2024-10-11 Exh B Transcript 1250 OCEANSIDE LLC (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)

Home

In its fourth, or fifth, or sixth, and its hard to keep track, attempt Oceanside now tries to escape the dedication requirement for other smaller roads. They are built and could easily be dedicated. Oceanside has done it before, yet Oceanside resists. It has resisted for so long, that the Coupe family filed a lawsuit to make them comply. In court, Oceanside and County thought the decision to find Oceanside in material breach of the development agreement was a question that belonged with the Planning Department first, so we submitted an extensive petition for a declaratory ruling from Director Kern. The Director issued a very narrow decision finding that most of our petition, as well as Oceanside's petition, was beyond his scope and jurisdiction and beyond the authority of the Planning Department. His decision says that as a condition of zoning its lands, Hokuli`a has to dedicate roads to the County.We think that the roads have to be dedicated to county road standards. The County has accepted less in the past, but in any event the Coupe family agrees with the core of his decision. Now today, before this panel or the Board and to be clear this is Oceanside's appeal to the Board. It is not the Coupe family's appeal to the Board and during litigation over the bypass fifteen years ago, the community—I think represented or misunderstood what was actually going on. The County filed a condemnation lawsuit to take the Coupe family's lands. Judge Ibara, after a six- week trial found that the development agreement improperly delegated the condemnation power from the County to Oceanside and he found it to be unconstitutional and that decision stands to this day. The County brought a second condemnation lawsuit and that's the one that was actually litigated. Oceanside's burden today is steep. This Board's Rule 8-4 says that in order to modify or overturn Director Kern's decision, Oceanside has to show, and this Board has to find one that the Director's decision violates the law; two the Director's decision is clearly erroneous; or three the Director's decision is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Oceanside's appeal fails on all fronts. Now in court, Oceanside insisted that the interpretation of the development agreement and these ordinances were the Planning Director's kuleana. The Director's declaratory ruling power is limited, and he issued a narrow decision that said the ordinances 96-7 and 96-8, as a condition of zoning, required the dedication to the County of the Makai extension and the connector roads. We agree and Oceanside is not shown and can't show how that ruling should be overturned under Rule 8 of the Board Rules. As such, it should be affirmed. Thank you. LEWIS: Thank you very much. Okay and last but not least then we'll have the department go ahead and BAILEY: And mine is quite short so—despite the volume of material that's been filed in this matter here today and despite the almost thirty years of litigation that serves as the backdrop to this issue—what you have before you today is actually rather straightforward and narrow. The issue before you is whether or not the Director in issuing his declaratory rulings abused his discretion, clearly erred, or violated the law. We contend that the Planning Director's declaratory rulings are more than acceptable, and we respectfully request that you affirm these rulings. Pursuant to Rule 3-1 of the Planning Department Rules, the Director may issue a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision, ordinance, or any rule or order of the Director or the Department, that is the Planning Department. Although the Director has fairly broad discretion EXHIBIT B Page 7