Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-04 Windward Exh B (Public Testimony re SPP 12-138) WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Public testimony regarding the application of CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL/COMMUNITY BASED EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES (CBESS) (SPP 12-000138) was called to order at 9:16 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman John Replogle presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Michelle Galimba, Dennis Lin, John Replogle EXCUSED: Dean Au RECUSED: Thomas Raffipiy ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planning Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY BASED EDUCATION SUPPORT SERIVES (CBESS) (SPP 12-000138) Consideration and Adoption of Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order for approval and favorable recommendation to the State Land Use Commission of Special Permit No. 12-000138 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 Kaumana Drive and adjoining the Pacific Plantation Subdivision in Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-5-006:141. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or simultaneous talk. REPLOGLE: Okay, Mr. Jason Turner? TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Commission. I don't want to waste your time here; this is more of a couple of questions than testimony I hope that's okay? But I left the last meeting both confused and frustrated by some of the comments regarding some of the voting and I tried to find these answers on my own I couldn't find them. I reached out to other members of the community; they seem to have similar questions. So. I'm hoping from a place of respect that I can just ask these questions and kind of get some clarification. Really the general question, the overarching question it's very similar to I think his name was Mr. Keller was asking. Which is 1 EXHIBIT B does the community have a say in what goes into our backyards? Does the community have a say in what gets developed literally from my point of view in my backyard? The Commission made two sets of statements that have rattled around in my brain for the past month. One set of statements were very encouraging of the community to come to meetings like this and to maybe educate the Commission on what's going on in our backyards, in our neighborhoods. You don't all live where I live, so trying to explain what things are like, trying to explain what's not in black and white on the page in front of you. I felt that many of the Commissioners are very encouraging of that, saying the community should come to meetings like this and tell us what's going on. I think the Chairman was recommending we go on to the next step and make sure that we go to that Land Board meeting and testify. And yet, at the same time, I felt that there are contradictory statements. Several Commissioners in their voting said that I'm quoting here "that all the boxes had been checked". And kind of led us down this path of maybe I'm putting phrases in your mouth here, but how can I vote against it, if quote unquote "all the boxes have been checked". It left me wondering isn't the neighborhood's thoughts, wishes one of those boxes. And if not, all due respect, if not if that's not part of the preview here, then I will understand that, but if the Commission saying that was a box to be checked in and they thought it was checked I respectfully disagree. I think everything that you've seen from the community was the opposite. So I guess I'd like to ask was that a box that was supposed to be checked or could have been checked or was that just not part of this procedure at this stage of the process? Sorry, it was a genuine question I didn't know if you had time to answer. REPLOGLE: I think that would be a good question to have answered, and I would like to refer to our attorney for that guidance. KEKAL Good morning, sorry I couldn't get my unmute. Yes, I don't know that I would characterize it as a box to be checked, but the testimony of the public and the community and the neighboring community are all part of consideration that the Commission is using to make their decision. So, I guess for lack of a better term the judge, they can give weight to each testimony and each fact brought by every community member and then they can weigh that against all the other facts brought by the Applicant and the Intervenor. So,just to sum up, I wouldn't characterize it as a box to be checked, but it is taken into consideration, yes. TURNER: Thank you, and if I sorry, I don't want to waste anybody's time I just— REPLOGLE: No, go ahead, go ahead. TURNER: I was reflecting the language that the Commission was using by boxes to be checked. Several Commissioners literally as voting said, I'm putting here all of the boxes have been checked and so, I think what I'm hearing is that maybe the community wasn't"a box" quote unquote to be checked. Is that correct? Or is the Commission saying that they do see that boxes have been checked I'm sorry to use the language that the Attorney just said don't use but I'm just quoting the Commission. And I'm genuinely trying to get clarification, if the Commission is saying sorry you still using the phrasing that box had been checked I disagree and I'd like to 2 EXHIBIT B know where that came from. If you're saying that is not a box and we're not checking that we're looking at other criteria then respectfully I understand. KEKAL I can't speak to what the specific Commissioner meant if you know who— TURNER: It was three, it was several. KEKAL Okay, well, if you know which ones did it then that's great. TURNER: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. KEKAL No, it's okay. I can't tell you what they meant by saying it. All I can say is that everybody's testimonials is taken into consideration when the Commission makes a decision, and you would have to ask the specific Commissioner what they meant when they stated that statement. TURNER: Right and that's why I'm here. It was mentioned at least three times. I don't have the transcripts in front of me. I remember Mr. Au used that phrasing, Mr. Lin used that phrasing and I believe the Chairman used that phrasing. I believe others when they voted for it acknowledged that phrasing. Whether there was a meeting that I missed, where all the community came out and said we're in favor of this I respectfully would understand, but the community came out and literally hired lawyers put signs in their yards. I left the meeting thinking what else could we have done to get that box checked or unchecked and I feel like either procedurally the box wasn't on the sheet, which it sounds like it should have been or could have been. I'm just questioning whether the Commission genuinely saw that as a checkbox or just put it much lower on the list. It's frustrating, I'm sorry, it's my backyard literally and I feel like we were encouraged to come to a meeting like this and say hey this is going on in our backyard. And at the same time pivoting and saying, maybe that isn't that important. Sorry I'll stop talking. REPLOGLE: No, if you're finished that's fine, but if you have something to say. TURNER: I think my last, I hope that as a member of this Commission, when you're imagining these projects and you're imagining somebody without the power to vote and that you're imagining these projects in your own backyards. That each of you, when you voted yes, functionally are saying yes, I would vote for that project in my backyard against my tree line. And if you're not respectfully I don't know that you're really considering the neighborhood's position on this. I just like to close by saying, as an educator I just wish they'd find a location where the community embrace the project, because this is not that at all I'm sorry respectfully. REPLOGLE: I would say Mr. Turner from my standpoint and in regard to your check boxes. I never looked at anything as checked boxes, but I looked at what the Planning Director passed forward to us with recommendations and all the things that the school or the applicant whether it's a school or whatever, that the applicant presented to the Planning Director they met all those standards, and you could I guess call them checked boxes. But you are right, the Planning Director does not have the benefit at that time of public testimony, and we do. I hear what 3 EXHIBIT B you're saying, and I think correct me if I'm wrong fellow Commissioners, you were kind of expressing along the same line of thought that I was. That they presented what they had the present to say this is what we want to do, yes, no and the Planning Director, along with his staff thought that yeah this could happen and there's no reason to deny it. That's what I would say about it please feel free to correct me fellow Commissioners, if I put words in your mouth. LIN: Thank you Chair, and I want to thank Mr. Turner for speaking up. In regard to that comment that was made by me at the last hearing. The term checkbox to me is what are the requirements and what are the procedures that you have to do to apply for a Special Permit? And my thought process is that the applicant did follow the process and in terms checkboxes were done to get to the process. When we think about the community response or the community's concerns we do live here on this island, and we do live here on this side. We do think about what would happen if this was in our backyard, but also what would happen if it wasn't developed or what's the downside scenario of what happens if these types of developments are or aren't done. Does that create opportunities or takeaway of opportunities from our community? That's my standpoint. REPLOGLE: Thank you Dennis. Okay, will go on to our second testifier on item number three Jeff Gomes. I think your mic is muted Jeff. Still can't hear you. KAY: It's showing that he's connecting to the audio so, he's not presently connected. REPLOGLE: Oh, okay. KAY: Mr. Gomes can you try to speak again, please. Well, still muted, still can't hear him. CLARKSON: He's not showing a mute symbol, so the issue must be with his microphone, I believe. KAY: Unfortunately, still can't hear you Mr. Gomes. REPLOGLE: Is there something we can do an alternative a telephone? KAY: In the invite there is a telephone number which would allow Mr. Gomes to call in, if you'd like to do that. Otherwise, maybe suggest logging out and then logging back in to see if that fixes the problem, outside of that— REPLOGLE: Okay. KAY: I'm not sure what else can be done. REPLOGLE: Can Mr. Gomes hear us? I think he can, right? Why don't we take a short recess to allow Mr. Gomes to log out? Can you hear us, Mr. Gomes? GOMES: Acknowledged nodding his head. 4 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: Okay, what I'm going to suggest is, we will take a five-minute recess if you will, and you can log out and log back in again and see if that helps your microphone. Is that okay with you? GOMES: Acknowledged by nodding his head. REPLOGLE: Okay, if no one has any objections,we will take a five-minute recess here, we need to be back at 9:36. Okay, see you then. Chairman Replogle called a recess at 9:31 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:36 a.In. REPLOGLE: Okay, Mr. Gomes please continue. GOMES: Good morning, thank you for giving me a break and for allowing me to testify. I'm Jeff Gomes, I live in Kaumana. I'm testifying on the Connections application to build a school directly on top of Kaumana caves. I'd like to first address Ted Hong's latest complaint about me where he mentions the systemic wave of violence emanating from the school that's pouring out into the community. He tries to spin it like members of the community are climbing over their locked fence and attacking the employee at the school. But actually, what happened when I talked to the officer and what my wife saw the latest fight occurred in front of the school came all the way down the street right in front of my driveway. When I talked to the officer about what happened, he said they were fighting over a chicken. There are hundreds of chickens, you don't have to fight over chickens, help yourself, everybody come get a chicken. The lesson there should not be if you see someone walking with the chicken, run out and attack them and get the chicken from them. Be kind. This violence is unnecessary, and Ted Hong is right, the violence needs to stop. But it's not the community members attacking people on the campus it's coming out of the campus onto the street. If you look at all the evidence of violence that has occurred during this process, the one where John Thatcher's son attacks him and he has to call the police to arrest his own son for beating him up, it's unfortunate. We don't know why that happened but, it did. It's in the record and it's a sad thing but violence should not be tolerated and instead of having this style of fighting, stop, get counseling. Hire a counselor, counsel the students and the staff and everybody, talk it out first. Hire a counselor but, oh wait a minute, the school does have a counselor. Some Gary Replogle. He testified in 2012. He's a counselor at the high school. He's from Ka`u. Is that a family member? Possibly? REPLOGLE: Just for the record, all Replogle's is related but I don't know them all. GOMES: Okay and so the perception. REPLOGLE: I can't help it. GOMES: Yeah, so hopefully I'm wrong but, it looks like a Replogle on the Commission voted for a Replogle that works at the school. But thank you, you don't know him I'll accept that. 5 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: I'll be happy to recuse myself. GOMES: It'll probably be better right just for the perception because, like, Commissioner Au was saying asking the kids to pay attention kids this is how government works. Just in case they're watching. REPLOGLE: I will defer that again to our Commission attorney and if she thinks there is a conflict here, I will be happy to recuse myself. GOMES: Okay. REPLOGLE: So. GOMES: I'd like to address the joke at the end of the last hearing. Where it was said that who expects kids to drink 60 gallons of water a day, because where I went to school, we had a building with these fixtures, a toilet, and a urinal. It was for us, as kids we could use it and there was a handle on it, you flush it, and water would come out. Water was used to wash the sewage and next to that was a sink you could wash your hands. You could use the sink as long as you wanted, as much water as you want, you could wash your hair, wash your face, wash your hands and it was actually encouraged. Wash your hands that's what they always taught us, wash your hands. We had another building, and this is in Ka`u in the middle of nowhere right, we had a building that was called a cafeteria. Where they cooked food and guess what they used water to cook the food and when they were done cooking. After they got done serving, they use guess what? Water to clean up. to wipe the tables, mop the floor and water again to wash all the dishes. So, a group of experts got together and decided we're going to break that down and we need 60 gallons of water per day per student for a student to safely navigate through the day. Using water, not just drinking 60 gallons of water a day but, throughout the day washing cleaning, and this is not a school and when I went to school in Ka`u we had Ag. But, when they did this determination, I don't think they took into consideration Ag schools. Now you got to add more water to water the animals, wash the animals, wash the area. Where is all this water supposed to come from. It's not just students drinking 60 gallons of water a day. So, that's it. I'm done, thank you very much. REPLOGLE: Thank you, Mr. Gomes. So, fellow Commissioners do you have any questions for the testifiers? Okay. So, before we go on, I would like to ask our attorney Ms. Kekai if she would care to comment on Mr. Gomes. The possibility that I have a conflict of interest here because there's a Gary Replogle who works for Connections. KEKAL Thank you Chair. REPLOGLE: May I say one more thing. KEKAL Go ahead. 6 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: I have met Gary because a classmate of mine met him at her work and when she saw the last name, we got together one weekend, because we have the last name and we talked about stuff but other than that we have just lived our separate lives. That's all. KEKAL Is Gary your brother? REPLOGLE: No. KEKAL Is Gary a dependent child of yours? REPLOGLE: No. KEKAL Okay, the Code of Ethics is clear when it defines conflicts of interest. It defines it as an immediate family member, which includes spouse, brother, sister, and children and thus so. If Gary is not one of those people to you, then I would say there's no conflict. REPLOGLE: Okay and to my recollection he grew up in Chicago. And I met him once and I thought he was a nice person if that counts. KEKAL Chair Replogle? REPLOLGE: Yes. KEKAL Chair Replogle, can you be impartial, well, I should ask where are you impartial when you made your initial decision to vote for this application? REPLOGLE: Yes. KEKAL Okay. REPLOGLE: When I made my initial, I never heard of Gary until Mr. Gomes mentioned that. KEKAI: And then you remembered? REPLOGLE: Well yeah, I did meet him about I'm going to say, 8 years ago, 9 years ago. KEKAL Okay, that's good I think that's enough, we can move on now, thank you. REPLOGLE: Okay, and thank you Mr. Gomes for bringing that to light, I think it's important that we are all above board on this. Okay. The public testimony ended at 9:45 a.m. 7 EXHIBIT B Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary to Boards and Commissions 8 EXHIBIT B