My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-02-09 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-02-09 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2026 2:36:45 PM
Creation date
2/18/2026 2:36:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
matter." Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 641, 594 P.2d 612, 623 <br /> (1979) (emphasis added). Rather, "[t]he purpose of the statutory requirement that the agency set <br /> forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision <br /> making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions. Id. at 641-42, 594 P.2d <br /> at 623 (emphases added). <br /> In order for the parties and courts to "be informed of the factual basis upon which the <br /> [agency] relies, the [agency]'s findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of <br /> Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record." Id. at <br /> 642, 594 P.2d at 623 (emphasis added). Simply put, "[t]he parties and the court should not be <br /> left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters <br /> that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency." Application of <br /> Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw. 663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1973) (emphases added). <br /> Unfortunately, the Proposed Decision and Order still does not satisfy HRS § 91-12. <br /> While the Proposed Decision and Order includes some additional FOFs and COLS, it still fails to <br /> provide the necessary insight into the BOA'S decision to affirm the Declaratory Order that the <br /> Circuit Court found to be lacking in the BOA'S Prior Decision and Order. For example, the <br /> inclusion of the FOFs and COLS that relate to Oceanside's separate appeal in Case No. PL-BOA- <br /> 2024-000105 does not provide any additional insight into the BOA'S decision-making in this <br /> appeal. They therefore cannot serve as a basis to cure the deficiencies that led the Circuit Court <br /> to vacate BOA'S Prior Decision and Order and remand Oceanside's appeal. <br /> Setting aside those irrelevant FOFs and COLS, the remainder of the Proposed Decision <br /> and Order still does not comply with HRS § 91-12 or sufficiently address the Circuit Court's <br /> conclusions that the Prior Decision and Order did not include "reasonably clear findings of fact <br /> 4 <br /> 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.