2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Finding of Fact Objections Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 17 on the grounds that it misstates and mischaracterizes the grounds for Oceanside's appeal, which did not simply concern a lack "clarity or specifics desired by the [Oceanside]." This was confirmed by the Circuit Court in its Remand Order. See Exhibit A at 25-26, 29. Coupe Family's Response: To the extent this FOF appears to reference Oceanside's appeal in PL-BOA-2024-000105, it may be deleted. B. Proposed Conclusions of Law Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 4 on 4. PRPP Rule 3-1(a) gives the Planning the grounds that it mischaracterizes the Director the discretion to "issue a nature and extent of the Planning Director's declaratory order as to the applicability authority and discretion when responding to of any statutory provision, ordinance, or petitions for declaratory rulings pursuant to any rule or order of the Director or the Rule 3-1 of the Planning Department Rules Department." of Practice and Procedure ("PD Rules"). The Hawaii Supreme Court has explained that, "[b]y empowering agencies generally with the authority to adopt rules regarding the manner in which declaratory ruling petitions shall be considered and disposed of, the legislature has granted agencies discretion with regard to the consideration of declaratory rulings. The boundaries of that discretion, which normally are defined by the legislature, may in such cases be established with reference to the agency rules themselves, or by reading the statute and the agency rules in tandem." Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 114 Haw. 184, 194-95, 159 P.3d 143, 153-54 (2007). In other words, the Planning Director's discretion in considering and disposing of petitions for declaratory 11