My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-07-15 1250 Oceanside LLC Position Statement on Petition to Intervene PL-BOA-2024-000108 (104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2024-07-15 1250 Oceanside LLC Position Statement on Petition to Intervene PL-BOA-2024-000108 (104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2024 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
7/24/2024 8:04:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
between [Hokuli`a] and the adjacent properties to the . . . south" (emphasis added), the <br /> Ordinances say nothing about providing"unfettered access"to Coupe's property,particularly <br /> where neither Coupe's property nor any other properties to the south have been developed with <br /> improvements to connect to the Connector Road. As far as Oceanside is aware, Coupe has never <br /> requested access to its property through the Connector Road or to connect a roadway on its <br /> property to the Connector Road, although Oceanside regularly grants the rancher leasing <br /> Coupe's property access to Hokuli`a lands to retrieve stray cattle and repair fencing. <br /> C. Coupe fought to block the construction of the Mamalahoa By-Pass. <br /> To provide some context on the present dispute and the parties involved, Oceanside's <br /> General Petition for Appeal of Decision of the Planning Director noted that Coupe previously <br /> fought for years to block the construction of the Mamalahoa By-Pass. Coupe took issue with <br /> that information being disclosed to the BOA,presumably because it is inconsistent with its <br /> current posture of purportedly being a defender of public infrastructure and access. <br /> According to Coupe's Petition, "Oceanside has already made misrepresentations by <br /> painting [Coupe] as the aggressor in an earlier lawsuit pertaining to [sic] condemnation action by <br /> the County." Petition at 7. Coupe's Petition claims that Coupe's "intent was not to block any <br /> important public infrastructure" and suggests that Coupe was only concerned with the amount of <br /> compensation it would receive for the land condemned. Petition at 7-8. That is just not the case. <br /> The simple reality is that for nearly a decade Coupe challenged the very public purpose <br /> behind the Mamalahoa By-Pass and thus the County's ability to condemn Coupe's land for the <br /> Mamalahoa By-Pass. As the Hawaii Supreme Court explained in its second decision addressing <br /> Coupe's challenge to the condemnation of its land for the Mamalahoa By-Pass, Coupe argued, <br /> among other things, that"the only entity that stood to benefit [from the Mamalohoa By-Pass] . . . <br /> was Oceanside because Oceanside could not open the Hokulia project without completing and <br /> 4885-9189-8831.1.051730- 000586 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.