Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> Planning Director acknowledged in his concerns Oceanside's Petition for <br /> Order that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension Declaratory Ruling and a different <br /> was accepted by County Council Declaratory Order. <br /> Resolution 317-12 after input from <br /> Department of Public Works. Planning Oceanside further objects to Proposed <br /> Director correctly identified that he had no FOF 11 on the grounds that it is contrary <br /> authority to interpret the acceptance of the to the substantial evidence in the record, <br /> dedication of the road by County Council which establishes that the Planning <br /> or Department of Public Works. Director improperly qualified the <br /> dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i <br /> Extension and Oceanside's corresponding <br /> satisfaction of the Ordinances through his <br /> use of the phrases "to the extent" and <br /> "effectively dedicated"in the Declaratory <br /> Order. <br /> This is not some fictional issue that <br /> Oceanside has appealed. In its briefing <br /> before the BOA, Coupe sought to exploit <br /> the language in the Planning Director's <br /> ruling, arguing that"[t]he Director wisely <br /> qualified his ruling regarding the Mauka <br /> Haleki`i Extension" because the <br /> "qualification is due to the fact that the <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension was not <br /> effectively dedicated." (Emphasis added). <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF <br /> 14 on the grounds that it is vague and <br /> ambiguous as to what is meant by <br /> "correctly identified" and"authority to <br /> interpret the acceptance of the dedication . . <br /> Coupe Family's Response: Regarding the first objection that Planning Director's <br /> testimony that"he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed by the <br /> petition" is "completely unrelated to this appeal"—Ocean side appears to be referencing <br /> specifically the portion of the Planning Director's testimony related to its Petition. To that <br /> end, the second sentence of this FOF can be deleted or revised as follows: "In response to <br /> Oceanside's questions pertaining to its Petition that is the subject of Oceanside's appeal in <br /> PL-BOA-2024-000105, Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not answering <br /> some questions posed in that Petition." <br /> Regarding the objection that"Planning Director improperly qualified the dedication of the <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension", this objection is attempting to litigate issues that are not before <br /> 5 <br />