2026-02-09 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)

Home

this appeal — that was Coupe. Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF 12 to the extent it finds that"[n]othing in Planning Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling." Although it is not clear what is meant by"to the satisfaction of the petitioner," Oceanside was not the "petitioner"for the Declaratory Order at issue in this appeal. in any event, the Declaratory Order is an appealable order subject to review by both the BOA and the courts pursuant to the BOA Rules and HRS § 91-14. Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 12 to the extent that it finds that"[n]either the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor the Planning Director needed reconciliation with the content of the Order," as it is contrary to the Circuit Court's Remand Order, which recognized that the BOA was required to reconcile the evidence received at the contested case hearing. See Exhibit A at 26,¶30 ("None of the FOFs provide the Court with the necessary insight into how the BOA reconciled the evidence received as part of the contested case hearing."). 13. The exhibits did not show the Order was Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 13 on the issued in error or an abuse of discretion. grounds that it is contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including the exhibits, which demonstrates that the Planning Director committed numerous errors and abused his discretion. Because Proposed FOF 16 fails identify any specific exhibits or specify how the exhibits purportedly did not show that the Planning Director erred or abused his discretion, Oceanside incorporates by reference its Petition for Appeal, its Consolidated Hearing Brief filed October-4, 2024 ("Hearing Brief'), the evidence in the record (including exhibits and 10 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058