My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021-11-04 Windward Exh E ConnectionsCBESS SPP12-138
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2021
>
2021-11-04 Windward Exh E ConnectionsCBESS SPP12-138
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2021 6:36:03 AM
Creation date
12/3/2021 6:35:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
GALIMBA: Could I say something? <br /> REPLOGLE: Yes, Ms. Galimba? <br /> GALIMBA: Thank you. So, I would say that from my understanding of public trust doctrine. It <br /> would be relevant, and I would say that I considered it, even though we didn't have an active <br /> discussion or an extended active discussion about it. At the time that we were discussing the <br /> motion that Commissioner Clarkson was speaking about the intervenor's attorney declined to <br /> argue that point which did go into my decision. So, there was some discussion around that so to <br /> sum up, I guess I believe that the public trust doctrine was considered albeit in a brief form. And <br /> so, I don't think there needs to be that sort of dichotomy that Commissioner Clarkson is <br /> suggesting. <br /> REPLOGLE: Thank you. <br /> GALIMBA: If you understand that I will give you a gold star. <br /> REPLOGLE: Anybody else Commissioners? <br /> LIN: I'm inclined to go with Mr. Clarkson's latter argument that if we are going to either put in <br /> the public trust doctrine language in there, based on what my understanding of it. If the area is <br /> unsuitable for agriculture, but the school is working towards conserving it and utilizing it for, <br /> what is it called here, preserving its natural beauty and natural resources. I think there is an <br /> argument there that they are trying to preserve it but it's just not suitable for the optimal use of <br /> that land. So, I would be inclined to put in the applicant's language in that section. I agree with <br /> that we didn't discuss it in depth. We just kind of glanced over at our last discussion. <br /> REPLOGLE: Any other thing? I would like to say I definitely considered the public trust and I <br /> think considering that the land was graded as poor agricultural and the schools plan to teach <br /> agriculture in greenhouses or hydroponically is promoting agriculture on land unsuitable for <br /> agriculture something that is going to be important in Hawaii's future. Also, that the larger <br /> portion of the property their plan is to preserve the forest, have a trail or whatever for educational <br /> purposes teaching the children about what's going on in our native forest, replanting,producing <br /> native plants in their greenhouse for that matter. I think the public trust is considered well in <br /> here with what they're doing, and I agree we didn't have a big discussion on it, but I wouldn't let <br /> the public trust slide believe me. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure, we have a motion on the floor, <br /> and it sounds like we need to defeat that motion if we want to add what Mr. Clarkson and Mr. <br /> Lin are talking about or we should just have a vote and there you go. <br /> KAY: Mr. Chair the only— <br /> REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Darrow? <br /> KAY: Oh, sorry. <br /> 8 <br /> EXHIBIT E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.