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 and Mark M. Murakami, Esq. appeared on Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean K. behalf of Tntervenor. Campbell, Esq. also appeared on behalf of the Planning Director. Among other things, Ms. Campbell sat at the counsel table with Ms. Bailey during the hearing. 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. Coupe Family's Response: We concur with these proposed edits. The Board held a contested case hearing pursuant to its rules in Oceanside's appeal. 10. Appellant's witness, Michael Kaleihoku Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 10 on Vitousek,testified that Planning Director's the grounds that it misstates and declaratory order did not provide enough or mischaracterizes Mr. Vitousek's specific information for Appellant to testimony and the basis for Oceanside's understand how to comply with its appeal of the Declaratory Order. compliance obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8. As the Circuit Court found in its Remand 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. Coupe Family's Response: This FOF does not misstate or mischaracterize Mr. Vitousek's testimony. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 20. Further, this FOF does not attempt to frame Oceanside's appeal as centering entirely on the Declaratory Order's "lacking the level of clarity desired by Oceanside." Such a reading ignores the previous FOF no. 3 where the basis for Oceanside's appeal is clearly spelled out. This FOF merely notes another of Oceanside's grievances in its appeal. 11. Planning Director testified, and his Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 11 to testimony was consistent with the contents the extent that it finds that"Planning of his Order. Planning Director testified he Director testified he exercised discretion in exercised discretion in not answering some not answering some questions posed by the questions posed by the petitions. Planning petition" as this proposed finding appears Director's order and testimony did not completely unrelated to this appeal. The "qualify"the dedication of the Mauka Planning Director's refusal to issue Haleki`i Extension in relation to the declaratory rulings on certain questions is satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 at issue in the separate appeal under Case requirements as argued by Appellant. No. PL-BOA-2024000105, which 4