2024-05-28 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Petition (Coupe Order)_v1

Home

satisfies the conditions of the Ordinances. There is no basis in law or fact, and it was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, to qualify or limit in any way the dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension or Oceanside's satisfaction of the Ordinances. That is particularly true where no particular legal or factual reason for that qualification was stated, expressly or by implication, in the Declaratory Order. In addition, as the Planning Director recognizes elsewhere in Declaratory Order, the Planning Director lacks jurisdiction to review or affirm past Planning Department actions and to rule on actions by DPW or the County Council. The Planning Director's apparent qualification could be construed as a judgment on past actions taken by the Planning Department, DPW, and the County Council, which the Planning Director lacks jurisdiction to issue. C. The Planning Director Erred in Ruling that the Subdivision Agreements between the County and 1250 Partners Have Not Been Satisfied. The Declaratory Order notes that Oceanside's predecessor, 1250 Partners, obtained final subdivision approval for Phase I and Phase II of Hokuli`a by entering into subdivision agreements and posting bonds in lieu of actual construction of certain infrastructure and roadway improvements, as allowed under HCC § 23-81 and the Ordinances. Exhibit 1 at 2. The Declaratory Order goes on to assert that"[p]ortions of the covered improvements were constructed by [1250 Partners] but many were uncompleted within the deadlines set in the agreements," and that the County's Corporation Counsel sent a letter to 1250 Partners on April 29, 2010, outlining purported breaches of the Development Agreement and subdivision agreements. Id. at 2-3. The Declaratory Order concludes that the subdivision "agreements have not been satisfied and the bonds are no longer valid or enforceable." Id. at 12. The Planning Director erred in ruling that the subdivision agreements for Phase I and Phase II"have not been satisfied." Exhibit 1 at 12. That ruling is both clearly erroneous and in 12 4896-1786-4893.1.051730-00058