2003-10-22 Amended Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Order Regarding Trial on Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint

Home

The project's recreational,resort,and Iow-density single-family residential components do not conform to uses that are permissible within the State Agricultural District(HRS 205-4.5). Single-family dwellings within the Agricultural District are required to be"farm dwellings"as defined by Section 205-4.5(4). Because the project's residential dwellings do not appear to be accesNa to economically viable agricultural activities,the project's residential dwellings may not conform to the State's farm dwelling requirement. State law requires that single-family dwellings located within the State Agricultural District must be restricted to farm dwellings. A farm dwelling is defined by HRS Chapter 205-4.5(4)as"a single family dwelling located on and used in connection with a farm. . . where agricultural activity,RmvyiLde income to the fa_•nily occupying the dwelling." Exh PKO-589, Ltr.from G. Poi to Y. Goldstei 1, 2;see Exh PKO-591,Ltr.from J Leonard to G. P i(9112195) (Oceanside PP• response). 60. Given the advice and comments from attorneys and state agencies with expertise in land uses and agriculture, at the very minimum,any reasonable developer reading these letters would have consulted with the LUC between 1989-95. 61. During a 1996 workshop addressing the pending amendment to the County General Plan for the"resort retreat"area, Councilperson Curtis Tyler,observed: "They[Oceanside] are trying to avoid the State Land Use Commission. Exh PKO-622, Meeting Notes, Planning Dept. Workshop (5130196)p.2-3. 62. Douglas Blake from the Conservation Council stated, "This is not sticking to the County General Plan. This is spot zoning and just makes the General Plan meaningless." Id. 63. The LUC had its first formal opportunity,to comment on the Hokuli'a project in 1996. The LUC addressed the proposed reclassification of only a 14.854-acre parcel of the Hokuli'a project in Ordinance 97-35. The LUC's Executive Officer,Esther Ueda, noted the LUC's continuing concern about"parcelling"of projects in order to allow reclassification of land by the County under HRS § 205-3.1. Exh, PKO-597.4, Ltr.from E. Ueda to V Goldstein (816196). Mr. 13