2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections That said, Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 6 on the grounds that PD Rule 3-1(c) is not simply a"timing"rule. Although PD Rule 31(c) does set a deadline for the Planning Director to respond to petitions for declaratory ruling, it also constrains the Planning Director's discretion by limiting the ways in which the Planning Director can respond. By its plain terms, PD Rule 3- 1(c)mandates that the Planning Director respond in one of three ways: (a) "deny the petition in writing, stating the reasons for such denial;" (b)"issue a declaratory order- on the matters contained in the petitions;" or(c) "set the matter-for a public hearing, as provided in Sections 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 of the PD Rules. Presumably, the Planning Director can also respond through some combination of the three. Coupe Family's Response: This COL is relevant to this appeal because it supplies the Board's interpretation of the rules in its examination of the Planning Director's Declaratory Order. There is also nothing in this COL that misstates the referenced rule. It is unobjectionable. Like other Proposed FOFs and COLs 9. The Planning Director acted within his discussed supra, Proposed COL 9 appears jurisdiction and discretion in the manner completely unrelated to this appeal, and in which the Planning Director instead is related to issues raised by addressed the Appellant's posed Oceanside in its separate appeal under-Case questions. The Planning Director was No. PL-BOA-2024-000105,which concerns not required to respond to the questions Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. in the form or format posed by the Appellant. Specifically, the Planning Director did not address "Appellant's" (or Oceanside's) "posed questions" in the Declaratory Order at issue in this appeal— those questions were posed by Coupe in its Petitions for Declaratory Ruling. The issue of whether the Planning Director was "required to respond to the questions in the form or format posed by the Appellant" is likewise not at issue in this appeal because the questions addressed in the Declaratory Order at issue in this appeal were posed by Coupe, not Oceanside. 13