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

Home

LLC, Derek B. Simon, Esq., and Ian R. hearing before, the BOA was not a contested Wesley-Smith, Esq. appeared on behalf case. See Exhibit A at 22-23, ¶¶]0-15. of Appellant. Zendo Kem, Hawaii County Planning Director and E. Britt Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 9 on Bailey, Deputy Corporation Counsel, the grounds that it fails to reflect that Deputy appeared on behalf of the Planning Corporation Counsel Jean K. Campbell, Esq. Department. Charles Coupe of C&J also appeared on behalf of the Planning Coupe Family Limited Partnership, Director. Among other things, Ms. Campbell Kenneth R. Kupchak, Esq., and Mark M. sat at the counsel table with Ms. Bailey during Murakami, Esq. appeared on behalf of the hearing. Intervenor. Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF 9 on the grounds that Charles Coupe did not appear on behalf of Coupe, although he may have been in attendance in the audience. 10. Appellant's witness, Michael Kaleihoku Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 10 on the Vitousek, testified that Planning grounds that it misstates and mischaracterizes Director's declaratory order did not Mr. Vitousek's testimony and the basis for provide enough or specific information Oceanside's appeal of the Declaratory Order. for Appellant to understand how to comply with its compliance obligations As the Circuit Court found in its Remand under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8. Order, Oceanside's appeal to the BOA"did not only concern the Declaratory Order lacking `the level of clarity desired by' Oceanside." See Exhibit A at 25-26, ¶29. 11. Planning Director testified, and his Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 11 to the testimony was consistent with the extent that it finds that"Planning Director contents of his Order. Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not testified he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed by the answering some questions posed by the petition" as this proposed finding appears petitions. Planning Director's order and completely unrelated to this appeal. The testimony did not"qualify" the Planning Director's refusal to issue declaratory dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i rulings on certain questions is at issue in the Extension in relation to the satisfaction separate appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024- of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements 000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition as argued by Appellant. Planning for Declaratory Ruling and a different Director acknowledged in his Order that Declaratory Order. the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was accepted by County Council Resolution Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 11 317-12 after input from Department of on the grounds that it is contrary to the Public Works. Planning Director substantial evidence in the record, which correctly identified that he had no establishes that the Planning Director authority to interpret the acceptance of improperly qualified the dedication of the the dedication of the road by County Mauka Haleki`i Extension and Oceanside's corresponding satisfaction of the Ordinances 8 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058