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 10. Appellant's witness, Michael Kaleihoku Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 10 on Vitousek,testified that Planning Director's the grounds that it misstates and declaratory order did not provide enough or mischaracterizes Mr. Vitousek's specific information for Appellant to testimony and the basis for Oceanside's understand how to comply with its appeal of the Declaratory Order. compliance obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8. As the Circuit Court found in its Remand Order, Oceanside's appeal to the BOA "did not only concern the Declaratory Order lacking `the level of clarity desired by' Oceanside." See Exhibit A at 24,¶28. Coupe Family's Response: This FOF does not misstate or mischaracterize Mr. Vitousek's testimony. See Transcript of October- 11, 2024 Hearing at 20. Further, this FOF does not attempt to frame Oceanside's appeal as centering entirely on the Declaratory Order's "lacking the level of clarity desired by Oceanside." Such a reading ignores the previous FOF no. 3 where the basis for Oceanside's appeal is clearly spelled out. This FOF merely notes another of Oceanside's grievances in its appeal. 11. Planning Director testified, and his Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 1 1 on testimony was consistent with the contents the grounds that it misstates and of his Order. Planning Director testified he mischaracterizes then-Planning Director- exercised discretion in not answering some Zendo Kern's testimony at the contested questions posed by the petitions. case hearing. For example, as set forth in Oceanside's objections to Proposed FOF 15, infNa, the Planning Director's testimony confirmed that he failed to issue declaratory rulings on numerous of Oceanside's Requests despite determining that they were within his jurisdiction and would be answered in the Declaratory Order. Coupe Family's Response: This FOF does not misstate or mischaracterize the then- Planning Director's testimony. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 43-44. The Planning Director, on numerous occasions, confirmed that his testimony was consistent with the contents of his Order and. He further testified that he had been exercising his discretion in choosing not to answer some of the questions posed by the petitions. This FOF has nothing to do with the validity of Planning Director's determinations, as Oceanside attempts to make it out to be, but simply is stating what the Planning Director testified to. 12. Planning Director correctly identified Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 12 on questions that sought an interpretation of a the grounds that it is irrelevant that the development agreement in his Order. Planning Director's interpretation of the 5