Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> substantial evidence in the record, <br /> including the exhibits, which demonstrates <br /> that the Planning Director committed <br /> numerous errors and abused his discretion. <br /> Because Proposed FOF 16 fails identify any <br /> specific exhibits or specify how the exhibits <br /> purportedly did not show that the Planning <br /> Director erred or abused his discretion, <br /> Oceanside incorporates by reference its <br /> General Petition for Appeal, its Hearing Brief, <br /> the evidence in the record(including exhibits <br /> and testimony), and argument adduced at the <br /> contested case hearing. <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again goes beyond the scope of this <br /> proceeding because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the <br /> Circuit Court only remanded for more details on the Board's decision. Coupe Family <br /> submits that any purported insufficiency can be remedied by incorporating Coupe <br /> Family's proposed edits as set forth below and in Exhibit A. <br /> 17. Planning Director did not err, and acted Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 17 on the <br /> within his discretion in refusing to answer on grounds that it is contrary to the substantial <br /> the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as requested by evidence in the record and established law. In <br /> Appellant,when Ord. 96-8 was also applicable the Declaratory Order, the Planning Director <br /> to the Hokulea [sic] development and enacted determined that the following Request was <br /> at the same time. within his jurisdiction and would be answered: <br /> "Whether the express terms of Ordinance No. <br /> 96-7 require the dedication of the Mauka <br /> Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i Extension, <br /> or Connector Road?"As set forth in <br /> Oceanside's Petition for Appeal and Hearing <br /> Brief, the Planning Director erred and abused <br /> his discretion by failing to answer this Request <br /> (and others). See Objections to Proposed FOF <br /> 15, supra (discussing limitations on discretion <br /> to fail or refuse to answer requests for <br /> declaratory rulings). <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again goes beyond the scope of this proceeding <br /> because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the Circuit Court only <br /> remanded for more details on the Board's decision. To the extent that further explanation and <br /> analysis of this FOF may be warranted, Coupe Family submits that any such purported <br /> 14 <br />