Title: Grande v. Eng

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-13-0000097
20-JAN-2017
08:13 AM
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTE]

1. BACKGR
DINR is the owner of agriculturally-zoned property in
Waimanalo, Hawai'i, that is leased to the Ramirezes. The
Ramirezes filled and graded an approximately 5,000 square foot
section of the property (the Graded Area or Landfill), allegedly
without obtaining proper grading permits. Grande, a makai
neighbor, believes that the graded area poses a danger to his
home. On November 26, 1999, pursuant to a formal complaint by
Grande against Appellants, the City and County of Honolulu (the
city) Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) issued a Notice
of Violation to the Ramirezes and DINR for, inter alia, grading
without a permit. On January 21, 2000, DPP designated the
subject violations as "corrected" by virtue of Miguel Ramirez
becoming a “cooperator" with Windward Oahu Soil and Water’
Conservation District (WOSWD).? In the meantime, the Ramirezes

reportedly continued to fill and grade the Graded Area without

2 evised ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 16-13.5(a) allows the
department (here, the DP?) enforcing the Honolulu Grading Ordinance to cede
Eegulacory jurisdiction over the ordinance to soil and water conservation
Gisericea, ander certain cireunstances. Specifically, ROH §§ 14-13 to 16-16
0 not apply £9:

Land which is being managed in accordance with soil
Conservation practices acceptable to the applicable
Soil and water conservation district directors, and
Ekat S comprehensive conservation progran ie being
Activery pursued for the envire area in che program
‘and that the conservation program with appropriate
Godification Se reviewed and accepted By the soil and
Water conservation district directors periogically but
ot lesa than once every five yeare and shail be made
available to the city and county; provided, however,
that no grading whieh, “in the opinion of the chief
engineer, endangere abutting properties or which
Alters the general drainage pattern with respect to
busting properties hall be conrenced or performed
without a grading permit [.]

Rom § 14-13.5(a) (2983)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

obtaining a permit. Grande again contacted DPP, as well as
WOSWCD, to determine which of the two agencies had regulatory
jurisdiction. According to Grande, DPP claimed that WOSWCD had
jurisdiction, but WOSWCD informed him that they "are not a
regulatory agency" and that their "relationships are built on a
system of voluntary compliance and cooperation."

on November 25, 2003, Grande filed a lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Grande v, Fonoimoana, Civil
No. 03-1-2352-11 (Grande v. Fonoimoana), seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief to require DPP to, inter alia, assume
regulatory jurisdiction over the Graded Area. DLNR, Ramirezes,
DPP, and WOSNCD were all named defendante. Grande attests that,
at a December 13, 2003 meeting, DPP informed Grande that it
intended to seek dismissal of the suit on the grounds that Grande
failed to exhaust administrative remedies (i.e., consideration by
the Director of DPP). On December 18, 2003, Grande submitted a
"formal complaint" to DPP, which included opinion letters from
two engineers in support, and asked DPP to enforce pertinent
grading ordinances and to otherwise give immediate attention to
the illegal dumping and grading of the subject property. on
December 23, 2003, Deputy Corporation Counsel for the City, Lori
Sunakeda (Sunakeda or Corporation Counsel), wrote to Grande
informing him that his complaint would be treated as a petition
for a declaratory ruling and processed in accordance with the DPP
Part 1 - Rules of Practice and Procedure (initially effective
October 24, 1993, with various amendments) (DPP Procedural Rul:

 

governing declaratory rulings. On January 21, 2004, Grande wrote
 

to DPP confirming that the City would be treating his complaint
as a petition for declaratory relief, but asserting that this
treatment is "not a waiver of any rights [he] may have against
the city and County in the pending litigation or in any other
proceeding."

on February 18, 2004, Acting Deputy Director of DP
Kathy Sokugawa, signing on behalf of DEP Dixector Eric ¢. Crispin
(Crispin), issued a decision on the complaint, finding
"insufficient information" for DPP to conclude that the Landfill
endangers abutting properties or alters genexal drainage patterns
with respect to abutting properties, and stating that,
accordingly, the grading activity in connection with the Landfill
is subject to the jurisdiction of WOSWCD. On March 19, 2004,
Grande requested reconsideration under the DPP Procedural Rules
Rule § 4-3(b). On August 19, 2004, Crispin sent Grande another
letter decision denying hie request for reconsideration.

on Septenber 20, 2004, Grande timely submitted an
appeal of the DPP Director's February 18, 2004 decision and the
DPP Director's August 19, 2006 denial of reconsideration to the
Zoning Board of Appeals (2BA), citing the City's Department of
Land Utilization (DLU) Part 3 Rules of the Zoning Board of

Appeals (ZBA Ruli

 

) Rule 22-1.? On October 29, 2004, DPP moved

to dismiss Grande's appeal on jurisdictional grounds. In a

November 24, 2004 declaration, Grande informed the 2BA that

Corporation Counsel had initially told him that an appeal was to
> __ Te appears that these administrative rules still reference the

DL, rather than the DPD, notwithstanding the departmental Feorganszation
Giscussed in Section T1r-B., below.

 

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

be made before the 2BA, but subsequently informed him that the
City's Rules of the Engineering Division for Drainage, Flood and
Pollution Control, and Grading, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Programs of the Department of Public Works (adopted September 16,
1994) (DPW Engineering Rules) would apply, and that a DPP
hearings officer would be appointed to consider Grande's appeal.‘
on April 7, 2005, the ZBA granted DPP's motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the 28A's jurisdiction is limited to ROH Chapters 21
(zoning) and 22 (subdivision) .*

on May 23, 2005, Sunakoda wrote to the presiding judge
in Grande v. Fonoimoana, informing the court that, pursuant to an
agreement between Grande and sunakoda:

Grande previously granted the City an open-ended extension
of time to file ite Answer to the Compiainc, based upon the
City's representations chat if [orande] were £0 submit a
Fequest to the (DE®] Director requesting an administrative
declaratory ruling, and. (depending on the ourcone of
(Grande) "s request for deciaratory ruling), if (Grande)
wished to challenge such ruling, pursuant to DPP's
‘aninistrative rules governing Revised Ordisances of
Honolulu i990 chapter i4, that [Grande] would be afforded
the renedy consisting of a contested case hearing, provided
for in DPP's administrative rules. As communicated
previously to. (Grande), DPP has been moving forward with the
hecessary arrangenents’ for funding, selection and retention
of a hearings officer to preside over the contested case
hearing.

 

 

 

Te Le undieputed that, after the DPP Director's letter decisions,
lone took place between Co“poration Counsel and Grande regarding the
tive renedy for challenging the letter decision, and the
Yonedy would be via a petition for appeal and
Bt to the DPW Engineering Rules.

 

   
 
 

syamaeTAg CLY'# Oxading Ordinances axe found in ROH chapter 14, which
Ae available at.
btep://mne, honolulu. gov/rep/site/ocs/roh/ROW_Chapter_14a10_19.paf.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On July 20, 2007,° DPP moved to dismiss the city
parties from Grande v. Fonoimeana, based on Grande's failure to
exhaust administrative renedies. The Ramirezes joined in the
motion to dismiss, noting that "(matters of enforcement of
grading ordinances (are) in the exelusive province of the (DPP]
and that appeal should be permitted to ‘run ite course’ prior to
judicial review." on October i6, 2007, the court diemiesed the
City parties fron Grande v. Fonoimoana, without prejudice to
refiling the claims after a contested case hearing.

After the DPP hearings officer was engaged, on February

4, 2008, the Ramireze:

 

and DINR sought to intervene in the
contested case hearing, citing § 00-01-15 of the DPW Engineering
Rules,” as their "interest in the subject administrative
proceedings and contested case hearing is clearly distinguishable
from that of the general public." The hearings officer granted
their request for intervention and the Ramixezes and DNR
actively participated in the proceeding, attended all hearings,
and submitted briefs on legal matters. on April 1, 2008,
Hearings Officer Ryan K. Harimoto (Harimoto or DPP Hearings
Officer), sua sponte, raised the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction. All parties submitted memoranda on the issue;

«tt appears from the record that, on May 3, 2006, the City agreed
to the Director's review of supplemental information fron afands in support of
hie request for reconsideration, thereby putting the contested case hearing
proceedings on hold. On October 23, 2006, the new DPP Director, Henry Bn
Found that the suppienental information failed to raise any new concerns and
was insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the DPP's prior positions end
Seeiaions

 

 

 

 

7 pew sngineering Rules § 00-02-25(c) (2) grante intervention to "an
‘chat such applicant will be so directly and

yy affected by an adverse decision that such applicant's interest in

the proceeding is clearly distinguishable fron that of the general puslic.*

 

 

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’

 

HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

however, the DPP Director took no position. on July 3, 2008,
Harimoto entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

Regarding Jurisdiction (Dismissal order), concluding that:

 

2, Petitioner's Decenber 18, 2003 letter to DEP,
along with nis March 12) for reconsideration,
Constituted a request for declarstory ruling, inasmuch a
lished DPP to issue a Notice of Violation citing iavervenss
Ranives for grading without permit or co resnstace a
previously rescinded Notice of Violation, and noted therein
2'vecesaity of immediate Action*?

 

 

 

 

 

2. there ie nothing in the record to indicate that
Petitioner objected to SeP's trestsent of his Deceaber 18,
2003 letter ae a petition for declaratory relief or that he
was an unwilling participant in those proceedings;

 

3. The DPP's February 18, 2004 and August 19, 200
responses’ were separate ordera disposing of Petitioner:
petition for declaratory relief pursuant fo HRS § 91-07

 

once DPP disposed of Petitioner's petition for
declaratory felief, any appeal of such diaposition would be
properly before the Civeuit Court, Seate of Hawait, pursuant
POURS $5 92-6 and/or 91-1

 

5. unlike decieions and orders arieing fron
contested case hearings (iiss § 91°12), orders disposing of
Petitions for declaratory relief aeed'not include written
Bindings of fact and conclusions of lav;

 

6. 27 15 THUS HERESY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED; that the Hearings Officer docs not have
Jurssaiceion over the instant matter and Petitioner'®
Eelated "appeals* of the DPp's February 18,2004, August 19,
200%, and Oeteber 25, 2006 decisions, respectively.

on August 6, 2008, Grande filed a notice of appeal in

the Circuit Court, challenging the Dismissal order, as well as

 

the February 14 [sic], 2004," August 19, 2004, and October 23,
2006, actions of the DPP Director. On April 15, 2009, Grande
moved to bifurcate the appeal, requesting that only the first
issue, which he referred to ae Count I, be considered in the
first instance. on Septenber 1, 2008, the Circuit Court granted

in part and denied in part Grande's motion to bifurcate, ordering

© the correct date ds February 18, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the parties to subnit briefs addressing Counts I and IT on
jurisdictional issues only.

After further briefing and oral argument, on January
33, 2022, the Circuit court entered its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order Vacating, Reversing and Remanding
Appellee Henry Eng, City and County of Honolulu Department of
Planning and Permitting's July 3, 2008 Findings of Fact,
conclusions of Law, and order Regarding Jurisdiction
(Jurisdiction order), concluding, inter alia, that Hearings
Officer Harimoto's Dismissal Order wae in error and ordering DPP
to hold a contested case hearing, The Jurisdictional order
reversed the DPP Hearings Officer's Dismissal Order and ordered,
inter alia, that “the DPP shall hold a contested case hearing as
agreed to by the DPP and [Grande] and that DFP shall appoint a
hearings officer other than Mr. Harimote to conduct the contested
case hearing.

on March 28, 2012, Circuit court entered judgnent in
favor of Grande and against Ramirezes, generally, and in favor of
Grande and against the City for attorney's fees in the amount of
$19,430.15. The March 28, 2012 judgment expressly states that
"{alay and at remaining claims, if any, are dismissed without
prejudice, including any claims currently pending in (Grande v.

Fonoimoana}."
on guly 27, 2012, Grande moved to amend the March 28,

2012 judgment, pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure
(arce) Rule 60(a) & (b), to correct the judgment to state: "Any

and all remaining claime, if any, are dismiesed without
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

prejudice. This Judgment does not affect any claims currently
pending in (Grande v, Fonoimoana}." Grande stated that his

Anarttul drafting of the Judgment to allow for an erroneous
interpretation to dignise ciaime in Civil No, o3-2-2352-22
yes a clerical efroz/" yas inadvertent and/or was @ siseake.
The Judgeent as dratted does not accurately reflect the
Fuling of the court in this case, which was limived £0
Elaine pending sn civil No. 08°i-1604-08. In addition, this
Court does aot have Jurisdiction to diamise claims pending
Before another court ina separate, though related, action.

 

Appellants opposed the motion, arguing that Grande was
not entitled to relief pursuant to HRCP Rule 60. On October 9,
2012, the court granted Grande's motion, stating, inter alia:

Tue, court finds, following a fresh review of the
record, that none of the parties in the instant agency
Appeal woved this court for diomienal of the separate case
Grande st al, v. Fouoinoana et al. (Civit No. 03-01-2382-1) -
The court tales Judicial notice that dudge Karen T- Nakasone
is"still presiding over that caee.

The Court finds that it te therefore inappropriate for
either party to nove for dississal of Grande etal. v.
‘Eousinoana ct al., because the matter of dismissal wad never
Ealsed before the Court and was, therefore, not within the
Court's contemplation.

 

 

 

 

Appellants' motion for reconsideration was denied. The
Amended Judgment was entered on January 18, 2013.
II. POINTS OF ERROR ON APPEAL

Appellants raise three points of error on appeal,
contending:

(1) The Circuit Court erred in entering the amended
Judgment against the Ramirezes and DLNR because they are not
“appropriate parties" because they are not "implicated" by the

Jurisdiction Order and they should be dismissed:

 

(2) The Circuit Court erred in entering the
Jurisdiction Order because it reversed the hearings officer's

no-jurisdiction order based on insufficiently comprehensive facts
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'TREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

regarding the "agreement of the parties" jurisdictional
underpinnings; and

(3) The Circuit court erred in amending the judgment
because it relieved Grande from the results of his inartéul
Grafting, it was based on findings beyond the bounds of reason,
and it was contrary to the Limitations of HRCP Rule 60.
TIT. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Review of a decision made by a court upon ite review
of an administrative decision te 4 secondary appeal. ‘The
Standard of review ie one sn which chia court must determine
Beebee che court under review was right or wrong in ite
Secialon,

To determine {f the decision under review is right or
wrong, we apply the standards eet forth in HRS § 51-18(5) to.
the agency's decision.

 

 

wings, Inc. v. Plannin: “ 133 Hawai'i 142,
163, 324 P.3d 951, 973 (2014) (citation omitted; format altered).
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (2012)

provides:

(g)__Upon xeview of the record the court may affirm
the decision of the agency or remand the case with
Gneesuceions for further proc
modify the decieion and orae
the petitioners may have be
Adninistrative findings, conclusions,

  

 

prejudiced becau
lecisions, or orders

 

 

(2) tm violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; oF toes

(2) Tn'exeesa. ofthe statutory authority or
Suriediceion of the agency: oF

(3) Made upon unlawful proceat

(2) Affected by” other etror of

6

 

 

 

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by
abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted
cxersine of discretion.

Additionally,

Lle is well settled that in an appeal from a circuit
court's Yeview of an administrative decision the appellate
Sourt will utilise identical standards applied by Phe
Gireult court, The clearly erroneous standard governs an
Agency's findings of fact. An agency's findings are not
Clearly erroneous and wili be upheld if supported by

 

     

ao
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reliable, probative and eubstantial evidence unle:
Feviewing Goure io left with a £iem snd definite
that a mistake has been nade." The courte may freely review
an agency's conclusions of law.

Kauai Springs, 123 Hawai'i at 164, 324 P.3d at 974 (citation

  

   

  

omitted; format altered).

An appellate court reviews a circuit court's
Geternination of an ERCP Rule 60 motion for an abuse of
Giscretion.. An abuse Of discretion occurs where the trial
Gourt has clearly exceeded the bounds of Treason oF
Gisregarded rales or principles of law or practice to the
Substantsal detriment of « party iitagane.

Buscher v. Boning, 114 Hawai'i 202, 211, 159 P.3d @14, 823 (2007)
(citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)

 

IV. PESCUSSION
A . this

 

With respect to theiy first point of error, Appellants
contend that the Anended gudgment is "in error" because it
“wrongly fails to identify claims, it takes judgment against the
wrong parties, it wrongly fails to take judgment against the
‘appropriate parties,’ it wrongly fails to dismiss parties and
claims not disposed of, and it wrongly creates exposure for
uninvolved parties in contravention of contract and rulemaking
laws." With this argument, appellants assert that the Amended

Judgment is defective because it does not identify "Count II.*

 

Appellants' primary arguments disregard the nature of
the proceedings before the Circuit Court in this case. As
detailed above, Grande sought administrative relief from the DPP
Director's rulings against him by way of a contested case
hearing. The Ramirezes and DLNR sought to intervene in the
contested case, their request was granted, and they actively

participated in the contested case proceedings. When the DPP

a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hearings Officer sua sponte raised the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Ramirezes and DINR argued that the contested
case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The DPP
Hearings Officer agreed and ruled in their favor, concluding that
he did not have jurisdiction to conduct a contested case hearing.
Grande appealed that ruling to the Circuit court. In their
briefs to the Circuit court, the Appellants again argued that the
DPP Hearings Officer did not have jurisdiction and that his
ruling should be affirmed.

Where the only issue decided on the appeal to the
Circuit Court (other than the attorney's fees award against the
City) was whether the DPP Hearings officer had jurisdiction to
conduct @ contested case hearing, and the Ramirezes and DLNR
appeared and made arguments on that issue in the agency
Proceedings and the Circuit Court proceedings, we find no error
in the Circuit Court's entry of judgment against them.
Appellants cite no legal authority to the contrary. Given
Appellants’ intervention before the DPP based on their arguments
that the case would have a "direct impact" on them and they would
be “inmediately affected by an adverse decision," Appellants!
argument on this appeal that they were "totally uninvolved,
absolutely nominal parties" in the proceedings before the DPP
Hearings Officer appears to be disingenuous. Indeed, under the
applicable DPW Engineering Rules, "! [p]arty' means each person or

agency properly seeking and entitled to be admitted as a party in

22
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

a hearing’ . . . and any intervenor who has complied with
Section 00-01-15 and has been admitted by the Hearings Officer as
a party to the hearing." DPW Engineering Rules § 00-01-03

Appellants’ argument that the Amended Judgment 12
fatally defective because it does not specifically identity
“Count 11" is equally without merit as the Amended Judgment
expressly states that any and all remaining claims, if any, are
Gismissed without prejudice.

Appellants’ third point of error, that the Circuit
Court erred in amending the March 28, 2012 judgment, is also
without merit, HRCP Rule 60(a) provides that "(c]lerical
mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and
errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be
corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on
the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the
court orders." "Rule 60(a) is used ‘to make the judgment or
record speak the truth and. . . to make it say. . . what
originally was pronounced.'" whitman v, Whitman, 91 Hawai'i 468,
470, 985 P.2d 659, 661 (1999) (citing 11 Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R, Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure:
Civil 24 § 2854, at 241 (1995)). Here, the March 28, 2012
judgment incorrectly stated that it dismissed "any claims
currently pending in [Grands v. Fonoimoana]," when in fact the
dismissal or other disposition of Grande v. Fonoimoana was not

> Under the DPW Engineering Rules, "Hearing" is a contested case
hearing and is defined ‘Proceeding for the detersination of the legal
Fights of specific parties which is authorized by iaw or rules ine nasser
nich se inieiate by action eaken of to be taken by the department.” DP
Engineering Riles § 90-01-03.

 

   

a
NOT FORPUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

before the Circuit Court in this case. The Amended sudgment
correctly states that it "does not affect any claims currently

pending in (Grande v. Fonoimoanal." As Grande submitted, and the
Circuit Court agreed, the correction in the Amended Judgment was

 

necessary and appropriate to reflect the truth of the court
ruling, which did not purport to affect the other law suit.
B. Sur ue

Appellants argue that the Circuit court erred in
entering the Jurisdiction Order "based on ineufficiently
comprehensive facts regarding the ‘agreement of the parties!
jurisdictional underpinning." As is clear from the record, the
Circuit Court's order reflected the court's concern about how the
City proceeded in this case, and in the related case, with
respect to Grande's claim that his home was endangered by the
unpermitted grading on Appellants’ property. with respect to
Grande v. Fonoimoana, the City took the position that Grande's
complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his
adninistrative remedies. So, as detailed above, based on the
City’s representations to Grande and to the court in Grande v.
Fonoimeana as to what those remedies were, Grande sought

administrative relief from the DPP Director and agreed,

 

essentially, to hold that uit in abeyance.? When the DPP
Director declined to take any action and denied reconsideration,
it appears that the City's Corporation Counsel confirmed to
Grande that the ZBA had jurisdiction to hear an appeal. However,
te gased on the City's representations and arguments, that case was

vltimately disnissed, without prejudice, because Grande had not yet exhausted
Bis admingecrarive Femedse

 

 

“
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC RE

  

)RTER

after Grande filed his appeal to ZBA, the City's attorney then
took the position that ZBA did not have jurisdiction, and moved
(successfully) for dismissal of the ZBA appeal.

The City's attorney then clarified and agreed that
Grande w

 

instead entitled to a contested case hearing, as
provided for in the applicable administrative rules, and that DPP
was moving forward with the arrangements for the contested case
hearing. The assigned DPP Hearings Officer then raised the issue
of jurisdiction (with the City taking no position at the time),
and dismissed the contested case hearing for lack of
jurisdiction. Finally, on the appeal to the Circuit court, the
city actively argued that the DPP Hearings Officer had no
jurisdiction and that his Dismissal Order should be affirmed. rt
was on this record that the Circuit Court noted ite concern about
the apparent changes in the City's legal position and the City's
failure to keep its agreement to hold the contested case hearing,
and ordered the City to pay Grande for attorney's fees accrued in
responding to the City's arguments, as well as reversed the
Hearings Officer's Dismissal order.

However, the singular focus on that

 

spect of the
circuit Court's rulings disregards that the DPW Engineering Rules
provide for a contested case hearing under the circumstances
presented here, as the City's attorney represented and agreed
when it informed Grande that @ hearings officer would be
appointed." In addition, as the Circuit Court noted, nothing in
the DPP Procedural Rules precludes a contested case hearing,

although the regulatory framework could be clearer and more user-

as
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

friendly. This complexity may stem in part from a reorganization
of the City's departments.

Effective July 1, 1998, the development permitting
functions from the City's former Building Department, the
Department of Public Works (DPW), and the Department of
Wastewater Management, along with various other functions, were
transferred into the former DLU for the purpose of forming a
newly titled Department of Planning and Permitting (i.e., the
DPP).* See Departmental and Agency Reports of the city and
county of Honolulu for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1998 - sune 20,

1999 (1999 Departmental Report:

 

at 280. As part of this
reorganization, DPP added a new Civil Engineering Branch, which
came from the former DPW. Id, at 294.

with the reorganization (and subsequent actions), the
various matters within the DPP's administrative mandate have
becone subject to a wide-ranging list of administrative rules,
which are identified (and hyperlinked) on the DPP's website as
follows

Departnent of Planning and Permitting (DFP)
Déniniatrative Rules
PART 3. RULEG OF THE ZONING BOARD OP APPBALS

ROLES OF THE RNGINGERING DIVISION
5. ROLES OP THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING POR
PROCESSING AMENDMENTS. 70. THE. GENERAL PLAN

'B.  PART 4-~ PROCEDURES FOR REVIGING THE PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE HAP

‘9. RULES FOR PROCESSING AMGNDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAS AND SUSTAINABLE. COMMUNITIES. PLANS

 

  

3 on sanuary 1, 1999, the functions of the former Planning
Department vere also merged into the new DPP. 1989 Departnental Reports at
280

1s
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
11," AFFORDASLE HOUSING RULES POR UNILATERAL AGREEMENTS
32. RULES OP Tue PLANNING comtzssioN
33: Susprvisrow RULES AND REGULATIONS
34! RULES RELATING TO STORM DRAINAGE. STANDARDS
35, RULES RELATING TO SOIL EROSION STANDARDS. AND

corbenines

See City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and
Permitting, http: top .org/AboutDPP /whatii
AdninistrativeRules.aspx (last visited Jan. 3, 2007).

In 1999, for example, DPP's Civil Engineering Branch
adopted the set of rules numbered "15," the new Rules Relating to
Soil Erosion Standards and Guidelines (adopted February 26, 1999)

(Soil Brosion Rules

 

An examination of the Soil Brosion Rules,
however, confirms that these rules are of a technical nature and
are focused specifically on soil erosion standards and erosion
control practices; they do not purport to address any sort of
proceedings before the DPP or procedures related thereto.
Notably, the Soil Erosion Rules expressly repeal the prior

standards and guidelines. Soil Brosion Rules § 1-6.

 

In addition, in October of 1999, the DPP amended the
DPP Procedural Rules, which had been the DLU's Rules of Practice
and Procedure prior to the departmental reorganization. As
@iscussed further below, Chapter 3 of the DPP Procedural Rules

provides a means to seek a determination, i.e., a declaratory

 

ruling, concerning the applicability of a statute, ordinance, or
rule relating to the DPP, in accordance with HRS § 91-8. DPP

Procedural Rules § 3-1. The DPP Procedural Rules, however, do

 

not set forth a general means for review of agency decisions.
However, Chapter 4 of the DPP Procedural Rules provides for
reconsideration of the Director's decision to "approve or deny an
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I

   

REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

application." DpP Procedural Rules § 4-1. Other parts of the
collection of ppp rules provides other means of review, including
the 2BA Rules (which are still denominated as DLU rules) and the
DPW Engineering Rules (which are still denominated as DPW rules).

Notably, it does not appear that the DPW Engineering
Rules were repealed, amended or renamed subsequent to the City's
departmental reorganization.” Rather, they have been retained
by the DPP, as set number "6" of the DPP's administrative
rules." Pursuant to this court's post-hearing order entered on
February 12, 2016, the City, Grande, and the Appellants all
reported to the court that there are no records or evidence to
suggest that the DPW Engineering Rules have been amended or
repealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in HRS § 91-
3 (2012). Accordingly, with respect to the matters at issue in
this case, we conclude that the DPW Engineering Rules remain in
effect, as part of the DPP!s administrative rules.

Subchapter 3 of the DPW Engineering Rules, entitled
Procedure for Appeal from Action of the Chief Engineer, and
Subchapter 4 of the DPW Engineering Rules, entitled Hearing,
provide for an appeal through a contested case hearing for any

person who is "specially, personally and adversely affected" by

ue _ Similarly, the ZBA Rule:
veéiization Part 3 Rules

October 12, 2004, DPP re ‘Of the Building Departnent doverning
the Bnforcenent Of Codes and Reguiations by the Building Department of che
Ehty and county of Honsluiut (1999) and adopted "Rules Relating to.
Administration of Codes of the Department of Planning and Permitting,* which
Appears as Part < of the DPP's Adminiatrative Rules.

 
  

 

3 gag city and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and
Peraitting, NEED: //nen,
(ase visived gan. 3, 2007)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’

 

HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of action of the Director and Chief Engineer of the DPH, whose
authority and duties were assumed by the DPP Director with the
city's departmental reorganization. Pertinent provisions of the
DPW Engineering Rules include the following:

§ 00-01-12
specially, personally and adv

 

aby an action of

the chief’ shgineer may subnit a written petition to the
(Dew) “getting fore,
(2) "The petitioner's name, mailing address, and
Eelephone muni

@

 

9

(3) The’ petitioner's interest in the property or if
the petitioner has no property interest, state
how Phe petitioner 12 adversely affected by the
action appealed.

(4) Designation of the specific applicable provision
52 the orsinance or fule or regulation

(5) The aceon of the Chief Engineer and che date
Baia’ action was taken:

fo Milpereinent facto,

7) Reasons for the appeal, including a statenent as
tovwhy the petitioner believes that the Chict
Enginger's action was based on an erroneous
finding of a material fact, and/or that the
Chief Engineer acted in an’arbitrary oF
capricious manner, or manifestly abused his or
her discretion.

 

  

 

 

$/00-01°14 pre-hearing Procedusg. (a) within ten
days after receipt of a petition, tne deparenent chall
forward copies of the petition to all interested parti
any, if they are not the petitioner.

(othe department shall, upon consultation with the
parties, set the date for the hearing on the appeal and the
Public Hearing, and if written Briefs are to be submieced,
Bchedute the dates on which are due the opening brief,

‘nswering brief, and reply brisf.

(@) Notions to the Heariags Officer and supporting,
‘opposing, and reply menorands nay be submitted by the
pare ‘They deen apprepriate, except that the Hearings
Stficer will not accept any notion or menorandum submitted
Yess than seven days prior to the scheduled hearing date for
the appea!

§ 00-01-15 Intervention. (a) The Hearings Officer
shalt Consider tnd’ act upon applications £9 intervene

ici" Applications to intervene shai be disposed of
(2) Intervention shall be granted to an applicant
io demonstrates that such applicant will be so
Giectly and ineediately affected by an adverse
Gecksion that eve interest in the
nguichable from that

 

ae

 

    

 

 

 

 

ge: .

(2) Intervention may be denied in the sound
@iscretion of the Hearings Officer when it
Appears that the position of the applicant is

1s
 

REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

substantially the 2
Siveady admitted to the proceeding,

ye as that of a party

4 00-01-17, procedure. (a) The hearing shall be
conducted in conformity with the applicable provisions of
Sections 91-9, 31-10, and si-11, Hawaii Revised statutes

(b). the hearings before the Hearings Officer shail
be open to the public in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 91, Hawai! Revised statutes.

(c) The bearings shall ‘be conducted
case under chapter 51, Havail Revised statute
shended.

contested
‘as it may be

  

While these rules refer to an appeal from an action of
the "chief Engineer," a pragmatic reading of the General
Provisions in Chapter 1 of the DPW Engineering Rules, in light of
the City's departmental reorganization, makes clear that the DPP
Director's actions in this case were taken in his role as
successor to the Chief Engineer of the former DPW. Chapter 1 of
the DP Engineering Rules provides, inter alia:

00-01-01 Purpose of Subchapter: Statement of
Bolicy. “The purpose of this chapter is to estaplian
procedures on the implenentation and enforcenent of permite

by the department for drainage, flood, pollution control:
Stadia Boil erosion and sediment control programa; and
Brovisions for the public and others {to have) the
Opportunity for participation.

$ 00-01-03 Definitions. As used in this Chapter:

 

ction of the Chief Engineer" means a decision
xendeved on an entorcenent order or a permit pureuant to the
Drainage, Flood and Pollution Contzol Ordinance, chapter 14,
Reticle 12, or the Grading, soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance, Chapter 14, Articles 13 through 16, (ROH)
(hereinafter "Drainage, Flood’ and Pollution Control
Ordinance’ and "Grading, Soil Erosion and Sedinent Control
Srainance")"

 

 

 

cchie€ gngineer® means the Director and chief
Engineer, Department of Public Works, City and County of
Honolulu, or his duly authorized agent.

 

ailing” means & proceeding for the determination of
the legal rights of specific parties which is authorized by
nw or°rutes in a manier which is initiated by action taken
or to be taken by the department

 

1g the person who hears and
of the Chie Engineer's decision: «=.

   

the Notice of Violation issued to the Ramirezes

   

and DLNR for, inter alia, grading without a permit, was issued by

20
 

(OT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Milton 7. Kono (Kono) for the DPP Director and cited violations
of Chapter 14, ROH, Section 14-14.1(a) and 14-13.5(£). Kono also
signed the designation of the violations as "corrected" based on
the notation that "Miguel Ramirez, is now a cooperator with the
(woswcb] ,* clearly in reference to the exclusion stated in ROH

§ 14-13.5(a). See, supra, n.2. After Grande's attempt to get
judicial relief in Grande v. Fonoimoans was rejected on the
grounds of failure to exhaust administrative renedies, Grande's
December 18, 2003 letter to the DPP Director sought enforcement
action by the DPP based on alleged violations of over thirty
requirements of the City's grading ordinance, ROH Chapter 14,
Articles 13-16.

Although characterized by the City as a request for
declaratory ruling pursuant to Chapter 3 of the DPP Procedural
Rules, Grande was clearly seeking action by the DPP, not solely a
declaration. Chapter 3 of the DPP Procedural Rules, which was
repeatedly referenced by the City, is entitled "Declaratory

Rulings" and provides in part:

 

5 3-1. Who may petition. Any interested person may
petition the divector for a declaratory ruling as to the
Epplicanility of any statute or ordinance relating to the
Gepartuant, or of any rule or order of the deparement

There was, arguably, no question or controversy as to
whether the subject ordinances applied to the grading of the
Landfill by the Ramirezes. Grande's letter complaint is replete
with citations to applicable ordinances, as well as his request
that DPP enforce then and the factual grounds for enforcement.
Indeed, the February 18, 2004 decision on behalf of the DPP

Director assumes the applicability of the ordinances and

a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

addresses the facts, determining, inter alia, that "there is
insufficient information for the City to conclude that the
landfill endangers abutting properties or alters the general
@rainage pattern with respect to abutting properties" and that
the grading of the Landfill is subject to the jurisdiction of
WosWcD in accordance with ROH Chapter 14, Article 13. Grande'a
March 19, 2004 request for reconsideration similarly requested
action by the City, i.e., that the City assume jurisdiction over
the Landfill and undertake enforcenent action, based on
additional evidence submitted by Grande. The DPP Director's
August 19, 2004 decision denying reconsideration again determined
that the evidence was insufficient and refused to take any
enforcement action, deferring to WOSWCD, pursuant to the
applicable ordinance."

‘The DPP Director's October 23, 2006 rejection of any
further, reconsideration of Grande'e original complaint, based on
supplemental information provided by Grande, explained that
"(t]he City has @ long-standing practice of considering a grading
Notice of Violation (Nov) moot, if Section 14-13.5 Exclusions
(city revised ordinances) is [sic] or can be made to be
applicable to a situation" and informed Grande that the city
“rendered Mr. Ramirez's NOV moot and the file closed.”

In Light of the above, we conclude that the DPP

Director's decision rejecting Grande's request for enforcement of

M As the Hearings Officer did not reach the merits of the DPP

Director's decision, ve express no opinion as to whether the requirements set
forth in either the first part or the second part of the applicable orainance,
Row § 14-13.5(a), have been net

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTE]

 

ROH Chapter 14 was an action of the DPP Director in hie role as
the successor to the Chief Engineer, as described in DPW
Engineering Rules § 00-01-03, even if it also could be construed
as a declaratory ruling. In addition, we conclude that the
contested case hearing procedures set forth in Subchapters 3 and
4 of the DPW Engineering Rules, on the petition of "[alny person
who is specially, personally and adversely affected by [euch]
action," were intended to provide an administrative renedy to
persons such as Grande under the circumstances of this case.

DPW Engineering Rulé

 

88 00-01-01, 00-01-03, and 00-01-12.
Indeed, the DPW Engineering Rules also provide for the
intervention by "an applicant who demonstrates that such
applicant will be so directly and immediately affected by an
adverse decision that such applicant's interest in the proceeding
is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public."

DPW Engineering Rules § 00-01-15. Notably, Appellants argued
that this provision applied to them and they were granted
intervenor status in the contested case hearing pursuant to this
provision.

We conclude that the Hearings officer erred when he
Gisregarded the administrative remedies provided in the DPW
Engineering Rules for @ person who is adversely affected by an
action of the DPP Director exercising his powers as the successor
to the Director and Chief Engineer of the DPW, and focused aclely
on the City's treatment of Grande's complaints as petitions for
declaratory relief, while ignoring or rejecting the City's

treatment of the DPP Director's decision, as an action subject to

2a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the contested case hearing rules. Thus, we also conclude that
the Hearings officer erred when he concluded that he did not have
jurisdiction to review the DPP Director's decision - ae set forth
in his February 18, 2004, August 19, 2004, October 23, 2006
letters - not to assune jurisdiction over the Landfill and
undertake enforcement action.

Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
Appellants axgue that there could be no "agreement of the
parties" regarding a contested case hearing because they were

partic

 

and they did not agree. This argument ignores, however,
that the contested case was initiated, pursuant to DPW

Engineering Rules §§ 00-01-12 and 00-01-14, prior to their

 

intervention, pursuant to DPW Engineering Rules § 00-01-15.
While the City and Grande "agreed" to the conduct of a contested
case hearing to review the DPP Director's actions concerned
alleged grading violations, the treatment of this remedy as an
"agreement" is overemphasized, as it fails to acknowledge that
the DPW Engineering Rules provide for a contested case hearing.*
Appellants further argue that there is no rule recognizing the
existence of a contested case hearing procedure following a
declaratory ruling. While apparently recognizing the DPP
Director as the successor to the DPW Chief Engineer in otherwise
administering, enforcing, and interpreting ROH Chapter 14,
Appellants do not acknowledge or accept the continued

applicability of the DPW Engineering Rules. Appellants cite no

Accordingly, we need not address Appellants’ argunent that this
ragreenent* ip not enforceable pursuant to the Law of contracts

 

Ey
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

authority barring administrative review of an agency decision by
contested case hearing pursuant to duly promulgated rules, even
if the decision is in the nature of a declaratory ruling, and we
find none. Arguably, absent proceeding in accordance with the
DPW Engineering Rules providing for a contested case hearing,
Grande would have failed to exhaust all available administrative
remedies. Sse Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v, Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of Honolulu, 114 Hawai'i 184, 196-97, 159 P.34 143, 155-
56 (2007); Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group By & Through Serrano v.
Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 91-92, 734 P.2d 161, 167-68 (1987).

Accordingly, we conclude that the Circuit Court
correctly concluded that the Hearings Officer erred in his
determination that he lacked subject matter jurisdiction, albeit
for different reasons. See Survivors of Medeiros v. Maui Land &
Bineapple Co., 66 Haw. 290, 293, 660 P.24 1316, 1319 (1983).
V.  concuusroN

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Circuit
Court's January 18, 2013 Amended Judgment; as ordered by the
Circuit court, this case is remanded to the DPP for the conduct
of a contested case hearing before a new hearings officer.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 20, 2017.
on the briefs:

‘Thomas R. Grande
for Appellant-Appellee

Allan F. suematsu
for Appellees-appellants

     

Winston K.Q. wong
Deputy Corporation Counsel
for Appellees-Appelles

urn WL

Resociate Judge

HK

25