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 an ordinance." Either way, the Planning Director erred in including Section iii(B)(3)(c)in the Declaratory Order. Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 13 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by"the effect of a variance on existing law and authority of other county entities." 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. 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. Oceanside's confusion can be cleared up by reference to the record. Incorporating Coupe Family's suggested edits would remedy any perceived issues on this point. 14. Planning Director's order and testimony Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 14 on did not"qualify"the dedication of the the grounds that it is contrary to the Mauka Haleki`i Extension in relation to substantial evidence in the record, which the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 establishes that the Planning Director requirements as argued by Appellant. improperly qualified the dedication of the Planning Director acknowledged in his Mauka Haleki`i Extension and Order that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension Oceanside's corresponding satisfaction of was accepted by County Counci l the Ordinances through his use of the Resolution 317-12 after input from phrases "to the extent" and"effectively Department of Public Works. Planning dedicated" in the Declaratory Order. Director correctly identified that he had no authority to interpret the acceptance of the This is not some fictional issue that dedication of the road by County Council Oceanside has appealed. In its briefing or Department of Public Works. before the BOA, Coupe sought to exploit the language in the Planning Director's ruling, arguing that"[t]he Director wisely qualified his ruling regarding the Mauka Haleki`i Extension" because the "qualification is due to the fact that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was not effectively dedicated." (Emphasis added). Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 14 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by"correctly identified" and"authority to interpret the acceptance of 8