My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-08-18 3CCV-25-0000025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Vacating and Remanding to BOA (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2025-08-18 3CCV-25-0000025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Vacating and Remanding to BOA (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2025 2:01:03 PM
Creation date
1/23/2026 10:29:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
sought an interpretation of the Development Agreement, which is not a <br /> Department order. Id., at 0026. <br /> • Request 2,: The Director declined to answer this request because it <br /> improperly sought an interpretation of the Development Agreement, which <br /> is not a Department order. Id., at 0027. It also sought review or affirmance <br /> of a past Department action that the Director has no control over and/or is <br /> no longer appealable. Id. <br /> • Request 3: The Director declined to answer this request because it did not <br /> designate any specific provision, rule, or order of the Director or <br /> Department as is required under PRPP Rule 3-1(b)(3). Id., at 0026. <br /> • Request 4: The Director agreed to respond to this request to the extent <br /> that it requested an interpretation of the Ordinances' conditions as applied <br /> to the Project. Id., at 0028. <br /> • Request 5: The Director declined to answer this request because it <br /> improperly sought an interpretation of the Development Agreement, which <br /> is not a Department order and it also sought review or affirmance of a past <br /> Department action that the Director has no control over and/or is no longer <br /> appealable. Id. <br /> • Request 6: The Director declined to answer this request because it sought <br /> review of a past Department action which is no longer appealable. Id., at <br /> 0028. <br /> • Request 7: The Director declined to answer this request because it sought <br /> review of a past Department action which is no longer appealable. Id. <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.