COM 0045.029 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hawaii County Council, Planning Committee re Proposed LUPAG designation change: H-1, May 13, 2004 q The Constitution of the United States precludes State and County governments from "taking" private property. Neither the County or the State have the funds to purchase land for open space. Voluntary arraneements need to be encouraged! In the case of Keopuka, one of the incentives for giving a conservation easement is that the value of the donation is tax deductible. The amount of the donation is the difference between the value of their property were it able to be developed under current GP designation and zoning, and the (diminished) value of the property with the conservation easement in place. If the Council enacts this Conservation LUPAG Designation and/or, worse, amends the Zoning Code to create a Conservation Zone, the value of such donation will be substantially if not totally reduced. One cannot give, that which has already been taken away! This will not encourage other land owners to take such voluntazy actions in the future. I bring to the Council's attention that there aze sepazate Hawaiian terms for distinct portions of the cliffs azound Kealakekua Bay: The cut-faced cliff is known asPali-Kapu-o- Keoua, and the more gentle, grassed cliff which wraps azound inland to the south end of the bay is known as Pali o Manuahi, or Pali Poko. There is absolutely no protection proposed for the face of Pali o Manuahi. Here we are not talking about the relatively flat table lands of Skycliff but the very face of the Cliff itself. The face itself of Pali o Manuahi which is an extremely steep slope and is of substantial significance. This is SLU Agricultural and no restrictive LUPAG designation is suggested there. I submit that the potential visual impact on the face of Pali o Manuahi is a much more pressing conservation concern than the table lands of Skycliff, which aze already adequately protected by the State Conservation District. I believe that the best way to secure the protection of Pali o Manuahi is through a voluntary agreement with the landowners. Imposing H-1 at this time will foreclose the possibility of comprehensive voluntazy landowner actions, azound Kealakekua Bay begun by the owners of Keopuka. In respect to the specific case of the lands of Skycliff Ranch (T.M.K. 8-1-10-4) which already lie entirely within the State Land Use Conservation district: 1) I do not foresee any conceivable circumstances under which these lands would be taken out of the Conservation District by the State Land Use Commission. Therefore, there is no threat whatsoever to Kealakekua Bay by leaving these lands, already designated Conservation by the State, in a LUPAG designation, which reflects their traditional and existing ranching use. 2) A County Conservation LUPAG designation and Zone which required the land to be kept in its natural state would be substantially more restrictive than the uses presently permitted under State law, specifically HAR 13-5. I believe that such action could be found to be to a regulatory taking "per se" (in and of itself) under Lucas v. South Cazolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). 3) The discontinuation of grazing could have an extremely negative environmental impact on Kealakekua Bay. A rancher should be entitled to a single residence for his family on a property of this size (88 acres) provided that the visual impacts are reasonably mitigated. Since this `table land' runs some thousand feet back from the Pali, such visual impacts are effectively mitigated by the intervening cliff. In any event, the