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

Home

arbitrary and capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 5. Having considered the testimony and For the reasons set forth in Oceanside's General evidence provided, the Board unanimously Petition for Appeal of Decisions by Planning ruled that in issuing his Order, the Planning Director or Public Works Director filed on May Director Zendo Kern did not clearly err, was not 28, 2024 and its Consolidated Hearing Brief arbitrary or capricious, nor did he abuse his filed October 4, 2024, as well as the evidence, discretion. Therefore, the Board denied testimony, and argument adduced at the Appellant's appeal of Zendo Kern,Planning hearing, all of which is hereby incorporated by Director, County of Hawai'i's Declaratory reference, Ocean objects to Proposed COL 5 on Order in the Matter of C&J Coupe Family the grounds that the BOA's decision to affirm Limited Partnership, Petitioner, Docket No. 24- the decision of the Planning Director goes 0001. against the weight of the evidence and applicable law, and constitutes reversible error. Oceanside further objects to Proposed COL 5 on the grounds that, although Proposed COL 5 states that the BOA "considered the testimony and evidence provided," none of the Planning Director's proposed FOFs make any actual factual findings, much less identify the evidence and testimony that such findings were based on. See Helco, 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623 (In order for 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."). Oceanside also objects to Proposed COL 5 on the grounds that nothing in the BOA Rules allows the BOA to "deny" an appeal. See BOA Rule 8-13 ("[T]he Board shall render its decision in an appeal proceeding, by either affirming the decision appealed from, or reversing or modifying the decision, or remanding the case to the Director for further proceedings and action); BOA Rule 8-15 ("[T]he Board of Appeals may affirm the decision of the director; or it may reverse or modify the decision; or remand the decision with appropriate instructions[.]"). In fact, Vice Chair Daina"Noe" Saiki's motion at the hearing was to "affirm the decision of the 7 4860-2001-2538.2.051730-00058