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 Coupe Family's Response: This objection again goes beyond the scope of this proceeding because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the Circuit Court only remanded for more details on the Board's decision. To the extent that further explanation and analysis of this FOF may be warranted, Coupe Family submits that any such purported insufficiency can be remedied by incorporating Coupe Family's proposed edits as set forth below and in Exhibit A. 19. The Planning Director did not rule that any Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 19 on the roadway is not constructed as required. The grounds that it is contrary to the substantial Planning Director ruled the roadways in evidence. In the Declaratory Order, the question must be constructed to a condition Planning Director ruled that"[i]n order to approved by DPW, which does not take a comply with the Ordinances, Oceanside must position on whether-or not any roadway is or construct the Makai Haleki`i Extension and was currently approved by DPW, and instead Connector Road to a condition approved by leaves those determinations to DPW and the DPW — ." (Emphasis added). The Planning Hawaii County Council. Director did so despite the fact that: (a) both roads were constructed as part of Phase I of Hokuli`a, which received final subdivision approval in 1999 based on construction plans reviewed and approved by DPW; (b)both roads are subject to the Variance, which was granted by the Planning Department; and(c) the Planning Director testified that both roads are already constructed and exist today. The Planning Director's ruling in the Declaratory Order that Oceanside "must construct"both roadways "to a condition approved by DPW" directly contradicts the purported finding in Proposed FOF 19 that the Planning Director did"not take a position on whether or not any roadway is or was currently approved by DPW." Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the decision below, which goes beyond the scope of this proceeding. it also misconstrues this FOF which explains the Board's review of the Planning Director's Order and states the basis of the Planning Director's decision. Again, this FOF supplements the Board's Decision and Order with the detail that the Circuit Court requested on remand. 20. The Board finds that the Order addressed Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 20 to the questions raised by the Appellant in its the extent that it finds that"the appeal, even if the Planning Director did not [Declaratory] Order addressed the provide the level of clarity or specifics desired questions appropriately raised by the by the Appellant. Appellant in its General Petition." The 16