2024-09-25 C&J Coupe Exhibit List, Exhibits 1-5 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)

Home

mentioned variance. Amendment of the Development Agreement, pursuant to this resolution, was procedurally and substantively improper, and not only straps the County's citizens with tremendous liability via maintenance and improvement costs (a burden that was supposed to be shouldered by Oceanside), but also creates a potentially dangerous condition for said citizens. 19. These efforts to circumvent and failures to enforce (each ill-conceived, ultra vires, and against the strict dictates of the law) the Incorporated Ordinances and Development Agreement, including the use of a variance to circumvent County dedicable standards and a resolution to accept substandard dedications, cannot be left unaddressed. 20. Moreover, attempts to amend (i.e. the variance and resolution) by deficient legal means were unconstitutionally processed by stealth, without proper notice to Plaintiff, a neighboring land owner and the public, thereby depriving Plaintiff and public of due process rights. 21. Residents of the Big Island, such as the Plaintiff, are entitled to the consideration promised for freezing their land use powers. They should not be asked to shoulder the burden of having to design, build, and acquire these promised public roads. 22. County, on behalf of its residents, has fairly and freely bargained for Oceanside to, at its expense, design, build and dedicate these public roads. 23. Oceanside, after presumably receiving significant compensation from selling residential lots within the development as a private gated community, cannot be relieved of its obligation and certainly should not be allowed to shift the burden to the tax paying public. Even more wanting for redress is the fact that Oceanside has tried to relieve itself of these crucial obligations through a pattern of bad acts stemming back almost from the inception of the Development Agreement. 6 710088