2024-12-03 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)

Home

decision making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions. Id. at 641-42, 594 P.2d at 623 (emphases added). In order for the parties and courts to "be informed of the factual basis upon which the [agency] relies, the [agency]'s findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record." Id. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623 (emphasis added). Simply put, "[t]he parties and the court should not be left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency." Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw. 663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1973) (emphases added). Unfortunately, the Planning Director's Proposed Order would do just that, leaving the parties— and eventually the Circuit Court— left guessing as to what actual factual findings were made and what evidence such findings were based upon. The Planning Director's Proposed Order does not identify any"Basic facts" supporting "Ultimate facts,"much less any supporting evidence in the record. Helco, 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623. At bottom, the Planning Director's Proposed Order lacks even the most minimal specificity necessary for Oceanside to object to and later appeal the factual findings and legal conclusions purportedly supporting the BOA's decision in this appeal. II. Oceanside's Specific Objections. a. Specific Objections to the Planning Director's Proposed Findings of Fact. Oceanside submits the following specific objections to the Planning Director's Proposed FOFs: PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED OCEANSIDE'S OBJECTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On February 7, 2024, C&J Coupe Family n/a Limited Partnership ("Intervenor") filed its 3 4860-2001-2538.2.051730-00058