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

Home

Council or Department of Public Works. through his use of the phrases "to the extent" and"effectively dedicated" in the Declaratory Order. This is not some fictional issue that Oceanside has appealed. In its briefing before the BOA, Coupe sought to exploit the language in the Planning Director's ruling, arguing that"[t]he Director wisely qualified his ruling regarding the Mauka Haleki`i Extension"because the "qualification is due to the fact that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was not effectively dedicated." (Emphasis added). Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 14 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by "correctly identified" and"authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication . . . ." 12. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 12 to the nor the Planning Director needed extent that it finds that"eliciting testimony reconciliation with the content of the showing Planning Director did not answer Order. The testimony was irrelevant to specific questions or provided additional the determination as to whether the information that was not requested did not show Planning Director abused his authority the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. Nothing in Planning and/or discretion," as these purported findings Department's Rules of Practice and appears completely unrelated to this appeal. Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter The Planning Director's (a) failure and/or 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes,requires refusal to issue declaratory rulings on certain Planning Director to issue a declaratory questions and(b) his sua sponte issuance and/or- ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner erroneous inclusion of declaratory rulings in a for said declaratory ruling. Planning different Declaratory Order are at issue in the Director was not required to inform separate appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024- Appellant of their [sic] legal obligations 000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition with respect to the issues raised in the for Declaratory Ruling. Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 12 Planning Director did not answer- to the extent that it finds that the "Planning specific questions or provided additional Director was not required to inform Appellant information that was not requested did of their [sic] legal obligations with respect to not show the Planning Director abused the issues raised in the Petition for a his authority and/or discretion. Declaratory Ruling." It is unclear what exactly is meant by this proposed finding, but "Appellant" (i.e., Oceanside)was not the etitioner for the Declaratory Order at issue in 9 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058