2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000105 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections underlying lawsuit was stayed so that declaratory rulings could be obtained from the Planning Director on "Oceanside's compliance with . . . the development Agreement."). The Planning Director had all the authority and jurisdiction he needed to issue declaratory rulings on the Development Agreement, and he erred in failing to do so in response to Oceanside's Requests. Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the matters before the Planning Director and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. It is unobjectionable. In response to Proposed COL 10, 10. The Planning Director acted within his Oceanside incorporates by reference its jurisdiction and discretion in the manner in objections to Proposed COLS 4-7, supra. which the Planning Director addressed the Appellant's posed questions. The Planning Director was not required to respond to the questions in the form or format posed by the Appellant. Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the matters before the Planning Director and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. It is unobjectionable. 11. Planning Director did not abuse his Oceanside objects to Proposed COL I I on discretion when he relied on case law as the grounds that the Planning Director the basis for declining to review or does not have discretion to misapply case affirm past actions or decisions of law, which he did when he erroneously agencies of the County and the Hawaii concluded that certain of Oceanside's County Council. Requests sought to "review or affirm past actions or decisions of agencies of the County and the Hawai`i County Counci I." Oceanside further objects to Proposed COL I I on the grounds that it fails to identify what case law the Planning Director purportedly relied upon, much less explain how the Planning Director properly relied upon and applied the case law. 23