COM 0176.100 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY &BASS LLPe^ruw'r'~ Honorable Pete Hoffman, Chairperson May 31, 2007 Page 2 stormwater concerns. For example, subdivisions can be used to provide separate parcels for agricultural leases, to effect use easements, or to provide right-of-ways over existing roads. In the case of Kealakekua Heritage Ranch, which I represent, we will be n~uired by the federal Forest legacy Program to subdivide out the 9,500-acre portion of the property that wilt be restricted by a conservation easement. This easement would not create development of the eased acreage, but instead would prohibit the development of those acres in perpetuity. However, according to engineer estimates, subparagraph (g) would require, because of the simple act of subdividing, the creation of the equivalent of a 300-acre pit dug between 5 and 10 feet deep. This pit, upon retention of the 100 year flood event, would hold 5 billion pounds of water suspended over the town of Captain Cook. The cost of constructing this pit would exceed $60 million dollars. As I hope is evident, this result would be absurd and likely highly dangerous to public safety. Clearly, under this scenario, the ranch would have little incentive to move forward with its conservation easement. Proportionality: Additionally, there is no rough proportionality in subparagraph (g), meaning that the effect of the provision is the same whether there is one parcel being subdivided or 500 parcels. For several years, I have been working with landowners on Hawaii Island, encouraging them to voluntarily reduce density, to minimize the extent of development, and to conserve as much of the open space on their properties as possible. Under subparagraph (g) there is little incentive to follow such a course. In fact, subparagraph (g) creates a significant disincentive toward limited development since the costs of compliance can only be home by having more units on a property with which to spread the expense. I fear that provisions such as this one will push those who are inclined toward following alight-on-the-land approach, toward much more extractive behavior - to the permanent detriment of everyone. Ecology: Finally, Subparagraph (g) suggests that due to special makai circumstances not defined elsewhere, all agricultural subdivisions should engineer containment of "all rainfall up to a 100-year storm event on the agrcutural land on which the rainfall fell." With this article, development of mauka properties- even at far less than zoning allows- would by regulation be required to choke off all water that falls on the entire mauka portion of an ahupuaa and prevent any of it from ever reaching the natural drainage courses below it, as well as the ocean and those coastal ecosystems for which periodic freshwater input is necessary to the functioning of these systems. This means that if all of the current a-20 zoning on the Kona side were subdivided to add even a single extra parcel each, then tens of thousands of acres of land that currently provide watershed to