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 The grounds for Oceanside's appeal of the Declaratory Order to the BOA are also set forth in the Circuit Court's Remand Order. See Exhibit A at 12-13, ¶28. Coupe Family's Response: The difference between the Board's proposed language and Oceanside's is only that the wording is different, both versions of the proposed language essentially state the same thing. The Board's version references the substance of the appeal and arguments advanced by Oceanside, whereas Oceanside's language merely recites the Circuit Court's Remand Order. From Coupe Family's perspective, this is a distinction without difference. We defer to the sound judgment of the Board in determining the appropriate language to use. While using the Court's Remand Order language would make things consistent, it would not serve any purpose. 9. On October 11, 2024, the Board heard oral Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 9 on arguments and presentation of evidence, the grounds that it does not specify that including exhibits, and testimony on the the BOA's hearing on October 11, 2024, Appeal at the West Hawaii Civic Center was a contested case hearing pursuant to with all Board Members present in person. BOA Rule 8-11, Part 3 of the BOA Michael Kaleihoku Vitousek, Manager of Rules, and HRS ch. 91. This was Land and Development of 1250 Oceanside, confirmed by the Circuit Court in its LLC, Derek B. Simon, Esq., and Ian R. Remand Order, which rejected the Wesley-Smith, Esq. appeared on behalf of County's argument that Oceanside's Appellant. Zendo Kem, Hawaii County appeal to, and subsequent hearing Planning Director and E. Britt Bailey, before, the BOA was not a contested Deputy Corporation Counsel, appeared on case. See Exhibit A at 21-22,¶¶12-15. behalf of the Planning Department. Charles Coupe of C&J Coupe Family Limited Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF Partnership, Kenneth R. Kupchak, Esq., 9 on the grounds that it fails to reflect that and Mark M. Murakami, Esq. appeared on Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean K. behalf of Intervenor. Campbell, Esq. also appeared on behalf of the Planning Director. Among other things, Ms. Campbell sat at the counsel table with Ms. Bailey during the hearing. Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF 9 on the grounds that Charles Coupe did not appear on behalf of intervenor C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership ("Coupe"), although he may have been in attendance in the audience. Coupe Family's Response: Coupe Family respectfully submits that its proposed edits would remedy any perceived issues with this FOF. 4