Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> In the context here, those matters include <br /> Oceanside's obligations under, and <br /> compliance with, the Ordinances. The <br /> Planning Director's actions must also be <br /> viewed in light of the Court's application <br /> of the primary jurisdiction doctrine and its <br /> instructions that declaratory rulings be <br /> obtained on the issues raised in Coupe's <br /> lawsuit. Exhibit A at 5,¶12 (noting that <br /> Coupe's underlying lawsuit was stayed that <br /> declaratory rulings could be obtained from <br /> the Planning Director on "Oceanside's <br /> compliance with the Ordinance and the <br /> development Agreement."). <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the matters before the <br /> Planning Director and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. This COL contains the <br /> Board's reasoning for its decision. To that end, it is both relevant and unobjectionable. <br /> Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 14 on <br /> 14. The Order sufficiently addressed the the grounds that it is contrary to the <br /> questions raised by the Appellant even substantial evidence in the record and the <br /> though the Order did not reflect the law. As set forth in Oceanside's Petition for <br /> specifics desired by the Appellant. Appeal and Hearing Brief, the Planning <br /> Director erred by, inter alia: (a) failing to <br /> issue declaratory rulings on eight of <br /> Oceanside's Requests despite determining <br /> that they were within his jurisdiction and <br /> would be answered in the Declaratory <br /> Order; (b)refusing to issue declaratory <br /> rulings on four of Oceanside's Requests on <br /> the grounds that they concerned the <br /> Development Agreement; and(c)refusing <br /> issue declaratory rulings on seven Requests <br /> because they purportedly sought to review <br /> or affirm the Variance. The Declaratory <br /> Order therefore did not"sufficiently <br /> address[ ] the questions raised by" <br /> Oceanside. <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed COL <br /> 14 on the grounds that it misstates and <br /> mischaracterizes the grounds for <br /> Oceanside's appeal, which did not simply <br /> concern a lack"clarity or specifics desired <br /> 25 <br />