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 adversely affect the interests of the city in any litigation" and"[f]or other good cause"). Therefore, the fact that the substantial evidence shows that the Planning Director failed to answer numerous of Oceanside's Requests—despite acknowledging that the were within his jurisdiction and would be answered demonstrates that"the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion." Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 15 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by the "eliciting testimony showing Planning Director . . . provided additional information that was not requested." To the extent that relates to or concerns Proposed FOF 13 regarding the Planning Director's sua sponte issuance and/or erroneous inclusion of certain declaratory rulings in the Declaratory Order, Oceanside incorporates by reference its objections to Proposed FOF 13, supra. Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF 15 to the extent it finds that"[n]othing in Planning Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP")Rule 3-1 or- Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling. Although it is not clear what is meant by"to the satisfaction of the petitioner,"the Declaratory Order is an appealable order subject to review by both the BOA and the courts pursuant to HRS § 91-14. Coupe Family's Response: Oceanside's objection to the first two sentences of this FOF again misconstrues the purpose of this proceeding ("Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek not-the Planning Director needed reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion."). It bears repeating that the reason Oceanside and Coupe Family sought 12