Laserfiche WebLink
action." BOA Rule 8-13 similarly <br /> provides that the BOA"may affirm the <br /> decision of the director; or it may <br /> reverse or modify the decision; or <br /> remand the decision with appropriate <br /> instructions . . . ." Nothing in the BOA <br /> Rules authorizes the BOA to "deny" an <br /> appeal or"dismiss" an appeal"with <br /> prejudice in its entirety." In fact, Vice <br /> Chair Daina"Noe" Saiki's motion at the <br /> hearing was to "affirm the decision of <br /> the Planning Director." See Video of <br /> Hearing starting at 3:08:00. <br /> Oceanside further objects to the <br /> Planning Director' Proposed Decision <br /> and Order on the grounds that, although <br /> the Proposed Decision and Order states <br /> that the BOA took its action "[b]ased on <br /> its consideration of the evidence and <br /> argument presented at hearing, <br /> including the Record on Appeal, the <br /> documents on file herein, and applying <br /> the reliable probative evidence and <br /> law," the Proposed Order fails to specify <br /> any of the "evidence and argument" <br /> considered, or any of the "reliable <br /> probative evidence" or"law"that the <br /> BOA purportedly applied. This is a <br /> violation of HRS § 91-12. See id. See <br /> Helco, 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623 <br /> (In order for courts to "be informed of <br /> the factual basis upon which the <br /> [agency] relies, the [agency]'s findings <br /> of Ultimate facts must be supported by <br /> findings of Basic facts which in turn are <br /> required to be supported by the evidence <br /> in the record."). <br /> III. Oceanside's Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. <br /> a. Oceanside's Supplemental Findings of Fact. <br /> In addition to its objections to the Planning Director's Proposed FOFs set forth above, <br /> Oceanside hereby submits the following Supplemental FOFs: <br /> 9 <br /> 4860-2001-2538.2.051730-00058 <br />