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 dedication of the road by County Council or Department of Public Works." Coupe Family's Response: This objection is attempting to litigate issues that are not before the Board on remand and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Circuit Court only asked the Board to provide more details regarding its decision-making. The Board's proposed language satisfies the Circuit Court's requirement. Likewise, Oceanside's objection that it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by "correctly identified" and "authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication . . . ." goes beyond the scope of this proceeding. The proposed language does exactly what the Circuit Court asks of the Board, which is to provide the Court with more detail regarding the Board's decision. This last point is also not vague or ambiguous because (1) declaratory rulings are forward-looking and by rule and law cannot be used to review past decisions—examinations of the correctness of prior actions have specific appeal procedures which had expired and (2) the Planning Director does not have authority to review a past decision by a different governmental entity such as the County Council or the Department of Public Works. Oceanside's confusion can be cleared up easily by a citation to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 and Planning Department Rule 3-1. Tncotporating Coupe Family's suggested edits would remedy any perceived issues on this point. 15. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 15 on the Planning Director needed the grounds that it is contrary to the reconciliation with the content of the substantial evidence in the record. The Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the record demonstrates that the Declaratory determination as to whether the Planning Order cannot be reconciled with the Director abused his authority and/or Planning Director's testimony,which discretion. Nothing in Planning revealed, inter alia, that he failed to respond Department's Rules of Practice and to numerous of Oceanside's Requests Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter despite determining that they each of them 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes, requires was within his jurisdiction and would be Planning Director to issue a declaratory answered in the Declaratory Order. ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling. Planning For example, in the Declaratory Order, the Director was not required to inform Planning Director determined that he could Appellant of their [sic] legal obligations and would issue a declaratory ruling on with respect to the issues raised in the Oceanside's Request asking whether Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Ordinance No. 96-8 requires "the dedication Likewise, eliciting testimony showing of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension, Makai Planning Director did not answer specific Haleki`i Extension, or Connector Road by a questions or provided additional date certain or any milestone in the information that was not requested did not development of Hokuli`a . . . ."When asked show the Planning Director abused his about his answer to this Request before the authority and/or discretion. BOA, the Planning Director testified twice that Ordinance No. 96-8 does not set a deadline or development milestone for the dedication of these roadways. However, the 9