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

Home

1 requirement only applied to lands rated A and B under the ALISH rating system, and(c)the project did not have to be viewed"in its entirety"for purposes of determining the proper land use designation. Test. R Frye (7110103). Oceanside never asked the LUC to reclassify its residential subdivision from Agricultural to Urban. Id 72. County officials reviewing the project allowed the project to proceed in spite of the comments by the state agencies. 73. Absent a court order, Oceanside will proceed with construction of its agricultural subdivision contrary to state land use law requirements,and the County Planning Director will grant approvals pursuant to the Development Agreement. 74. Oceanside officials testified they are convinced that their interpretations of state land use laws are correct, despite the numerous letters on record suggesting the contrary. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW To the extent not expressly contradicted by these Conclusions of Law,the previous Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on August 01,2001 and March 17,2003 regarding the trail and burial phases are hereby incorporated as Conclusions of Law,herein. If it should be determined that any of these Conclusions of Law should have been set forth as Findings of Fact,then they shall be deemed as such. HRS Chapter 205 1. This Court previously found: 14. The primary use and activities within the agricultural lots are not agriculture. Furthermore, the agricultural use and activities are insubstantial,s 2. This Court further concluded that: 15. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section Chapter 421J, Hokuli'a CCR,s are binding upon the Hokuli'a agriculture lot owners. The Court concludes under the S Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summ Judgment Chapter 205 Count IV In The Fifth Amended Complaint Filed October 12,2001 Re:HRSn (hereafter April 5,2002 Order"). 15