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 Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 15 as being contrary to the substantial evidence and the law to the extent it purports to find that"eliciting testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions . . . did not show the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion."As the Hawaii Supreme Court has explained, "[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." Id. at 194-95, 159 P.3d at 153-54. "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."Id. at 195, 159 P.3d at 154. Thus, an agency's rules govern its disposition of petitions for declaratory ruling, thus making the decision discretionary"within the parameters of the agency's rules.Id. ("DPP Rule § 3-5 governs DPP refusals to issue a declaratory ruling, making that decision discretionary with the DPP Director, within the parameters of five enumerated reasons."). Unlike rules promulgated by other agencies, no provision of Rule 3 of the Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PD Rules")provides a basis or discretion for the Planning Director to refuse or otherwise fail to respond to requests for declaratory ruling that are within his authority and jurisdiction. CARD, 114 Haw. at 195, 159 P.3d at 154 (discussing rule giving planning director discretion to refuse to issue rulings otherwise within his/her jurisdiction, including when a"declaratory ruling may 11