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 the Board on remand and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Circuit Court only asked the Board to provide more details regarding its decision-making. The Board's proposed language satisfies the Circuit Court's requirement. Likewise, Oceanside's objection that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by "correctly identified" and "authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication goes beyond the scope of this proceeding. The proposed language does exactly what the Circuit Court asks of the Board, which is to provide the Court with more detail regarding the Board's decision. This last point is also not vague or ambiguous because (1) declaratory rulings are forward-looking and by rule and law cannot be used to review past decisions examinations of the correctness of prior actions have specific appeal procedures which had expired—and (2) the Planning Director does not have authority to review a past decision by a different governmental entity such as the County Council or the Department of Public Works. Oceanside's confusion can be cleared up easily by a citation to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 and Planning Department Rule 3-1. Incorporating Coupe Family's suggested edits would remedy any perceived issues on this point. 12. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 12 to the Planning Director needed the extent that it finds that"eliciting reconciliation with the content of the testimony showing Planning Director did not Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the answer specific questions or provided determination as to whether the Planning additional information that was not Director abused his authority and/or requested did not show the Planning discretion. Nothing in Planning Director abused his authority and/or Department's Rules of Practice and discretion," as these purported findings Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter appears completely unrelated to this appeal. 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes,requires The Planning Director's (a) failure and/or Planning Director to issue a declaratory refusal to issue declaratory rulings on certain ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner questions and(b) his sua sponte issuance for said declaratory ruling. Planning and/or erroneous inclusion of declaratory Director was not required to inform rulings in a different Declaratory Order are Appellant of their [sic] legal obligations at issue in the separate appeal under Case with respect to the issues raised in the No. PL-BOA-2024000105,which concerns Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF questions or provided additional 12 to the extent that it finds that the information that was not requested did not "Planning Director was not required to show the Planning Director-abused his inform Appellant of their [sic] legal authority and/or discretion. obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling."It is unclear what exactly is meant by this proposed finding, but"Appellant" (i.e., Oceanside) was not the petitioner for the Declaratory Order at issue in this appeal — that was Coupe. 6