Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> 7. A development agreement is not a Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 7 on the <br /> "statutory provision, ordinance, or any grounds that it is contrary to the law. PD <br /> rule or order of the Director or the Rule 3-1(a) authorizes the Planning Director <br /> Department." Therefore, Planning "to issue a declaratory order as to the <br /> Director does not have the discretion to applicability of any statutory provision, <br /> issue a declaratory order regarding a ordinance, or of any rule or order of the <br /> development agreement. [Planning] Director or the [Planning] <br /> Department." The Development Agreement <br /> was authorized pursuant to Chapter 30 of the <br /> County Code, which directed the County of <br /> Hawaii Mayor to "make such rules and <br /> regulations as necessary to implement <br /> [Chapter 30.]"Haw. Cnty. Code § 30-4(c). <br /> Pursuant to this directive, the Office of the <br /> Mayor promulgated Mayor Rule 1,which <br /> provides that the Planning Department"shall <br /> be responsible for the overall administration <br /> of the [Development] Agreement."Mayor <br /> Rule 1-8. At the contested case hearing <br /> before the BOA, the Planning Director <br /> testified that, as part of carrying out its <br /> delegated responsibilities under Mayor Rule <br /> 1, the Planning Department interprets the <br /> provisions of development agreements and <br /> applies their requirements to facts. That is all <br /> that Oceanside's Requests on the <br /> Development Agreement asked the Planning <br /> Director to do. <br /> Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling <br /> specifically cited Mayor Rule 1-8 as the <br /> basis (or"rule") for the Planning Director to <br /> issue declaratory rulings on the Development <br /> Agreement,which provided the Planning <br /> Director with all the authority and <br /> jurisdiction he needed to issue declaratory <br /> rulings on Oceanside's Requests concerning <br /> the Development Agreement. The Planning <br /> Director's interpretation of the Development <br /> Agreement was also one of the central issues <br /> the Court directed the parties to seek out <br /> through the declaratory ruling process. <br /> Exhibit A at 5,¶12 (noting that Coupe's <br /> 22 <br />