2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

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." Count IV Order,p. 12, 13, 15,FOF Nos. 58, 60, 72-74, R at 66: 21413A250-251. These findings ignore the plain intent of the evidence upon which they are based,which was to comply with all applicable governmental procedures, and to seek counsel to ensure compliance with HRS Chapter 205. The quotations on which these findings are based are taken clean out of historical, textual, administrative and intentional context, and are used plainly contrary to their meaning in context. See, Count IV Order,pp. 9-15, FOF Nos. 40-71,R at 66: 21413A245-251. This error was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment,p. 17-18, R at 86:27821-2. Point of Error No. 7: The Circuit Court erred in assuming that rezoning or subdivision to 1-Acre lots (specifically allowed under HRS §205-5(b))was not allowable without pre-approval proof that"bona fide agricultural use"will in fact be implemented on the smaller-sized lots: 46. Commenting on Oceanside's application for rezoning its mauka portion of its property from AG-5a and Unplanned to Ag-la, the DOA noted that the smaller size lots "will seriously limit range of economically viable uses of property." Exh. PKO-571, Ltr.from Y. Kitagawa to R. Frye (7112193)p.2. 47. Oceanside did not adequately address this concern nor establish to any satisfactory extent that it will in fact implement a"bona fide agricultural use." Exh. PKO-573, Ltr.from Y. Kiatagawa to V. Goldstein (812193);see, Exh. PKO- 575, 816193 Ltr.from J. Leonard to Y. Kitagawa;see also, Exh. PKO-579, 9110193 Ltr.from J. Leonard to Y. Kitagawa. Count IV Order,p.10, FOF Nos. 46-47, R at 66: 21413A246. This error was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment,p. 10,R at 86:27814. Point of Error No. 8: The Circuit Court erred in holding that Hokuli'a is an Urban use, and that Oceanside must seek a boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban from the LUC for houses to be built: 14