Laserfiche WebLink
Frye had notice of the Ms. Ueda's comments.PKO-598, Ltr.from Y. Goldstein to R Frye (8113196); <br /> Test. R Frye (719103). <br /> 64. Oceanside responded to Ms. Ueda's letter, summarily dismissing the LUC <br /> warning. Exh. PKO-599B, Ltr.from J. Leonard to E. Ueda(9119196). <br /> 65. The LUC's concern that the County of Hawaii may have been parceling the <br /> project to avoid LUC review pursuant HRS Chapter 205 prompted Ms. Ueda's comments. Test E. <br /> Ueda(7122103). This concern was raised because of the County of Hawaii's past history with <br /> respect to similar projects.Id <br /> 66. The LUC did not initiate a petition for declaratory order for the Hokuli'a project <br /> out of concern that doing so would place the LUC in a possible conflict of interest. Id <br /> 67. On April 20, 1998,Oceanside and the County entered into a Development <br /> Agreement to develop Hokuli'a. Exh. DO-1352. <br /> 68. In the Development Agreement,Oceanside acknowledged its responsibility to <br /> comply with all land use regulations,including HRS chapter 205. Id,paragraph 5. <br /> 69. The Development Agreement imposed certain exactions on Oceanside, <br /> including: 1)construction of a bypass highway from Keauhou to Napoopoo;2)dedication, <br /> unprovement,and maintenance of a 140-acre shoreline park, 3)establishment of an employee <br /> housing program; and 4) dedication of additional acreage for Kona Scenic park. Test. R Stuit <br /> (7/23/03). <br /> 70. As late as the year 2000, the LUC warned the County of the requirement that <br /> only farm dwellings are allowed as residences on lands classified as Agriculture. PKO-6044 Ltr. <br /> from E. Ueda to V Goldstein (316100). <br /> 71. Mr. Frye testified that he presumed that: (a)Ag-la zoning by the County of <br /> Hawaii alone was sufficient to assure compliance with FM chapter 205; (b)the"farm dwelling" <br /> 14 <br />