getting Commissioners upset with me,
Mr. Fuke, could you go back to the slides that you skipped, go back to the slides that you
skipped. And I also want to know, are you going to provide this to us in some form where we
can print these out so that it’s part of our record, please?
FUKE: Yes, yes.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay.
FUKE: I don’t know where I skipped.
LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I don’t know either.
L. NOVAK: This is one of them. I think that’s it.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, I guess the, I would like the, try to get staff to print up your slide
before, you know, we get into deliberations so that everybody has got each slide, cause this
seemed to be an important presentation on behalf of the community. And most of the caves that
you’re talking though are mauka, correct?
FUKE: I didn’t, I didn’t address the cave issue. I just talked generally about the environmental -
.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, just generally, okay. Can you go to the next slide.
AU: Can you address that cave issue?
FUKE: We just kind of mentioned, I just kind of generally touched on that to saying that the,
there are some environmental issues that haven’t been fully explored, you know, relative to like
the drainage system. You know, because, and others, others can attest to that, you know, in
terms of if you’re going to have your drainage and then you have a honeycomb of caves,
potential caves underneath, then the drainage system needs to be addressed to make sure that -
you know, whether it’s going to be a waste water system or your system of drywell - it doesn’t
compromise the drainage flow of surrounding properties, and especially the makai properties.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, could you go to the next slide. Next, the next one where you have
the map. Where is, I guess the red is the State land? I want to clarify what I’m looking at.
FUKE: Just a minute, I have my own (laser pointer). Okay, yeah, I should have taken it out.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. Yeah, mine is not working.
FUKE: This is really like, this small little sliver is really like the Puainako Extension. And this
road here is the Komohana Street Extension. So what we’re saying is that, you know, although a
lot of this property has been encumbered by the University of Hawaii for, you know, future
19 ATTACHMENT C
expansion, there is a potential for this area, like as Hospice of Hilo did, in getting the University
of Hawai‘i to agree to relinquish three acres of its proposed expansion. This expansion area, as
for the Hospice In-patient Facility, we’re saying that that hasn’t been fully investigated. This is
the property that’s on the Puna side of the Puainako Extension. And, can you turn to the next
slide. This is the, this is basically the Puainako Extension area. So this is another property. This
is Kawailani Street. These are properties that were discussed in the environmental assessment. I
didn’t put like all of the rest of the sites on.
LEITHEAD TODD: So, but it is the red colored property that is the State property?
FUKE: Yes, correct.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. Cause I wasn’t clear as you were going through there.
FUKE: Sorry.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, the next slide, next.
FUKE: That’s all. I covered it all.
LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. Thank you. And if you can get that to our staff, cause I really want
to get it printed up before this afternoon.
AU: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Fuke? Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Reminder, well,
Commissioners, we haven’t discussed this. But what, we’re going to take testimony up to
1 o’clock and then we’re going to break for lunch. Okay, just so the public knows that we’re
going to go to 1 o’clock and then we’ll break for lunch for an hour; and we’ll be back here at 2 to
reconvene. Okay, so four people. I got Sarah Burgess, Saramae Landers, Jeff Gomes and Les
Sakamoto, four people please come up.
Okay, everyone please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of
the Hawai‘i County Windward Planning Commission today?
TESTIFIERS: I do. Yes.
AU: Okay, thank you. Please speak into the microphone, and we’ll start off with Sarah Burgess.
And please state your name and where you reside.
BURGESS: My name is Sarah Burgess. I reside on the island, the Big Island of Hawai‘i in
Puna. And I’ll introduce you to my mother and, oh, and I say, yes, I’m going to be truthful. This
is my mother, Saramae Landers; and she lives, we live together. And you’re going to tell the
truth, aren’t you?
LANDERS: Yes, I’ll tell the truth.
BURGESS: Just say yes.
20 ATTACHMENT C
LANDERS: Yes.
BURGESS: Okay.
AU: Okay, thank you. Okay, so, yeah, you can go ahead and start your three minutes now.
BURGESS: Okay, thank you. I come here today, this is the first time I’ve ever testified. But I
feel this is very, very important. And to me from listening to the discussion for the first time
today it seems like there’s quite a conflict of values. But in any case, I’ve come, and my mother
has come, because we have chosen to live here. We’re both educators. She came to the Big
Island of Hawai‘i about 80 years ago and was a teacher along with her sister at one of the schools
in Hilo. And since then she’s been involved in education until now; and she’s now 106 ½. And
I also am an educator. I was a teacher at the University of Hawai‘i in Honolulu and up, one of
the founders of Leeward Community College. And I’m, have a long, sincere value for
education. So when I heard about this project, I thought, oh, that’s great. And as I heard about
some of the features of it, I thought it was even more great because it followed some of my
personal concerns.
One is a concern for the elderly person. And the reason, one of the reasons we live here is
because my mother is treated with great respect; and I appreciate that. And so does she, I know.
And she was in a program that involved children and adults at the University in Washington
which worked out very well because she was in a program where her four grandchildren were
also involved, and I her daughter was involved. And it was a very nice concern for educating
older and younger people together. It’s a very nice project, very positive. And I understand that
the Connections School has a similar, not exactly the same, but the idea for older people who are
going to be involved in the school, which I think is a very good thing.
And a second personal concern is for the land. I find, I’m not a Hawaiian person, but I really am
moved by the statement that the Life of the Land is Perpetuated by Righteousness. And in our
society, in our world today, we’re experiencing the ravages of the weather; and it’s going, it
looks to be worse. So any environmental project that can educate children to start caring for the
aina in an educated and intelligent way is important. And I understand that this project is
planning to plant native plants and have agricultural training as part of their curriculum, which I
think is a very good thing.
And I think the third value that I personally really like about Hawaii is aloha. I mean who
doesn’t like to be loved? And the school from my observation of it is one that is very, is positive
and promotes good feelings among the children. So at least for me, my values are to educate, to
preserve the aina, and to perpetuate aloha. And my mom is now, we’ve come to thank you for
this project, not just this project but for planning, because you can see what happens in
communities where planning isn’t done carefully. So, anyway, my mother has, is going to give
you a toast of congratulations for your hard work, not only the Connections people but all the
people who have taken their time and effort to try to make their communities good, and for you
21 ATTACHMENT C
who are giving all your intelligence and thought to planning our good community. So my mom
is giving you a toast.
LANDERS: May you live a long life full with gladness and health, with a positive goal as a
leash of your wealth. May the dreams that you hold dearest be the ones that come true and the
friendships you give keep returning to you. And trusting in him to whom we all pray, may a
song fill your heart every step of the way.
AU: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the two testifiers? No? Okay, Jeff Gomes on behalf
of yourself and your wife. I’ll give you six minutes. And when you’re ready you can go ahead.
Oh, please state your name -.
J. GOMES: I’m Jeff Gomes.
AU: And where you reside.
J. GOMES: I reside in Kaumana. We’re the victims that live next to the property. Our home is
still on that video asking for support for the school. And our newspaper still gets stolen, beer
bottles thrown in our yard, two of the signs are stolen from my yard. And then there’s no end to
it. But as far as the, oh, when, as John Thatcher said, they put a TRO on me because I made up
signs which are legal. They’re on our property. And I guess it’s their right to try and put a TRO
on me for making up legal signs and -.
But the, as far as the verbiage goes with what Ms. Lee Loy was recommending, if they added it
in there, it just means that if we as a community disagree and, they’ll just continue attacking me
if I speak up. So I don’t think that will work. And the water usage is wrong, and I’m totally
against the project. It’s just the location. It’s not the kids. The location is bad.
And there’s also an issue of the lava tube that I had mentioned to Ms. Leithead Todd at one of
the community meetings. And Jeff Darrow came out with the group to have the lava tube looked
at. And the school was supposed to send somebody down into the drywell to have them look at
the lava tube. And till today, there’s been no report. Theresa Donham from DLNR has not
signed off on that. Nobody has made any attempt to do it except for the letter from Pacific
Resources that state they spoke to local residents and someone told them that the drywell
overflows during heavy rain, which is not a true. And the person I spoke to was Justine
Thatcher, the principal’s son; and he’s not the local resident. I am. I live right next door to the
lava tube. And nobody has been there to look at it yet, so that they should have already checked
that out.
AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? No? Okay, Les Sakamoto.
L. SAKAMOTO: Yup, my name is Les Sakamoto. I live on Mele Manu Street. Mr. Fuke has
covered a lot of the concerns that we have, so I won’t go over it. It’s in my testimony. But I’ll
skip it and I’ll just get to the gist of my testimony.
22 ATTACHMENT C
When the Planning Director issued a favorable recommendation, it was done with reservations
and without the benefit of public testimony. Now with the benefit of such testimonies from so
many who have expressed overwhelming opposition to the school’s proposed location, it is up to
you, the Windward Planning Commission, to make the final decision. I humbly ask you to
recommend denial of the Special Permit.
By denying the Special Permit, you are not denying a new school for the students, nor are you
denying a new campus for the faculty, for nothing yet has been built. And I believe nothing
should be built, until the leaders of the school find a better suited location.
The sites that were considered by the administrators in their initial search were all located in the
central Hilo area, and many were summarily dismissed as being “too large” or “too small”.
Perhaps these sites should be revisited. But more so, we believe other potential sites were not
even considered or fully explored. Why not extend the search further into Panaewa, or Keaau, or
Puna, or Hamakua Coast? A site that has less inherent restrictions, community dissent, or
stringent conditions of approval will allow the project to quickly get off the ground.
As Connection’s consultant Celia Shen mentioned, the conceptual drawings for the campus are
in their very early planning stages, and can be easily modified to accommodate change in
conditions. Thus the investment in these plans will not be lost, but can instead be used to
springboard the project at the appropriate location. But, more importantly, by choosing a site
that is embraced by its stakeholders as well as the surrounding neighbors and community at
large, the school can then meet with a success that is – at best – questionable at the Kaumana
location.
In conclusion, please vote to recommend denial of the special permit, and in so doing compel the
leaders of Connections to seek an alternative, but appropriate location for their new campus.
Only then will the school be able to advance quickly – and harmoniously – to achieve its stated
goals. The students, their parents, the faculty, and our community at large deserve no less.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, thank you all. You may be seated.
Next four people, June Sakamoto, Ming Peng, Kaainoa Enaena, and Allen Novak. Please come
forward. Okay, and I guess we’re missing somebody. Robert Wagner then. I’ll move on to the
next person.
L. NOVAK: Oh, Robert Wagner.
AU: Okay, can you all raise your right hand, please. Do you affirm to tell the truth, do you
swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Planning Commission today?
TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do.
AU: Okay. We’ll start off with June Sakamoto. Please state your name, where you reside and
speak into the microphone. You have three minutes.
23 ATTACHMENT C
J. SAKAMOTO: June Sakamoto. I live on Mele Manu Street. I am here to once again express
my concern over the negative impact the school will have on traffic safety and our quality of life.
The school is downplaying the traffic aspect, but we who must navigate Kaumana Drive almost
every day know what a dangerous stretch of road it is. To subject the residents of Kaumana
Drive to heavy school traffic and increased safety concerns when the school has not fully
investigated other possible, more suitable locations, is not only unfair to the surrounding
neighborhood but also suggests a lack of prudent planning.
Commissioner Au conceded that community consensus is important. After all, the community is
the one that will be driving by the project every day. Commissioner Moses expressed it perfectly
when she said “An important criteria for any development is the community support for it.”
There is a definite lack of local community support in the vicinity of the proposed project as can
be seen by the testimonies given and the over 500 signatures collected of people opposing the
school location. These are people who live up and down Kaumana Drive. Therefore, I resent
Mr. Thatcher’s statement that this is a matter of an affluent neighborhood saying “Not in my
backyard.”
The school has shown a consistent lack of consideration for the community it will impact the
most. I ask that you please deny this project. Thank you.
AU: Any questions for Ms. Sakamoto? Okay, Ming Peng, please state your name and where
you reside.
PENG: My name is Ming Peng. I live on Mele Manu Street. I am still opposed to the
construction of Connections Charter School. The initial meetings suggested by this Commission
unfortunately was unsuccessful. For example, during this meeting, Mr. Boyd’s response to the
lack of funding and water for this project was that these issues were in the “planning phase” and
it will be “phased approached”. I took that to mean that they still have no current plan to resolve
critical issues to accommodate a 400-student school that includes faculty and a dormitory.
Despite their assurances, unfortunately, the administrators have broken the trust of the
community that cannot be repaired.
I have not been given concrete reasons as to why the Edita location is appropriate: there is not
enough water for the school, there will be an increase in traffic and crime, there are already two
schools in the area, and, most importantly, there is overwhelming community opposition.
In my opinion, the best course of action for the Connections administration is to find an
alternative site where community support exists and the infrastructure is appropriate for the
school to be successful. Please deny the special permit. Thank you.
AU: Any questions for Mr. Peng? Okay, Kaainoa Enaena. He’s not here? Okay, Allen Novak,
please state your name and where you reside.
24 ATTACHMENT C
NOVAK: I’m Allen Novak. I reside in Kaumana on Mele Manu Street. And at the original
hearing, the Commission instructed Connections to hold a community meeting and report back
thth
by December 6. I also attended the December 6 hearing. I had not received any notice of a
meeting, but was told at that hearing that a notice was in the mail; and, indeed, the next day a
th
notice did arrive on December 7 notifying me that Connections was going to host a meeting on
th
December 17 at the Connections School in the middle of the day. It gave me ten days to
reschedule my patients, which I did because I considered it important that I stay informed and
see any opportunities to work with this group that may arise. So I was able to attend the
th
December 7 meeting, at which Eric Boyd initiated the meeting by expressing his desire to build
trust with the community. These words made feel encouraged and hopeful. As the meeting
progressed, it became apparent that these opening words were hallow, as Connections became
unresponsive to community input. Connection’s position became blatantly apparent to me that a
community, when a community member asked if Connections would take some action to
mitigate the traffic congestion and hazards that occur, would occur at the intersection of
Kaumana Drive and Edita Street, the response was that they weren’t required to do so. No
attempt was made to address the concern for safety or congestion at that intersection.
It became apparent to me that in spite of Connection’s stated position of being willing to
consider community concerns and accommodate, they plan to do the minimum required by law
or whatever they can get away. If this special use permit is approved, Connections will deviate
from its stated plan, at the expense of the community if it is to their advantage. I have no doubt
of that. Keeping the door open does not reflect commitment to action. You are our only hope to
protect our community from this premature misguided project proposal. So please deny this
permit application.
AU: Thank you, Mr. Novak. Any questions for the testifier? Robert Wagner.
L. NOVAK: Oh, that’s me. My name is Layne Novak. I am going to be testifying on behalf of
Robert Wagner who is at work right now. Both, Captain Wagner and I live on Mele Manu
Street.
This morning as usual, at about 7:20 a.m., I drove from my residence on Mele Manu Street to
work. I exited Edita Street making a right turn onto Kaumana Drive. As I drove down, traffic
was as usual for a school day, the traffic began backing up at Terrace Drive and slowed to about
4 or 5 miles per hour once you reached Luana Way. If you are coming out of Luana Way, or the
street below (Aipuni Street), you rely on people letting you out, otherwise you cannot enter
Kaumana Drive, especially those exiting Aipuni Street, which is roughly quarter mile away from
the intersection of Ainako/Kaumana Drive.
Traffic is heavy at this time on Kaumana Drive, it takes me 15 minutes to get to work which is 4
miles away. You can experience this yourself if you want, just drive down Kaumana Drive at
about 7:30.
The problem I have, having, excuse me, the problem I am having is the increase in traffic that
will occur as a result of a charter school that has 370 students, not including staff, exiting onto
25 ATTACHMENT C
Edita Street, then onto Kaumana Drive. To increase the traffic to those proportions will result in
traffic being backed up probably to Hokulani Street, which is roughly a mile away from the
Kaumana Drive/Ainako intersection. There are other factors as well that will increase traffic on
Kaumana Drive in the future:
In the very back of Hokulani Street, they opened up several lots, not sure how many, but
somewhere in the area of 40. This subdivision is completed and they are selling the lots.
Kumulani Gardens, which is a new subdivision opening at the bottom of Alahelenui Street, and
also will have an entry/exit across from Iiwipolina Street, will have 88 lots, this is a 201H
Affordable Housing Project. These exits both enter Kaumana Drive.
I have been a resident of Pacific Plantation for 20 years, built my home in 1992. I have lived on
this island all my life, and in particular Kaumana area for 50 years. A great majority of those
living in this area are opposed to the charter school, I would estimate in the high 90 percent
range. I only know of one person in my subdivision that is for the charter school, that is one
home out of 70, I do respect their position.
There are other reasons why I do not wish to have the Connections Charter School move into our
subdivision, but these are my main concerns.
Also realize that I do not trust those in charge of this charter school. They clearly have been
deceptive to the outstanding members of my community, and they will also, and they have also
vilified my community in the newspaper, which is very sad. I have seen an email in which he
(The Charter School Principal) has referred to the Windward Planning Commission as the
Kaumana Planning Commission, clearly implying that Windward Planning Commission has
taken sides and is also against them. This type of attitude makes it very difficult for our
community to work with them. Sincerely, Robert Wagner.
AU: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you guys very much. We have Kerri Marks,
Henry Lee Loy, Lee Botelho and M. Bishop. Okay, two, two, four. Okay, can you all please
raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in front of the Windward Planning
Commission today?
TESTIFIER: Yes. I do.
AU: Thank you. Please state your name and where you reside. Let’s go with Kerri Marks first.
MARKS: Good afternoon. I’m Kerri Marks. I live in Kaumana City up Kaumana. I oppose
this application for all the reasons I testified for about, ditto, ditto, everything everybody said.
They don’t have the water situation figured out, the traffic is going to be a nightmare. I don’t
want Kaumana Drive to change. I do not want it widened and straightened and all that. I love it
exactly like it is. And this school is never ever going to be accepted up in that neighborhood. So
we should reject it on that alone. Mahalo.
26 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, let’s go with Henry Lee Loy.
H. LEE LOY: Good afternoon.
AU: Please state your name and where you reside.
H. LEE LOY: Henry Lee Loy, 1579 Mele Manu Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Since our last meeting
last month, we have gathered 31 more signatures for our petition. It now numbers a total of 557
signatures for the petition objecting to the proposed site for the Charter Connections School.
The proposed location of the Connections Public Charter School would endanger and hinder the
community and students alike, as I testified previously.
I attended the community meeting at the Connections School on December 17, 2012. The
principal, Mr. Thatcher was absent. The Vice Principal Mr. Boyd was present. I felt that
Mr. Boyd gave vague and evasive answers in response to questions from the community. Here
again today Commissioner Ishibashi asked how many students? And they don’t know, they
can’t give an answer. Yet this applicant has said they have been doing the outreach for five
years since 1008.
The applicant has not earned the trust of the community due to continuous inaccuracies. We
request your support by voting no for this applicant’s special use permit. Thank you.
AU: Thank you, Mr. Lee Loy. Any questions? Okay, we have Lee Botelho. Please state your
name and where you reside.
BOTELHO: My name is Lee Botelho, and I live on Mele Manu Street. I did provide a written
testimony also for you folks to read.
Last month I testified and emphasized that the Commission should focus on the proposed use of
the property and whether or not building an educational facility would be appropriate. Again, I
would like to provide comments on why the proposed use would not be an appropriate use of the
subject property.
Although it may be an acceptable use, building a school would not be appropriate for the
following reasons:
Based on the County’s per person requirements for water, and as well as the school’s engineer
who testified based on the American Water Works Association’s projections per day, if you use
the 16 gallons, which is the minimum for a school that has showers, not boarding, you would be
able to provide water for 262 people, that includes students as well as the faculty and staff. The
school has said that they would cap enrollment if the water requirements do not meet their
enrollment levels. But their enrollment already exceeds that. So, therefore, there’s not enough
water for this project.
27 ATTACHMENT C
th
During the December 6 meeting, Principal Thatcher testified that this property was selected
based on the State DOE Educational Specifications because it was the only property that met the
criteria of 50 acres or more. Since the upper portion of the property has been deemed unusable
due to the location of the Kaumana Cave system, and today they’ve also stated that it’s going to
remain open land, so it’s not usable property, it no longer meets the State’s specifications for
building a school. Principal Thatcher today urged the Commission to follow the goals and
processes of the General Plan. The General Plan, oh, sorry, I’ve got to back up.
The specifications also require a minimum of two vehicular access points each on a different side
of the property. So I did give you copies of the DOE’s specs for building educational facilities,
it’s in there. There is only one access point to this parcel from Edita Street. And as the Planning
Director said at the last meeting, future access if any, granted by Mr. Brilhante cannot be a
consideration for approval or disapproval. As such, you must consider the fact that there is only
one entry for vehicles.
So now I go to the General Plan. I also have a copy of the Projection of Resident Population by
District, which is included in the General Plan, which shows a steady increase in the projected
population of the Puna district. The Hilo district projections remain the same from 2000,
approximately the same from 2000 to 2020. Based on this, and the goals of the General Plan,
there is a greater need to develop public facilities and services in the Puna district.
DARROW: Time.
AU: Ms. Lee, you can surmise real quick.
BOTELHO: The last thing is the General Plan also has a requirement to comply with the DOE’S
specification for building facilities. As such, I hope you look at the appropriateness of this
request and make a decision.
AU: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, we have M. Bishop.
BISHOP: Good afternoon. I’m M. Bishop, a homeowner up in the Kaumana area. Madam
Director, Chair, and neighbors, Board, excuse my rant. It’s also on paper in front of you. If you
got it there’s a bunch of misrepresentations and spelling.
I have to applaud the civility and value of content that my neighbors voice in opposition to the
proposal of the Connections master plan. But, it’s time to clear some smoke out of the air and
other places. The use of the word horse and the word barn in combination are in print five times
in the first ten pages. And they conclude with a Section 2.1.3, the project phasing and the
construction plan on page 11, where the first to be built facilities are the barn and agricultural
facilities, followed by one year the caretakers house and dorm complex. Then in Phase 3 the
beginning of high school classes and facilities. To what end does the horse precede the classes?
Second, the State Land and Natural Resources DLNR has not found the proposal by Connections
to be in error. They will let Connections drill a well. The State Land Commission will let
28 ATTACHMENT C
Connections drill a well. Now the Attorney General’s office will let Connections drill a well.
May I say that this Board has no opportunity to review the well’s process if it was to be applied
for according to the master plan that was provided for by Connections. It goes straight to the
State.
The Windward Hawai‘i Planning Commission faces a formidable decision. On page one of
Connections Master Plan, the issue of drilling a well is already injected for precedence. The
topic is fully explored when explaining the plan’s water needs and resolutions. A well will be
drilled for their needs. It’s not enough to get what you want civilly. Just take it from mother
nature.
Again, Windward Planning Commission you have a very daunting decision to make. Thank you
for your time.
AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, seeing none, thank you guys. We’re
going to bring up the last three people. Is there anybody else besides Layne Novak, Robert
Gomes, or David Camacho? Is that all we have? And that will conclude our -.
LEITHEAD TODD: One more.
AU: There’s one more, okay. Please sign up, or you can just have a seat. Just have a seat, and
I’ll write your name here. And as we conclude our testimony portion of this application we’re -.
OKUHARA: Before you go on, my name is Norine Okuhara and I did sign in.
AU: Oh, okay.
OKUHARA: But I will give Terence Yoshioka my time.
AU: Okay. So Ter -, Mr. Yoshioka you can have a seat. Thank you. Okay. So as we conclude
this public testimony part, we’re going to take a break and we’ll reconvene at 2 o’clock. Okay?
So please raise your right hand. Do you affirm and swear to tell the truth in front of the
Windward Planning Commission today?
TESTIFIERS: I do. Yes.
AU: Okay, thank you. Let’s start off with Layne Novak.
L. NOVAK: I apologize to the Windward Planning Commission. I had not planned on
testifying, but I just got so irritated listening to the applicant that I felt compelled to do so. So
excuse my babbling. When they started talking about the water issue, when we went to the
th
community meeting at the Charter School on December, whatever day it was, 17, they said that
they would cap the number of students based on water. Their original objective was to develop a
combined, to bring the two campuses together, K through 12 on a single campus. If they are
going to cap the water, and they kept bringing up they have enough, they would have enough
29 ATTACHMENT C
water for 70 students; and if that’s all they can have then that’s what they’re going to cap it for.
Why are they building in our neighborhood if that’s all they’re going to work with? You know
that’s not bringing together the K through 12 campuses. That was their original objective. Now
they’re planning piecemeal. They haven’t, they don’t have a master plan. The plan is fly-by-
the-seat-of-your-pants. And this is why the community doesn’t believe in what they do and what
they say. They haven’t followed their own EA about not bulldozing when the bats are in their
pupping season, they bulldozed the property. DLNR is still investigating them. I have tried to
reach the investigating officer. He has not completed his report. And, therefore, I have nothing
to say to this Commission at this time.
I, sorry, I think that’s about all I have to say. Thank you.
AU: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, Robert Gomes, please state your
name and where you reside.
R. GOMES: My name is Robert Gomes, Jr. I’m a lifetime resident of Hilo. I work for Public
Works. The last time I testified here concerned the traffic situation in the suggested location of
the school. Today I’d like to, first, I’m appalled at Mr. Thatcher’s comments about my brother.
He’s mixing in tragedies with this issue here that has nothing to do with those things. We really
feel like they’re bullying their way in, glorying up and stuff. I personally believe the Attorney
General’s Office should represent the community and special interest groups.
It seems like we’re in the middle of something that we missed the beginning of, you know. I
think we should be at this process before the land was even leased for them to start doing work,
planning on this specific location. I believe it’s their wasted amount of resources that they spent
all this effort to try to prove that this school should go here while not using those same resources
to look at all the alternative sites and see the impact that it would have on these other sites. Can
you imagine if you turn them down here and they go someplace else, they’re going to affect
another community. You’ll be seating in front of another bunch of people telling you why they
don’t want Connections in their community. So their ability to just corner themselves into this
situation has created a massive dilemma for the Commission. Whether you do or not, there are
going to be repercussions to your decisions, because I believe that we were speaking earlier
about the responsibility of the notification. It should lie directly with the applicant or developer.
He had all the time. I don’t care what the effort is or the amount or cost of it. It is the
responsibility of the applicant and the developer to notify the affected and impacted area where
they’re going to work. It shouldn’t fall on the taxpayers money where the County or Council.
Somebody else should be doing the notification. And the magnitude of this development is a
lifetime impact.
We had a gentleman here earlier today requesting a permit for his cold kitchen. But in the
process of this, we asked, you asked the gentleman what a cold kitchen was and he said it was
not cooking, but then he might be doing some smoking. I don’t know what smoking consists of
but I think there’s some fire involved. And we weren’t quite sure how much effort he gave in
contacting his neighbors and making sure either by signature or some kind of evidence to show
that a year from now somebody is not going to come and say, hey man, there’s fish guts smell,
30 ATTACHMENT C
the smoke is bothering me, my house get choke flies, you know. So the impact of, of whatever is
being built and developed is really placed into the responsibility of the person who’s doing it,
and it shouldn’t fall on anybody else.
So in this case the amount of time that Connections has spent should have been spent in a more
friendly manner. And if they had offended people they should approach these people in an
apologetic attitude, not lowering up and threatening and say, well, if you turn us down here,
we’re going to appeal it; we’re going to take it to a higher court, or where the Attorney General’s
office is trying to move it out of your hands and put it into somebody else’s hands and not be
able to allow the community to -. And so I’m strongly advising you to stop it and reverse it, and
start all over again, and force them to bring in the alternative sites. Like I said, we’re not trying
to stop them from building a school. And they can probably build an awesome school, you
know. And it’s just about location. And I hope that you -.
AU: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, thank you.
Robert, I’m sorry, David Camacho.
CAMACHO: I’m David Camacho. I live in Kaumana also. I also wasn’t going to testify. But
most of you know me here as a physician, but in the old days about 30 years ago I was a
mechanical engineer, so I got kind of turned on about the water need. And I just wanted to, I
came here to find out what exactly the Department of Water Supply had in response to the water
needs for Connections School. So if I use the calculations correct, it’s somewhere between 10 as
Mr. Gonzales had asked, between 10 and something like 110. And so if we just take the
minimum of 10, and you’re looking at, and they, I think we gave them 4,200 gallons or
something like that, you’re looking at maybe 400 kids and teachers and everything. So I know
my wife testified earlier.
So there’s only a few places that you can get water. So you’ve got to look up and you can pray
that it rains; and we do get a lot of rain in Kaumana. And even that rain we calculated if they
collected every drop they would need a certain amount of roof space and everything to get every
drop of water to get some of that other 80 percent of the water that they don’t have, cause out of
the 22,000 they need they only got 4,000.
Then you can look in the ground, as the previous person investigated, and dig a well. And one of
the things I found out, and don’t quote me if this is true, but if they want to put a new water
tower up (and I would hope maybe they can answer this question for me), it would require that
most of the residents - I don’t know what most means, somewhere between 60 and 80 or greater
than 50 percent - would have to agree to have a higher water bill to pay for that new tower. So if
they plan on putting a new tower in to support their water, then they would have to come back to
us and ask us to vote to build a new tower because they need more water.
So my only point is, is that I’m not sure how this works. But I think if I told you I was going to
build a house but I built only half of it because they only gave me half the water supply and I
need to build the other half, I don’t think you would give me a permit.
31 ATTACHMENT C
So what I would want to know from them is just what’s their water answer. That’s why I came
here today. You need water for safety reasons in every fashion. You know, as much as the flu is
going around today, we heard on the news 18 kids have died. You know the water issue with
fire, the firemen got to have water and, you know, the water has got to come from us somehow
up the hill, right? Water flows down the hill.
So I would just hope that the Commission at least wait to see what the water issues are. Where
the hell are they going to get the water at? No clue up there. So my mechanical engineering
days are over but I was hoping that the engineer would answer that question, or the planner.
Thank you.
AU: Questions for the testifier? Okay, last testifier we have Terence Yoshioka. So please state
your name and where you reside.
YOSHIOKA: My name is Terence Yoshioka and I’m a resident of Pacific Plantation
Subdivision. Before I begin, I’d like to attend to a housekeeping matter. And I’d like to submit
into evidence the testimony that was referred to by Mr. Fuke that was prepared by, jointly, by
myself and himself, and which has been revised. And if that can be made part of the record?
Okay?
AU: Okay. Yes, staff will go ahead and receive it.
YOSHIOKA: Okay. Thank you very much.
AU: If you’d like for us to review it, we need copies.
TORIGOE: Has this been distributed to them?
YOSHIOKA: Yes. It has been distributed to them.
AU: Okay, it has been distributed so we do have it. Okay, so we do have it. Sorry, go ahead.
YOSHIOKA: Before I -.
AU: Sorry, go ahead.
YOSHIOKA: Yeah, before I begin my presentation, I’d like to respond to a statement that was
made earlier by one of the speakers in support of the application. And I think she mentioned that
there are 60 conditions attached to the special permit. And, to me, that is testimony to the fact
that that application is tenuous and incomplete and supplies sufficient reason for denial of it, just
on that basis alone. Let me go now to my presentation.
Applicant has attempted to create the illusion that the 70-acre property is the only suitable
property for its school. It has done so by making the following representations:
32 ATTACHMENT C
1. That it will develop an agricultural program for its students;
2. That its agricultural program will require 20 acres of land; excuse me, and
3. That the subject 70 acres is “uniquely suitable” for its program.
Nowhere in its application has applicant provided proof that an agricultural program is needed or
wanted by its students. There is no basis, therefore, to assume that applicant will actually
develop such a program. Any conclusion based upon the presumption that the program will
materialize is unsupportable.
Furthermore, it is impossible to conclude that 20 acres is required for the program because no
evidence has been presented to identify what agricultural uses or activities will be taking place,
and the area required for each use and activity.
Applicant’s attempt to equate its need for 20 acres based upon the 20-acre demonstration farm of
the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo is unfounded. The fact that the University has a 20-acre farm
does not mean that applicant’s program will require 20 acres. Without some relevant basis for
comparing the University’s needs to the applicant’s needs, any assumption that the applicant
requires 20 acres would be based upon pure speculation.
The Windward Planning Commission can, also, find, and I urge that it do so, that the property is
not “uniquely suited” for applicant’s program. To be “unique”, the property must “exist as the
only one”, or “have no like to equal”. This would mean that if the property’s “D” or poor-rated
soil is “uniquely suited” for the program, then all other properties with better-rated “C”, “B”, and
“A” soils would not be “uniquely suited” for the program. It goes without saying that this is
illogical, incomprehensible and unbelievable.
Applicant seeks to pressure the Commission into granting the Special Permit by creating the
illusion that this property is indispensable to the school and its agricultural program. And, in
doing so, it hopes to divert attention away from the more weighty, relevant issues such as
increased traffic flow, the insufficient water supply, and, most importantly, the adverse impact
that the project will have on the adjacent landowners. These issues, and others, have already
been adequately addressed by previous speakers and will not be repeated at this time.
However, I urge the Commission to give serious consideration to these issues, which are real and
have been supported by credible evidence. Conversely, I urge you to disregard the
unsubstantiated and misleading representations of the applicant and to deny its application for a
Special Permit in the interest of sound planning and public welfare.
Thank you for your kind attention.
AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay, I want to make one request before we
go out to lunch. Can I call Mr. Fuke up here, please. I have a question for you. Okay, Mr. Fuke,
you’re already sworn in. Just recently this past year we approved a bunch of projects in that
area. Staff, maybe you can help me out. We approved Regency, there’s another subdivision that
33 ATTACHMENT C
was, and that subdivision wasn’t approved but there is a subdivision in that area, is it Kid’s
Corporation Development, LLC or something?
DARROW: Yes.
AU: Okay, there’s a subdivision going up there. Okay, Regency is a 100-bed facility. Let’s say
that’s 100 percent built out and there’s 100 seniors in that facility. I believe there are other
subdivisions that are going up there. So, you know, I know traffic is a big issue for everybody;
and it seemed like you represent a lot of your neighbors and community. You know, what is
your opinion on, you know, traffic? I mean in your presentation you said it will increase traffic.
But what about the other developments?
FUKE: Well, I think that kind of relates to the cumulative impact. And so if you look at the
Environmental Assessment, the Environmental Assessment did not necessarily consider the
cumulative impact. It just looked at existing situation and what this project would, additional
traffic this project would generate until maybe certain streets, be it Kaumana Drive and Edita
Street. But it did not examine, for example, as was what was pointed out by others like other
streets that are in the primary Kaumana, Kaumana Drive area which is problematic, which is
really from mauka of Ainako Avenue to like Wilder Avenue. Because if you have a lot of traffic
coming in from the Puna side, for example, I think you may have some traffic, people travelling
along Puainako, the extension, coming down, going down Wilder and then coming down on the
Kaumana Drive. And so -.
The other traffic studies that were done, for example like in the Kona area, if you do something
along Alii Drive, there is an examination of multiple intersections and not necessarily only on
one intersection. For example, if you do Alii Drive then you would have to look at like the
impact on Kamehameha III Road, also Lunapule, Lunapule and also down in Hualalai Road. So,
you know, there’s like multiple examinations of different intersectional types of impact.
In this particular situation, all they looked at is primarily the Edita Street intersection. So the
community is basically saying that, well, you know, you’re going to have a lot of additional
traffic coming up and down the road so what about those kind of impact. But the direct answer
to your question is that the cumulative impact was not examined.
AU: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Fuke? Okay, with that said, what we’ll do is we’ll go
ahead and take a break. And we’ll reconvene at about 2 o’clock.
LEITHEAD TODD: I think you’ve got to go to 2:15.
AU: Okay, okay, we’ll go 2:15. We’ll reconvene and be back here by 2:15.
RECESSED - The Chair recessed the meeting at 1:15 p.m.
RECONVENED – The Chair reconvened the meeting at 2:32 p.m.
34 ATTACHMENT C
AU: The Commission meeting will come back to order. I hope everybody had a good lunch. I
didn’t formally wish everybody a happy new year. So Fellow Commissioners and the public,
and fellow staff, Happy New Year; and we’ll continue on with this application. Can I have
Ms. Sue Lee Loy come up, please. And you’re already sworn in so we’ll just go ahead and ask a
few questions to you. Ivan?
TORIGOE: Yeah, the Chair Person has asked me to just state for the record that the Deputy
Attorney General who was here has left already for Honolulu with the consent of the applicants.
Correct?
S. LEE LOY: Yes.
TORIGOE: And so the applicants basically will be operating without her assistance this
afternoon. But everybody is agreeable to that?
S. LEE LOY: Yes.
THATCHER: Yes.
AU: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy for coming up. I want to refer to your report. I guess this
is your summary, you know, and I just want to make sure that our Director and our Planning
Department read all of this. I know you read this word for word pretty much, but I just want to
make sure that, you know, we’re all on the same page. And, you know, I do just want to clarify
what’s on the table now. So, Madam Director or Planning Department, do we have any issues
with these proposed additional conditions?
LEITHEAD TODD: No.
AU: So, Fellow Commissioners, I’m referring to this page that we were issued today and it was
by Ms. Lee Loy, it says “Status Report of Community Meeting.” And on the second page
Ms. Lee Loy has three conditions set in place - Condition – A, Condition – B, and Condition – C.
And I believe those are amendments to the original conditions; and that’s what he’s -. Is that
what you’re requesting to amend the conditions that were given at the last meeting?
S. LEE LOY: Yes. For the record, the applicant continues to support the proposed conditions of
approval presented by the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director. They
were revised, I believe, at the November meeting. They have 22 conditions. The 3 conditions
that I proposed here really was a direct result of the community meeting that we held in
December and me really listening and trying to figure out a way to begin to bridge some of the
community concerns and give them the assurances. So Conditions – A, - B, and – C, was a
direct result of that. So in addition to the conditions prepared by staff, we are continuing to offer
a few more conditions to help refine this process a little bit more and, you know, allow the
community to continue to have a voice in this process.
35 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Okay, reminder to Commissioners, we’re looking at this green paper right here, this green
paper is the final conditions. And we received this one at the last meeting, our December
meeting. So it’s green. So the yellow one was issued in November when we first heard it; and
the green one is the one we’re looking at right now. And at this time what we have on the table
is we have a, we’d like to entertain a motion either to deny or approve this special permit with
the amended conditions. So the amended conditions are on this green paper. Madam Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the proposed additional
conditions, specifically on page 2, that status report. And this regarded the 50-foot buffer. If
you’re talking about buffer, I think you need to not just have an issue about an occupiable
structure but whether you’ve got a landscaping buffer. And so if you had like a 10-foot
landscaping buffer around so that, you know, you basically don’t cut down everything right to
the edge of property -. Because then, you know, you can see all the buildings and stuff, so that
you need to keep that. But, because the condition as written would still allow you to clear cut
everything and you could still put structures. It just wouldn’t be occupiable structures. So you
would still have barns and other things that would be close to the edge. So if the intent is to
provide a visual buffer then you need to have some kind of landscaping barrier. If the intent is
just to reduce activity in the area, you know, then that’s an entirely different buffer. So I’m just
making those comments for the Commission’s consideration as to what is the intent of the buffer.
S. LEE LOY: And to help the Director clarify, it really was to, one, kind of continue an open
space. I recognized through the process, plan approval process, there’s some need for
landscaping. The applicant would more than likely continue those landscaped buffers. It really
was the intent of the applicant, and based on the community feedback, to ensure that some of the
noise making structures, like a classroom, would be as far away from the property line.
LEITHEAD TODD: So you’re talking noise more than anything else in terms of this buffer?
S. LEE LOY: Well, we, it’s the intent of the applicant to not put any structures within that 50-
foot buffer. We do view, you know, infrastructure, roads, that type of thing, as, you know, just
that. It’s not a structure, it’s no structure.
AU: Okay, Fellow Commissioners, so that’s what we have on the table, we have a, either
entertain a motion to approve or deny the special permit. And what I recommend is we go into
executive session. So could I have, could I get a motion for that?
TORIGOE: You’ve got to state what the purpose of that would be.
AU: Executive session would be to consult with our Corporation Counsel on the possible
outcomes and legalities of things.
TORIGOE: Okay, basically to get legal advice -?
AU: Yes.
36 ATTACHMENT C
TORIGOE: Regarding some possible options on this?
AU: Yes.
TORIGOE: Okay.
AU: Yes, legal advice.
TORIGOE: Second?
MOSES: Before we do, can I ask a question?
AU: Sure, go ahead, Commissioner Moses.
MOSES: I’d like to know that since, or find out before we go into executive session, that since
we received, we have now the benefit of public testimony and all the information that has been
given, has the Planning Director’s recommendation changed?
LEITHEAD TODD: This is an application that probably gave me as well as the Department a
certain amount of heartburn. And this is even before we had public testimony. And a lot of it
had to do whether this was an appropriate location for Connections School given the fact that 50
percent of its students came from Puna. But when we stepped back to look at this and not looked
at the makeup of the students which could change over time so that in fact over time this could
be, because at one time it was 100 percent students from Puna. So we had to go back and take a
look at was this a public charter school on State land Use agriculture at this particular location an
appropriate application for a special use permit. And we basically said that we felt that it met the
parameters.
I admit that I have significant concerns over traffic, and not the traffic at the intersection of Edita
and Kaumana Drive. What the traffic study did not address is the traffic at the intersection of
Ainako, Mohouli Extension and Kaumana Drive. And this is both from testimony of the public
and the fact that I drive that road every morning to take my two children to, my two youngest to
Hilo High. The traffic in fact does back up to Terrace. And if you were to add an additional 20,
30, 40, 50, 60 cars going up Kaumana Drive, dropping students off at the school, and then
turning around and going back down Kaumana Drive, what does that do to the timing of that
intersection? And I don’t know cause I don’t have that information.
And so I would probably want an additional condition of additional traffic impact analysis work
to be done before any final determination by the Land Use Commission were done on this here.
Based on the information that was provided and the way that we analyzed this, my
recommendation is in favor, but it is not without reservations, it is not without grave concern.
And it’s the traffic on Kaumana Drive, not the traffic on Edita that I’m concerned with; and it’s
the lower down because we do have additional subdivisions and additional development coming
up along Kaumana Drive. And the study does not really address the cumulative impact of all of
that. It did what typically traffic studies do, is you look at the impact of the specific spot. But
37 ATTACHMENT C
the problem is, is that it all funnels down to that intersection. And I don’t have information on
what kind of level of service it does, and whether you then have to widen Kaumana Drive at that
intersection, whether you’ve got to adjust the traffic lights. And that becomes a significant cost.
And who would do that? And I can’t tell that from the TIAR. But at this moment I am not
changing my recommendation.
AU: Okay, Commissioner Moses is your question answered?
MOSES: Yes.
AU: Okay. I’m ready to entertain a motion to go into executive session.
S. LEE LOY: Chairman Au?
AU: Yes, Ms. Lee Loy.
S. LEE LOY: Real quick, the applicant has also brought Phillip Rowell who’s our traffic
engineer who did the study. So if the Director needs a little bit more information on going
forward crafting of a, you know, a condition related to the look at other intersections, we have
the technical expertise here to kind of give an approval of that.
LEITHEAD TODD: Unless he studied the traffic at Mohouli, Ainako and Kaumana, I don’t
think he has any relevant information to give me.
S. LEE LOY: Okay.
LEITHEAD TODD: Thank you.
MOSES: I make a motion that we go into executive session.
GONZALES: Second.
TORIGOE: For the purposes of -?
MOSES: For the purposes as stated.
TORIGOE: Yeah, it’s just to have a consult with counsel.
AU: Okay, well, we’re going to take a vote or you guys just want to do it all together? All in -?
TORIGOE: You’ve got to take a vote.
AU: We’ve got to take a vote.
38 ATTACHMENT C
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to go into executive session to
consult with counsel. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Ono?
ONO: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman?
AU: Aye.
DARROW: The motion passes five to zero.
AU: Okay. So can everybody please step outside? Thank you very much. And we’ll call
everybody in when we’re ready. Thank you very much for your time.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – The Commission went into executive session at 2:44 p.m. The
Commission came out of executive session at 3:44 p.m. by a motion made by Commissioner
Ishibashi, seconded by Commissioner Moses, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all
Commissioners in attendance.
(The Chair stated that the Commission will take up the geothermal items today.)
AU: Thank you everybody for coming back. Can we bring the applicant forward, please. Any
applicant’s representative -? Ms. Shen, are you here? Ms. Shen, she’s here, okay. Is there a
traffic, can you come up too? And I think I need to swear you in. Okay, can you just raise your
right hand. Do you affirm and swear to tell the truth in front of the Windward Planning
Commission today?
ROWELL: Yes.
AU: Okay, thank you. Okay, well, we, our Commission we have a whole bunch of issues that
we’d like to just talk to you about. And, you know, please respond. You can speak out of turn
and whatever is appropriate is fine. And Commissioners are welcomed to ask as they want.
Traffic, so can you state your name first and where you reside.
39 ATTACHMENT C
ROWELL: Phillip Rowell, principal for Phillip Rowell and Associates.
AU: Okay, from your professional expertise, is there anything else on traffic that can be done, or
whatever results you have that you’d like to share with us -?
ROWELL: Sure.
AU: Regarding traffic? Please speak into the microphone.
ROWELL: Yes, I’m sure it’s about traffic. Such as additional mitigation or -?
AU: Well, what do you think about cumulative traffic in regards to the other, other
developments that were just recently approved, the 100-bed Regency facility up Kaumana, the,
there’s other -?
ROWELL: Okay. When we did this traffic study, keep in mind it was done 3, 3 or 4 years ago,
2006, it should be 2010. Three years ago these related projects, the Regency, so forth, were not
before us. Okay? We didn’t know about them. So obviously they’re not included in the
background forecast. What I did do since I didn’t have any specific projects, I added a
background growth rate to the traffic volumes along Kaumana in order -. It’s pretty typical if
you don’t have specific projects. You know traffic is going to increase over time anyway. So
there’s a 1 percent, I believe, background traffic growth which resulted in our growth rate of
about 12 to 13 percent between now and the designing of the project. So we, I did the best I
could to accomplish, to compensate for any smaller projects that would go in the area.
I know there’s a question about the study area. And the reason the study area was limited to
what it was, that’s consistent with the other traffic studies that I’ve done and I’ve seen for that
area. It’s not the first project I’ve done along Kaumana. However, if we had gotten or if I had
received comments during the review of the draft from Planning, Public Works, Police, Traffic,
the study area would have been amended to include those intersections. The fact is we didn’t get
any comments about the study area.
AU: Okay, thank you.
GONZALES: I have a traffic question. So would you, would you agree that maybe the traffic
study is outdated?
ROWELL: I know to answer it all the away. Typically even, a typical driver study of any
counts over two years old, you update the traffic study. Okay? There are exceptions to that. If
you’re in an area where there has been no growth, no change where you can document that, then
the reviewing agencies will accept older counts. But even DOT, they update all their traffic
counts every two years.
40 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Ms. Chen, Shen, through your design process of the development, we all know there’s one
primary exit off of Edita Street to get in there. Does, I don’t know if you can answer this
question. Does DOE require a school to have an emergency, in the event of a natural disaster, a
hurricane or something, do you need to have another exit out of the whole development out of
the school?
SHEN: I’m not aware of that, no - I don’t know if maybe John - what a charter school is
required to adhere to as far as DOE standards.
THATCHER: The DOE standards apply to schools that are constructed for the Department of
Education. We looked at the guidelines but we are not bound to follow those guidelines. We use
them just in helping us to make decisions on the property. So because the State is not paying for
these facilities, and they’re not, this is not a DOE school, charter schools are separate from the
Department of Education.
AU: Another issue that I have with this project is, you know, this is a school and it is subject to
prevailing wages. So during the construction part of this project, you know, it’s going to get
pretty expensive. And the DOE doesn’t give money for facilities. And CBESS has to come up
with all this money; and, you know, they have to build according to what it is designed for. And
if this is going to be a Silver LEED project or even more, you know, more expensive with Gold
LEED project, or even the most expensive a Platinum LEED project which I would assume it
would have to be to achieve the water, the 4,200 water credits -. So, you know, I mean this is
going to get really expensive. And that is a concern that I have for the cost of the project. You
want to answer that?
THATCHER: Well, this is, this is why we’re doing the project in phases, because we do have a
fundraising organization working on Oahu and on this island; and they have raised funds, some
funds, to get to the point where we are. We’ve also been working with the US Department of
Education. And for the first time in the State or the first time in their history they have looked at
the census track in making a decision whether we could access Rural Development Money for
this project. At first they said only Hilo can access or Hilo cannot access Rural Development
Money; but when they looked at the census track, they said this census track shows that this area
is considered Rural. So we are eligible for long-term low interest loans from the USDA.
AU: Is Connection eligible, is CBESS eligible to receive money from private funds like
Maryknoll built a, by the Ching Foundation or -?
THATCHER: Yes.
AU: Okay. And do you have a grant writer on staff or does CBESS have a grant writer on staff?
THATCHER: Well, we have, we have consultants that we’re working with. We’re working
with Barry Shay (phonetic).
AU: Any Commissioners have any questions? Please feel free to take all our concerns up.
41 ATTACHMENT C
MOSES: I just have a comment. Did you just say that the USDA is willing to provide funds
because that particular land, the site, is considered Rural?
THATCHER: That census track is, is considered Rural. It’s based on the population of the area,
based on the population of the census track.
MOSES: Okay. So, then that, I could not understand with all the hearings that has happened
and with all the information that has come through why Connections School, which we think
you’re a great school that provides a much-needed service to the children on this island, why are
you so set on this site when there are other sites available and more, perhaps, conducive to
meeting your needs? Now I just heard something that I didn’t know before that, and that, that’s
something that I think should also be considered.
THATCHER: Did you want a response?
MOSES: No.
GONZALES: I have a question or comment too, right along the same lines. Wouldn’t you
rather be in a, you know, you say the build out is going to take 10 to 25 years. Is that, did I read,
I’ve read that.
THATCHER: It could take.
GONZALES: Okay. Wouldn’t you rather be in an area where the surrounding community could
grow with you for 10 to 25 years?
THATCHER: We have identified this site, we’ve invested a considerable amount of money into
this site; and we feel that this is the best site we can get to fit our needs for the programs that we
are doing and would like to expand.
GONZALES: Can I ask you, what’s your current enrollment?
THATCHER: Our current enrollment is 350 students.
GONZALES: And that’s both campuses put together?
THATCHER: Yes.
GONZALES: Thank you.
AU: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Okay, can I bring, can I, you
guys can leave. Can I bring up Mr. Fuke, again. Hi, Mr. Fuke. Thank you for coming up.
Okay, from someone in the community, I just wanted to ask somebody in that community, on
any given day, what is the traffic like on a, okay, let’s start off with a normal morning? Let’s
42 ATTACHMENT C
say, let’s start off with a Furlough Friday. Okay, Furlough Friday, no school, no County, the
County is not working, you need to go to work because you have a private business. How is the
traffic? I mean it’s flowing, how long does it take you to get from Kaumana down to Hilo?
FUKE: I think it’s not fair to use Furlough Friday because the County is going to be off
tomorrow, but the school still is in operation. So, well, let’s take a Saturday then.
AU: Okay.
FUKE: Saturdays in the morning, no, it’s like every place else. I think the traffic is very benign,
I mean from my standpoint. If you would take like the normal workday like in the a.m. It’s, I
think it was one of the testifiers from the community that mentioned that it’s a function of like
when you leave your home. And if you leave like your home around like 7:15 or so coming
down makai on Kaumana Drive then you’re going to probably be up at Kaumana Terrace
roughly about 7:15, 7:30, it really gets bogged. I leave a little bit earlier and so I kind of miss
that. So, you know, in terms of like the time delay, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, you
know, you’re going to have like Level of Service A, B, you know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or A, B, C, D; but
it just relates to how much longer it’s going to take you to, you know, get movements in and out
of an intersection. It’s hard to translate or quantify necessarily the, you know, like the level of
impact, you know, as it relates to the residents that have to sustain maybe an additional, maybe
100, or 200, or 300 percent more vehicles over the lifetime, you know, of a project. So, so that’s
more perceptual rather than, rather than I think something that you can necessarily quantify. So
that’s why I had to use the analogy about like, you know, people saying like, well, you know,
that shoe should fit you, you know. But unless you’re wearing the shoe it’s kind of hard to
figure out because to one person it might not pinch, to another person it’s going to pinch. So the
community is saying that it pinches, even though the level of service might translate from A
to B.
AU: So it’s clearly, I just want to put it on record, it’s clear that when Hilo High School started
and De Silva started, and that school, Kaumana, Kaumana Elementary started traffic is pretty,
it’s pretty heavy now, now that it’s time to go to work in the morning?
FUKE: During peak hours, correct.
AU: During peak hours?
FUKE: Yes.
AU: Okay. And with any additional development a, with Regency starting to get built up there,
possibly Connections being built up there, and if there is at least 50 to 60 students there, of
course, it will, I just want to put on record, that it will substantially increase traffic?
FUKE: Just the normal growth, you know, you’ll have like increased traffic in that area.
Regency is a little bit different and, largely because their work schedule is such that it doesn’t
conflict with the a.m. peak hours. You know, their schedule is a 24 hour/7 situation, so then the
43 ATTACHMENT C
first shift comes in at 6 o’clock in the morning. And so people come in, you know, like 5:30 or 6
o’clock; and that was the condition that was imposed.
AU: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Fuke?
ISHIBASHI: Mr. Fuke, where would be the most congested intersection? When you compare
the entrance and the exit to the school, where would be the most congested intersection?
FUKE: I’m not a traffic engineer, but just talking from, I guess, just a layperson’s perspective,
then I think that on the a.m. peak hour time, I think, you know, like a lot of the side streets
between like Edita going all the way down to Ainako Avenue, you probably would have a lot of
congestion. I mean I think as to what was pointed out, if you were on Aipuni Street, trying to
make a left turn going makai then, you know, if you don’t have a person with aloha, you know,
you’re going to wait for a long time, just to get out there. So that applies I think so to all of the
other intersections that’s going to have to make a left turn heading makai on Kaumana Drive,
whether it’s Aipuni Street or Kaumana Terrace. But Edita, you know, going down on Kaumana
Drive is pretty much like it’s a right-turn movement, so, but it’s the other streets that’s going
have to, going have to sustain the additional wait time.
AU: How far up the road is Wilder, from Edita Street to Wilder, as opposed from Edita Street to
Hilo coming down to the Ainako -?
FUKE: If I were to just kind of guess, I think like Edita Street is probably like closer to Wilder
Road than it is to Ainako Avenue, or maybe equidistance.
LEITHEAD TODD: It’s about a mile.
AU: A mile both ways. Okay.
LEITHEAD TODD: It might be a little bit more. Because from my house off of Wilder to
Kaumana Elementary is just about a mile. And so from Wilder down to Edita would be a similar
distance, would be about a mile.
AU: Okay, so maybe it’s right in the middle then?
FUKE: That’s kind of my sense.
AU: Okay. You know, Fellow Commissioners, you know how they do for Hilo High, we’re all
used to it, you know, Waianuenue Avenue. Right? When I was younger and I used to drive
early in the morning, I used to take that, try to make a left turn and the cops were stopping me.
You know, it’s just something to think about. I know it’s far-fetched but I just kind of put it out
there. Thank you. So does anybody want, any Commissioners want to get any more
information? Now is the time before we make a motion.
MOSES: I would like to ask Mr. Thatcher -.
44 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Please, can you please come forward and speak into the mike. Sorry, Commissioner
Moses, we need to get everything on record.
MOSES: At this juncture would Connections School consider looking for an alternative site?
THATCHER: No.
MOSES: Is there a designated spokesperson for the Kaumana community?
AU: Mr. Fuke, would you please come to the table?
FUKE: I’m just a resource essentially.
AU: And, Ms. Novak, if you want to come up forward you’re very welcomed to. Commissioner
Moses?
MOSES: Is there any way that the Kaumana community would be willing to work with the
Connections School to try to mitigate the concerns of the community, address them, and come to
some, some -.
FUKE: Well, I’d have to defer that to -. As I mentioned I’ve been kind of like more just
providing, you know, land use advice to them. So -.
L. NOVAK: As Allen said, we did go to the community meeting with Mr. Boyd and was
extremely disappointed. Although he opened with, you know, “We’re open to suggestions from
the community,” none of the suggestions were really given a second thought. Essentially he told
us, well, the County doesn’t tell us that we need that so we’re not going to do it. That’s not
being opened to dialogue. So, you know, if that’s how they feel then we’re not opened to
dialogue either.
One of the other things that came up was trust. There are, there is a lot of mistrust based on what
we’ve heard so far from the School and what the School has actually done. And, frankly, there’s
no aloha here, period.
I sent out a survey to all of the people that I have email addresses for, 92 percent of the
respondents said that they do not trust Connections School and they don’t want to work with
them, period. That’s how bad the blood has gotten between us.
MOSES: Thank you.
L. NOVAK: Sorry one more comment, sorry, sorry.
AU: Okay, Ms. Novak. It’s getting hot in here.
45 ATTACHMENT C
L. NOVAK: Sorry. When you have the school taking out a TRO against one of the community
members, that’s -.
PUBLIC: That’s not true.
L. NOVAY: That’s low ball, I’m sorry.
PUBLIC: That’s not accurate.
AU: Okay, Fellow Commissioners, would you, you need any more information? If not, ready to
entertain a motion. Madam Director, would you like to interject before we get into it?
LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say that neither side has, you know, I think necessarily put
its best foot forward. I don’t know, I wasn’t going to mention it, but since you mentioned the
TRO, you know, somebody put a sign up on Kamuana Drive that said “No Connections,” and the
sign says “Protect your property from Theft and Burglary” as if the school is somehow going to
subject you folks to theft and burglary in your homes. You know, that sign is right at the
intersection of Kaumana Drive, Ainako, and the Mohouli Extension. So if there’s bad blood it’s
gone both ways. Cause I’ve personally found that sign offensive. I don’t know who put it up.
But it’s basically saying that if you have the school there that, you know, you guys are going to
get burglarized. And that hasn’t been the discussion here. The discussion here has been traffic,
but there’s stuff going out that has just exacerbated. So I can understand why people in the
school community are concerned, I understand why the community is concerned because of
potential impact. But this just started getting a little bit out of control. And it’s highly
unfortunate. Okay?
The charter schools started because a lot of people felt they weren’t getting adequately serviced
for their children in the public schools. Okay. So the State Legislature responded and created a
mechanism why, through which parents could create charter schools. And they seem to be
extremely popular and they seem to be doing for some members of the community and some
students in the community, providing some niche that they weren’t able to get.
Unfortunately in this case what we have is, I don’t think this was the best site. I think that, I
don’t know where the site selections of the State -. I mean I really wish that this had come to us
with a better site. I wish you had a site that traffic on Kaumana wasn’t an issue. I wish you had
a site where water wasn’t an issue. And it’s kind of exacerbated as we’ve gotten along; and
that’s really unfortunate because I believe that Connections is a good school and it has a good
program.
I understand one of the issues for the community was that, I think they might have been more
receptive if there had been some kind of belief that kids who lived in the community would be
able to go to Connections. But my understanding is that that’s, you know, that’s not a given. So
even kids that were in the community if they could walk to school then there’s a benefit to the
community. But if you don’t have that kind of benefit to the community that the children who
live in the community are going to have some opportunity to go there, then you’re not likely to
46 ATTACHMENT C
get some support from the people in that area if they don’t think their kids can go. That’s just
one of the many issues.
I’m just saying that for any future schools, what happened here was not the way to do it. Okay?
AU: Thank you, Madam Director. Would you like to say something, Ms. Lee Loy?
S. LEE LOY: Just, yes, to help Ms. Moses. I’ve been tasked by the nonprofit. And I continue
to be hopeful and show up as my best, best self and listen and hear what the community is
saying, and translate that into conditions of approval that help support their concerns. You
know, to reiterate what the Director has said, there’s been a number of hiccups along the way
and a number of things that could have been done a little differently. I know that my duty here
going forward is to continue to show up as my best self, continue to try and engage. And I know
for me and my duty with the nonprofit is to continue to have an open door with the community,
and try and engage them to build bridges.
AU: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Okay.
MOSES: I appreciate that. It was quite obvious in your testimony and the conditions that you
put together after that community meeting. So I want you to know that it is definitely
acknowledged. Thank you.
AU: Okay, ready to entertain a motion again.
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce a motion to deny Special Permit
Application 12-138, Connections New Century Public Charter School/CBESS. My reasons
being traffic, multiple traffic concerns, water, and, lastly, I just don’t think it’s a proper use of the
land.
AU: Okay, do I have a second?
ISHIBASHI: Second.
AU: Discussion? Okay, I -. Ms. Lee Loy, you can have a seat.
S. LEE LOY: Thank you.
AU: Okay, Ms. Lee Loy summed it up in her last three sentences. You know, she’s, regardless
what she’s feeling, us as a Commission, we need to focus on what we’re here for. So I’m going
to refer, from this point on, as we go through this discussion process, I’m going to refer to our
jobs here as a Commission. Connections is a great school, great thing, is a great charter school.
We’ve heard a lot of good things about it. The community does, is not happy with it. You
know, those are the facts. Right? Connections is a good school, the community does not want it.
And we are here to represent our communities in a land use matter. Okay, so we need to
strongly consider our community, which is our job. I’m not saying first and foremost our job is
47 ATTACHMENT C
land use, but our job is to look at every application and see, is it proper, is it appropriate, and we
take into consideration, part of it we take into consideration what the community feels. So, you
know, I am on the fence on this project. I think development is inevitable. There’s development
coming up all around us. Okay? We’ve got Walmart. When Walmart was built everybody was
against it. People petitioned it, people didn’t want it. Now everybody goes there. You know a
change, development, I think, goes hand in hand. It’s not easy to swallow. Okay, community?
So don’t get me wrong. You know, if it was in my backyard I wouldn’t be too happy with it
either. But our jobs as a Commission, we have to do our jobs. That’s why we are appointed for
these positions. So keep that in mind as we move forward.
GONZALES: I’d like to say a few things too. And, again, no one is against the school, no one
is against the children.
ISHIBASHI: That’s correct.
GONZALES: My son graduated from a charter school. It was a wonderful thing for him. I just
think we’re in the wrong spot and we need to look for another one. And we’ll all still be here to
help you with that. I just, you know, we talked about this when we were in session, you know,
no matter what we do here today, half of you aren’t going to be happy with us. So we all feel
bad. But we do have to move on. We’ve got to get this off our agenda. We’ve got to get it to
where it needs to go next; and I think that’s where we’re at, that’s where I’m at.
AU: I would like to hear what my Fellow Commissioner who lives in that district has to say
about this particular application. Commissioner Ono?
ONO: I’m not sure that I qualify. I live about a mile away, but I live in Lower Kaumana.
AU: Well, I believe that’s in your district though.
ONO: Yeah, it is. Okay. But I’m not -.
AU: This application is in your district. So, yeah, I just like to hear what you have to say about
it.
ONO: I’m not immediately impacted by this proposal. I’ve got to admit I live just slightly
above Kaumana Terrace. And couple of times in a year I do catch the traffic; and it’s right
below my house. So traffic is a problem. So with this addition I would suggest that traffic
would be heavier coming down Kaumana.
I’ve been retired for some 12 years now, so I’m kind of out of the loop, so to speak, regarding
the traffic problem. I sleep through traffic and get up after traffic starts. So I really can’t
respond to the concerns about traffic as it impacts me. But while I was working, I did have to
leave much, much earlier to get to work.
ISHIBASHI: Brother Chair?
48 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Yes.
ISHIBASHI: Just one comment, couple of comments. Yeah, sad state of affairs that we reached
at this level when we cannot see eye to eye on the issue. But I think this was done improper
from the beginning. We came in with the State approving this thing without even talking to the
community. We respect our communities and what they have to say, and their process. And
time and again the Commission has always relied on the community’s input. And to circumvent
that and allowing permits to go in place before that process takes place, that’s why we’re trying
to correct that earlier today of putting in conditions where we meet with the community first
before we even put up the signs and invite them out. So it’s important that we get into that
discussion and change that opportunity to allow more community input prior to allowing any
type of permitting to take place. So it’s a lesson learned.
And, again, we’re not one Kaumana Commission, that’s not us, that’s not us. We’re not here for
Kaumana, we’re here for the island. We’re here to work, recognize everything that goes in
planning, in this County; and we’re just taking care of the windward side. But we respect all
communities. So we don’t belong to Kaumana community. So I’ll put that out straight.
My main concern is the water. You know, water is very important. We’re got to get the
necessary water. So how we’re going to limit the enrollment in the school based on water? I
cannot even believe we’ve been doing something like that. We cannot limit participation in the
school based on our allocation of water, that’s not right. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.
We’re going to plan one development, let’s do it right. Get the proper water that we need to
complete the whole project.
The traffic is one other thing. It’s so close in and out with only one entrance, one exit, that’s not
right. We’ve got to think a little bit better when we’re planning these things to have the proper
entrance and exiting in these facilities. So we plan big and we plan proper, then we get the thing
done right. Then we got to see this healing process take place. And we just thank you all for
participating. It’s important that you all participate in the process.
Talking about the school, the school is great. Curriculum is there. Any way we can reach our
children and have them want to learn, that’s what it is, want to learn, want to participate and
learn and get educated, that’s what it’s all about. And Connections does that, it does provide that
connection to the minds of our youth. So that’s so important. So, again, thank you guys for
being part of the process.
AU: You know, I’m surprised that the DOE even approves catchments. You know, I live on a
catchment system. I don’t drink the catchment water. I drink bottled water and, you know, I
treat my water good. I take real good care of it; but it takes a lot of time. You know. But on the
same token, you know, up Mauna Kea they bring up water all the time. Okay, there are places
out that people bring in potable water and it’s safe to drink. But I’m just surprised that the DOE
even allows that, at any school. I wouldn’t want my child to be washing his hands at, let’s say
Connections, and that particular bathroom is not hooked up to the County water, and he’s
49 ATTACHMENT C
washing his hands and, you know, he’s five years old and he gets thirsty and he drinks it. Okay,
and right now we have all this flu stuff going around on the mainland. You know, I mean
potable water, the difference between potable water and drinking water, it’s very important to
have a safe, safe water for our kids. So I’m very surprised that the DOE even allows that.
Another thing that I want to talk about is, you know, what our Madam Director was saying,
something went wrong from the start. And this is a, from this application we’re going to move
forward on. For any Charter School that comes in front of us, you know, this is not the way to
do it, on both parties, community as well as the applicant. And I’d like Commissioner Gonzales
to, if he could clarify in his motion what is the improper use of the land, just for the record, so we
can state -.
GONZALES: I think the use of the land is improper, No. 1, because there’s no water, there’s not
enough water. You know, we have no idea how much we’re going to need, how many kids
we’re going to have, so we can’t really, you know, come to any kind of resolution on the water.
Traffic, it’s a bad use of the land because this is going to create too much traffic, not only Edita
and Mele Manu but all up and down Kaumana Drive. I mean only one exit in and out of the
school, I’m not comfortable with that. If there’s a fire, a medical emergency, what if the
ambulance can’t get up Kaumana Drive? I don’t think it’s the proper use of the land.
You know, at some point, just a while ago, I don’t even remember what Commissioner Moses
said but someone has also deemed this is Rural land. You know, again, we don’t need a 400-
student school in the middle of this rural/agricultural neighborhood. Clear enough?
AU: Yes.
GONZALES: Okay.
AU: Okay, so the process that we’re going take right now, we’re not voting on this. Okay. We
made a motion to deny and it was seconded. We went through a discussion. And now what is
going to happen is our Planning Department and our Corporation Counsel is going to have to
come up with Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law; and they’re going to report back to our
Commission next meeting, if time allows us, and then we vote upon it. They’re going to get
together the information based off of the denial, and then we vote on it.
TORIGOE: Okay, can I just add -?
AU: Yeah, please take over.
TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is based on Rule 4-22 of the Planning Commission
Rules, also Hawai‘i Revised Standards, Statutes, 91-11. Also, the proposed decision is going to
be served on the parties, or actually on the school, on the applicant. And they will have an
opportunity to file exceptions and to present argument to the Commission based on that also.
And then you will be able to take your vote. So we’ll have to set the timeframe for that, but I’ll
work with staff on that.
50 ATTACHMENT C
AU: Staff, can we get a timeframe now or it something that you guys have to work with after?
Just for our records, so we know.
thth
ARAI: Okay, the next meeting is February 7. Following that would be March the 7. So in
order for us to prepare a draft Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and then allow for
th
appropriate time for rebuttal by the parties, I’m wondering February 7 might be pretty tight. So
th
my recommendation only, and if you all agree, would probably be to look at March 7, which
would give us enough breathing room to prepare the draft findings and allow for the parties to
rebut the findings.
AU: Is the applicant prepared to possibly try and make the February meeting? Or do we have
to, do you think there’s time to meet the February meeting or do the March meeting, and consult
with our Corporation Counsel to see if he can do it as well?
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, and can I throw this in there, too? You’ve only got two more
meetings left. Correct?
AU: Yes. Yes.
GONZALES: If we replace him we may need to start this all over again. So keep that in mind.
AU: From my understanding, the reason why we cannot vote on this today is because in the past
two meetings, Commissioner Moses was not here at the last meeting and the meeting prior in
November Commissioner Ishibashi was not here. So if we were all here we could vote on it.
But because they weren’t here what we need to do is we need to come up with the Findings and
Fact and Conclusions of Law. Madam Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: If I’m hearing you correctly, the concern is that all of the Commissioners
may not have had an opportunity to fully review the minutes of the meetings that they missed;
and, therefore, before they take a vote on the matter they need to review that and put that on the
record that they have fully read the entire record. Is that correct? Is that what we’re doing here?
AU: Is that correct, Corporation Counsel?
TORIGOE: Let me just read the rules. It says “Whenever Commission members who are to
render the final decision have not heard and examined all of the evidence, the decision, if adverse
to a party to the proceedings, shall not be made until a proposal for a decision containing a
statement of reasons and including determination of each issue of fact or law necessary to the
proposed decision,” and this case it would be a denial, “has been served upon the parties, and an
opportunity has been afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present
argument to the Commission members who are to render the decision, who shall personally
consider the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by the parties.” So it seems
like on the plain language of this rule, which mirrors the HRS, - and we know that there are a
couple of Commissioners who have not been at all of the hearings here, and the denial would be
adverse to the applicant - this decision shall not be made until there is a written proposal with
findings of fact and conclusions of law served on the parties, and there is an opportunity to
51 ATTACHMENT C
respond.
AU: So, so we’re going to go back, we’re going to work on, Corporation Counsel and the
Planning Department is going to work on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. We’re
going to give the applicant a chance to respond, and we’re going to hear it at our next meeting,
and we’re going to vote for it, vote on the motion to deny the special permit.
S. LEE LOY: I just want to clarify. I’m trusting that the conclusions, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law will be prepared within 30 days of this hearing, Mr. Torigoe?
TORIGOE: Yeah that’s what we’re talking about. And I’ll try to figure out what’s an
appropriate date for the next meeting, and, you know, whether we can get the proposed findings
to the parties in time for them to make a response.
AU: So that was my question to the applicant, are you prepared? And is our Planning
Department prepared, and our Corporation Counsel prepared?
S. LEE LOY: From the applicant, CBESS, perspective I would request at least 45 days. The
Attorney General’s office, they have their own calendar. At minimum, you know, to review and
cite the various land use components and land use laws and regulations, at minimum, we would
ask for 45 days.
AU: Forty five days. Madam Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say rather than specifically setting the March date, we’ll see
how quickly we can get this out and served to the parties. So that if we’re 45 days out from
th
March 7, which gives us two weeks, I think to draft something and get it out, sure, then we
could do it in March. But there may be an issue with setting it for March if AG’s calendar -. So
what I would suggest is that you direct us to go and prep the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, serve it on the parties, and then reach an agreement with the parties on what day it would
come back on the calendar.
S. LEE LOY: Mr. Torigoe, the applicant, CBESS, would be agreeable to those outlines with an
opportunity to meet with the Planning Department and yourself, along with the AG’s office, and
Mr. Hong.
TORIGOE: Okay, so at this point is the direction then for us to try and work out a draft and to
get it to you guys and see if it’s going to be, if you have time to respond before March?
S. LEE LOY: That’s correct. And maybe even going forward if we could have maybe like a
scheduling conference so the various deadlines, where we could kind of collaborate on and with
participation of the Attorney General’s Office, that might be helpful.
LEITHEAD TODD: I think the concern here is that, if I’m hearing things correctly, is the
applicant probably wants sufficient time to be served the proposed Findings of Fact and
52 ATTACHMENT C
Conclusions of Law, consult with their attorney, and give the attorney time to research and draft
a response, and then serve it on the Commission in advance of our meeting. And that’s why 30
days might not be enough of a turn-around because they need 30 days in order to file something
in order to give the Commission time to read the objections or position of the AG before it’s
actually on our agenda.
AU: Just information for the public, Commission Gonzales expressed his concern about doing
this all over again. I’m on the Commission for two more months, February and March. And if I
was to be replaced, then we would have to get all the transcripts to the new Commissioner and
the new Commissioner would have so much time, an “x” amount of time, to review all the
information before the Commission can take a vote. Is that correct?
TORIGOE: Yes, that’s correct.
GONZALES: I have a question. Now if Mr. Au isn’t here when this comes back and it’s still
just the four of us, is that, that is enough for us to still vote?
LEIHEAD TODD: If Mr. Torigoe can correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is if we
get new Commissioners and they read the entire the record, the minutes, all of the documents,
the testimony because we have pretty close to verbatim transcripts of these proceedings, they can
vote on the matter, even though they may not have been here. All they have to do is certify on
the record that they have read all of the pleadings, all of the testimony, all of the minutes in the
case then they can vote. They’re going to have a lot of reading to do.
TORIGOE: That’s correct.
AU: Okay, so -.
TORIGOE: So I guess it seems like we’re in agreement that we’ll work with the applicants and
see if we can get the draft out to you; and you can consult with your attorneys in time to maybe
put it on the March agenda, if that will work.
THATCHER: From our perspective I’d have to consult with our attorney before agreeing to
anything. Honestly, I’d rather have you do the vote right now.
TORIGOE: Well, that’s not really an option for us right now. So I think we can go ahead and
try and work things out, and keep in touch with the Planning Staff and we’ll bring it back on the
agenda when it’s practical.
S. LEE LOY: Again, from our perspective, you know, any correspondence, again, timing
schedules, conference schedules are, some type of briefing schedule that we can come up with
which would identify specific dates and times for us to respond would be helpful. So, thank you,
Mr. Torigoe.
AU: So how is the community involved with this? The community is still going to be able to,
53 ATTACHMENT C
this is all public information?
LEITHEAD TODD: Once we come up with a proposed draft and serve it, then it’s a public
document. They can request a copy of it.
THATCHER: So at this next meeting where this is discussed, will you be taking public
testimony?
LEITHEAD TODD: It’s required to do public testimony for every meeting that we have.
S. LEE LOY: And I’m interested to have clarified -. Mr. Torigoe, I know that the conclusions,
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law will be made public. But it would only be ourselves
and the Attorney General’s office that would be preparing rebuttals, correct? Not members of
the public, correct?
TORIGOE: That’s correct.
S. LEE LOY: Thank you.
LEITHEAD TODD: However because it’s going to be at a public meeting, members of the
public can submit written testimony pertinent to the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law.
AU: Okay, so we’re all good. Well, we’re on the same page at least. Everybody understands?
Are we okay?
S. LEE LOY: Yes.
THATCHER: Yes.
AU: Okay.
The discussion ended at 4:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
54 ATTACHMENT C