2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000105 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Finding of Fact Objections answer the Planning Director gave, or anything of a similar nature, is not found in the Declaratory Order. The Planning Director's testimony is therefore not "irrelevant"to whether the Planning Director committed in any errors in the Declaratory Order; instead; his testimony confirmed he did exactly that. Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 15 to the extent that it finds that"[n]either the testimony of Mr. Vitousek not-the Planning Director needed reconciliation with the content of the Order," as it is contrary to the Circuit Court's Remand Order, which recognized that the BOA was required to reconcile the evidence received at the contested case hearing. See Exhibit A at 24, ¶29 ("None of the FOFs provide the Court with the necessary insight into how the BOA reconciled the evidence received as part of the contested case hearing."). Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 15 as being contrary to the law to the extent it purports to find that the "Director was not required to inform Appellant of their [sic] legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling."Petitions for declaratory rulings are "meant to provide a means of seeking a determination of whether and in what way some statute, agency rule, or order, applies to the factual situation raised by an interested person." Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City& Cnty. of Honolulu, 114 Haw. 184, 196-97, 159 P.3d 143, 155-56 (2007) ("CARD"). Tn other words,petitions for declaratory ruling are specifically intended to provide interested persons a means to obtain an agency's official position on their "legal obligations" as it relates to matters within the agency's jurisdiction. 10