Title: Nuuanu Valley Association v. City and County of Honolulu. Concurring Opinion by J. Acoba [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed 11/21/2008 [pdf]. Dissenting Opinion, by J. Acoba [pdf]. S.Ct. Order of Correction, filed 11/25/2008 [pdf].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAWLIBRARY

‘++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAZ'

 

==-000---

 

NUUANU VALLEY ASSOCIATION, a Hawai'i non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; HENRY ENG, Director of Department of
Planning and Permitting in his official capacitys DAVID TANOUE,
Deputy Director of Department of Planning and Permitting in his

official capacity, Defendants~Appellees,
and
LAUMAKA, LLC, Intervenor-Appellee,
and

JOHN DOE 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOB
CORPORATIONS 1-107 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants.

 

No. 28599
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT 3
(CIV. NO, 06-1-0501) az 8

za ot 7

OCTOBER 24, 2008 Be FF

EI a

Moot, c.J., LEVINGOK, NAKAYAMA, aND oUF, Bae ORO
and ACOBR, J., CONCURRING’ szeaRATeLY” =EE

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Nuuanu Valley Association ("NVA"),

appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’st ("circuit

court's”) May 17, 2007 amended final judgment in favor of

Defendants-Appellees City and County of Honolulu, Henry Eng, in

 

‘The Honorable Randal K.0. Lee presided.
 

‘+* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

his official capacity, and David Tanoue, in his official capacity
(collectively, “Appellees”), and Intervenor-Appellee Launaka, LLC
(“Laumaka”).? On appeal, NVA presents the following points of
error: (1) the Uniform Information Practices Act (“the UIPA"),
as provided by Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92F,
mandates that “documents provided by private developers to (a
government agency) become public records when received, and
written communications to private developers becone public
records (not mere drafts) when transmitted"; (2) statutory
“exceptions . . . that would make these public records
unavailable to the public for inspection” are inapplicable; (3)

failed to follow its administrative rules and engaged

 

Appel
in improper rule makings (4) development of the Laumaka
subdivision will result in the “use” of state or county lands
thereby triggering the environmental assessment ("EA")
requirement of the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act ("HEPA"): and
(5) the eizeuit court abused its discretion when it denied NVA‘s

motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow,

+ We note that Laumake filed sta answering brief on February 6,
2008. Therein, Launaka states that it “takes no position in this appeal”
Sdefars to (Appellees]” 28 to NVA's points of error (1) and (2). Ae to tht
venaining pointe of error, Launaka merely “refers [this court) to and relies
Spon several of es motions filed in ciFeult court.

Hawai'i Bules of Appellate Procedure (HAP) Rule 28(c) (2008)
instructs that the answering brief “shall be of like character az that
requires for an opening brief except that no statement of posnts shall be
Fequired, and no other section is required unless the section presented in the
Opening brief is controverted.”” Laumaka's snawering brie! consists of tive
pages thst sze undivided by section. fer example, Launaa's answering briet
Hoes not contain a counter-statenent of the case section and an argunent,
Section. Sag HEAP Rules 28(5) (3), 28(b) (7). Because Launaka'e answering
Brief fails to comply with HRAP Rile 26(c), we decline to consider eny
Srgunents raised by Launska.

ne

 

 

 
   

POR PUBLICATION IN WES!

 

HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

We hold: (1) that prior to its acceptance, an engineering report
submitted to @ government agency in connection with a subdivision
application, and any written comments made by the agency thereon,
does not constitute a “government record” requiring disclosure
pursuant to the UIPA; (2) that the circuit court erred in its
determination that Appellees violated neither its administrative
rules nor the Hawai'i Administrative Procedures Act ("HAPA”); (3)
that Laumaka’s subdivision does not “propose the use of state or
county lands”; and (4) that NVA has not successfully carried its
burden of showing irreparable damage for a preliminary
injunction. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part
the circuit court’s May 17, 2007 amended final judgment.

1. BACKGROUND

‘The subject property of the instant case consists of
approximately 45.9 acres of steep mountainside land in upper
Nu‘uanu valley. The property had been zoned for residential use
since approximately 1943. In 2004, Puu Paka DP, LLC, the prior
owner of the subject property, submitted an application to the
Department of Planning and Permitting of the City and County of
Honolulu (“DPP") for approval to develop a subdivision consisting
of nine residential lots,

NVA is a Hawai'i non-profit organization whose menbers
are homeowners and residents who live in Nu'uanu valley. On
February 15, 2005, David Hall ("Hall"), a member of the NVA,
submitted a letter to DPP requesting to inspect and obtain copies
of all comments and engineering reports pertaining to Puu Paka

DP, LLC's proposed subdivision.
s+" FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

In a letter dated February 25, 2005, DPP responded to

NVA’s letter, in pertinent part, as follows:

First, our subdivision files are not’ intended to be a
central file for all documents, reports, drawings, comment
Sheets and correspondence. Documents, reports, drawings,
Gonment sheets, ang correspondence se usually’ kept
Separately in several areas, including the civil engineering
Branch (CEB), Traffic Review Branch, Subdiviaicn Branch,
Nactewater Brancn, and other agencics, such 25 the Soard of
Water Supply. Consequently, we apologize if there were some
misconceptions sbout the completeness of our Subdivision
‘les.

‘Second, for reports end plang, which are still under
review, ne may not have then in our possession at ail times.
Our usual practice ig to return these reports and plans with
Sur comments marked thereon to the person or company who
prepared then, For example, as of February 17, 2008, the
EEB does not have a copy of the geotechnical report in our
files, since ie was returned to the consultant slong with
Comments

"Phied, our review coments
directly naked on reports and plan:

‘called

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

in adaition to being

fare vsually summarized
“posse, Attached are
‘not in

 

  

  

Fourth, for security
requests for information be Bade through our Data Access and

Imaging Branch «

  

‘The subdivision application submitted by Puy Paka DP,
LLC was deferred on or about January 21, 2005, and subsequently
expired on or about October 21, 2008. On June 17, 2005, the

subject property was sold to Laumaka, who proceeded with Puu Paka

 

DP, LLC's earlier plan to subdivide the property.
on October 27, 2005, Launaka submitted a new
application to DPP for subdivision of the subject property into
nine residential lots. Thereafter, Hall submitted letters to DPP
on, among other dates, November 16, 2005, requesting all
engineering reports submitted in connection with Laumaka’s

proposed subdivision.
“OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

In a letter dated December 13, 2005, DPP responded to
Hall’s November 16, 2005 letter, as follows:

In response to your Novenber 16, 2008 Letter...
any engineering report that is formally accepted by our

Ftment as part of a permit application is available for
ection and copying at the Data Access Imaging Branch
Engineering reports that nay be in our possession at the
tise of publie records request and which are being evaluated
by the department as part of its decision for acceptance,
fre withheld {ron pablic disclosure as being part ot the
Gepartaent’s deliberative process. Once these reports nave
been formally accepted, they are available for inspection
and copyina,

   

on March 18, 2006, NVA provided notice to DPP of its intent to
sue it for violation of the UIPA.

on Mach 17, 2006, DPP “accepted” a geotechnical report
prepared for the subject property by Masa Fujioka and Associates.
This report was made available to the public on the same day.

on March 23, 2006, NVA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and its complaint in the circuit court seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief for Appellees’ alleged
violation of the UIPA and HEPA. NVA filed a first amended
complaint on April 28, 2006, which sought the same relief for the
following amended claims: (1) DEP failed to produce public
records pursuant to the UIPA; (2) DPPfs record policies violate

the UrPi

 

(3) DPP faited to comply with its administrative rules
land engaged in improper rule makings and (4) an environnental
assessment should have been prepared pursuant to HEPA.

on April 20, 2006, OPP found that a “Preliminary
Drainage Report” prepared by Mitsunaga and Associates for the
subject property was “acceptable.” Consistent with its

departmental policies and procedures, the “Drainage Report” was

5
 

+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

made available to the public later that day.

on May 15, 2006, NVA‘s motion for preliminary
injunction was denied after five days of hearing before the
circuit court. Ultimately, at the May 15, 2005 hearing, the
circuit court orally concluded that the reports requested by NVA
were not records maintained by DFP, and NVA unsuccessfully met
its burden to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

on May 19, 2006, tentative approval was granted by DPP
for Laumaka’s proposed subdivision subject to certain
conditions.?

on June 28, 2006, the circuit court filed its order
denying NVA's motion for preliminary injunction. Therein, the
circuit court found, among other things, that the subdivision
process consists of three-parts, as follows: (1) tentative
approval; (2) approval of final engineering plans; and (3)

approval of final map.

+ Tentative approval was granted subject to the following

Construction of inprovenents, utilities and
facilities in accordance wien City standards
Compliance with [ene] Mastewater Branch’ s
reguirerent for the Wastewater Systen Facility charge

‘Su. Compliance with the provisions of Park Dedication
Section 22-7, Revised Ordinance of Honoluly

a. Recordation of an acceptable declaration of
restrictive covenants inforaing future omers of potential
Fockfail hazards and other restrictions, and the!?
responsibilities te maintain, repair and restore their
Grainage and roskfall protection inprovenent®.

3: “Suemission of the final subdivision map
snformazion

G. Filing of 18 copies of the final survey maps
prepared by 2 licensed professional land surveyor and drawn
fo band court form

 
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

 

on October 27, 2006, NVA filed two motions for partial
sunmary judgment, which contained a total of four “counts.”
Count one sought production of all government records in relation
to the application for Laumaka's subdivision, Count two sought a
declaratory ruling that bvP's practice of not disclosing
engineering reports until they are accepted violates the UIPA.
Count three sought’a declaratory ruling that DPP’s practice
constitutes improper rule-making and violates DPP's
administrative rules. Count four sought a declaratory ruling
that Appellees are required to prepare an environmental
assessment in connection with Launaka’s subdivision. NVA's first
motion for partial summary judgment contained “counts” one
through three and alleged that “(s]ummary judgment is appropriate
because there is no genuine issue of material fact, and [NVA] is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Its second motion for
partial sunmary judgment did not contain a similar statenent.

NvA’s motions for partial summary judgment were orally
denied by the circuit court at a hearing held on Novenber 15,
2006, At this hearing, Appellees orally requested that the
cdrcust court grant sunmary judgment in their favor, The circuit
court decided to continue the hearing to November 20, 2006, in
order to give NVA an opportunity to respond to Appellees’ oral
notion.

on November 28, 2006, the circuit court filed its
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order denying NVA's
notions for partial summary judgment, and granting Appellees’

motion for summary judgment. Therein, the circuit court made the

7
‘+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

following determinations: (1) evidence presented revealed that
unaccepted reports were returned to Laumaka, and there was @ lack
of evidence suggesting that Appellees “maintained” the reports or
copies of the reports that were unaccepted by DPP; (2) unaccepted
reports and the agency's comments thereon are not records

maintained by DPP, and therefore are not “government records”

 

that are required to be disclosed under the UIPA; (3) assuming,
arquendo, that DeP maintained copies of the unaccepted reports,
these unaccepted reports and the comments thereon are part of
DPP's pre-decision process and are protected from disclosure
under the deliberative process exception of the UIPA; (4) DPP's
administrative rules are consistent with the UIPA and, in light
of the above determinations, “there [was] no showing that the
enactment of departmental rules had violated its own rules and
procedures nor violated the” HAPA: and (5) Laumaka’s proposed
subdivision does not propose the use of state or county land for
which an EA would be required under HEPA.

An amended final judgment was filed on May 17, 2007.4
On June 15, 2007, NVA timely filed its notice of appeal.

on May 7, 2008, NVA filed an application to transfer
its appeal from the Intermediate Court of Appeals to this court.

on May 28, 2008, this court granted NVA’s application for

 

“the circuit court's original judgnent wae filed on December 18,
2006. On Decanber 28, 2006, NVA filed a notice of appeal from this judgment.
However, on arch 16, 2007, the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal for lack of jufisdiction because the circuit court's original judgment
failed to satisfy the requirements of an appesiable final judgment.

8

  
‘+8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

transfer pursuant to HRS $ 602-$8(a) (1) (Supp. 2007),* and
accepted its application pursuant to HRS § 602-58(b) (1) (Supp.
2007).*
IT, STANDARD OF REVIEW
on appeal, the grant or denial of summary judgment is
reviewed de nove. Se State ex, rel, Anzai v. Citv and County of
Honolulu, 99 Hawai'i 508, 514, 57 P.34 433, 439 (2002); Bitney wv.

Honolulu Police Dep't, 96 Hawai'i 243, 250, 30 P.3d 257, 264
(2001).

(Slumnary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions,
anewers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together mith
the affisavits, if any, show that there 1s flo genuine issue as to
any eaterial fact ana that the moving party s= entitied to
judgment as a matter of law. A fact ie material if proof of that
fice souud nave the effect of establishing or refuting one of the
Gtaential elenente of a cause of action or defense asserted by the
parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most. favorable
fo the hon-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the
evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the Light most
favorable to the party opposing the notion.

Kahale v. City and County of Honolulu, 104 Hawai'i 341, 344, 90

P.3d 233, 236 (2004) (citation omitted).

 

 

* URS $ 602-88 a) (1) provides that “[t]he supreme court, in the
manner and within the tine provided by the rules of court, shall grant an
application to transfer any case within the jurisdiction of the intermediate
appellate court to the suprene court upon tha grounds that the cage involve
NoPquestion of imperative or fundanental public importance.”

 

 

* as § 602-58) (2) provides that “(t]he supreme court... may
grant on application to transfer ‘upon the grounds that the case
Uneolves” "s question of first impression or @ novel legs] question.”

 

2
+* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IIT. DISCUSSION

A. Prior To Its Acceptance, An Engineering Report Submitted To
a Government Agency In Connection With a Subdivision
Application, and Any Written Comments Made By the Agency
Thereon, Does Not Constitute a “Government Record” Requiring
Disclosure Pursuant To the UIPA.

~The affirmative responsibility imposed on agencies by
the UIPA[,1” as provided by HRS Chapter 92F, “is to make
government records available for inspection and copying during
regular business hours, upon request by any person.” State of
: n ty of Progra
e =Univ. of . , 93 Hawai's 378, 401, 927
P.2d 386, 393 (1996). HRS § 92F-11 (1993) provides, as follows:

(o) All govesnment records are open to public
inopection unless access is restricted cr closed by lav.

(b! Except ae provided in section S2F-13, each agency
upon request by any person shall ma)
sralzabie’ for lospection and copying: shrine

(c) Unless the information ss readily retrievable by
the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency
Shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of
ite records

(2) Each agency shall assure reasonable access to
facilities for duplicating records and for making mencranda

(e) Each agency may adopt rules, pursuant to chapter
91, to protest its records from theft, loss, defacenent,
alteration, ar deterioration and to. prevent manifestly
Gxoeseive interference with the discharge of its other
Jawful responsibilities and functions:

 

 

gular eusiness

 

 

 

 

     

(Emphases added.) A “*{glovernment record’ means information
maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic,
or other physical form.” HRS § 92F-3 (1993) (emphasis added) .

The word “maintain(]" is undefined by HRS Chapter 92F.

 

NVA essentially asserts that the engineering reports

10
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WES

 

HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

submitted by Launaka became “government records” the moment they
were received by DPP. In support of its assertion, NVA relies
primarily on the definition of the word “maintain” that ia
provided by the Uniform Information Practices Code (*UIFC").

Hawaii's Legislature has indicated an intent to base
the UIPA on the UIPC of the National Conference of Conmissioners
on Uniform State Laws. See Kaapuv, Aloha Tower Dev, Comp, 74
Haw. 365, 387-88, 846 P.2d 862, 991-92 (1993) (interpreting Sen.
Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2580, in 1988 Senate Journal, at 1093-95).
The UIPC defines the word “maintain” to mean “hold, possess,
preserve, retain, store or administratively control.” Unif.
Info. Practices Code (UIPC) § 1-105. The commentary suggests
that the word “maintain” is “to sweep as broadly as possible. tt
includes information possessed or controlled in any way by an
agency.” Id, emt. The commentary also suggests that “the
personal recollection of an agency employee would not be a
‘government record’ {”] but his handwritten notes summarizing an
event or conversation would.” Id.

However, although legislative history of the UIPA
indicates an “intent that commentary to the UIPC guide the
Interpretation of similar provisions in the UIPA(,]”" this court
has held that the UIPA “nowhere imposes an affirnative
obligation” upon a government agency “to maintain records.”
‘SHOR, 83 Hawaii at 400 n.8, 401, 927 P.2d at 392 n.8, 393.

> te note that the UIFC defines a “(g)overnnent record” to mean
“information maintained by an agency in written, aural, visual, electronic or
other physical form.” OIEC § 1-105.

un
{+* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Instead, “the UIPA requires agencies to provide access to those
records that are actually maintained.” Id, at 401, 927 P.2d at
393. “The United States Supreme Court, interpreting the federal
[Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA”)) in Kissinger v. Reporters

Som for Freedom of the Press, [445 U.S. 136 (1980)], reached
the same conclusion.” Ida at 401-02, 927 P.2d at 393-94 (“The

[FOIA] does not obligate agencies to create or retain document:

 

it only obligates them to provide access to those which it in
fact has created and retained.” (Block format and citation
omitted.)). Therefore, should we construe HRS § 92F-11 as
imposing a requirement upon a government agency to “maintain” a
report the moment that the agency receives it, we would be
imposing an “affirmative obligation” upon the agency, which is
contrary to this court’s conclusion that the UIPA simply requires
access to those records the agency has in fact “maintained.” See
id. at 401, $27 P.2d at 393. Accordingly, whether the
engineering reports are “actually maintained” by DPP depends on
whether DEP *
records, See id, at 402, 927 P.2d at 394 (quoting Kissinger
Reporters Conm, for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 151-52
(1980)) (block format omitted).

those (] to retain possession or control(]" of the

 

This interpretation is consistent with the ordinary
meaning of the word “maintain.” As mentioned above, the word
“maintain” is undefined by HRS Chapter 92F. In light of HRS
Chapter 92F’s silence, this court “may resort to legal or other
well accepted dictionaries as one way to determine the ordinary
meaning of certain terms not statutorily defined.” Lealie v. Bd

2
‘s+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

of Appeals of the County of Hawai'i, 109 Hawai'i 384, 393, 126
P.3d 1071, 1080 (2006) (quoting Schefke v. Reliable Collection
Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai'i 408, 424, 32 P.34 52, 68 (2001))
(quotation marks omitted). Black’ Law Dictionary defines the
word “maintain” as “{t]o continue (something)” or “[t]o continue
in possession of (property, etc.).” Black's Law Dictionary 973
(8th ed, 2004). Similarly, it is also said that the word
wnaintain” means “to keep in existence or continuance; preserves
retain.” The Random House Collese Dictionary 807 (rev. ed.
1979).

In this case, DPP “chose[] to retain possession or
control” of the engineering reports through its decision to
either accept or reject each report submitted to it in connection
with Launaka’s subdivision application. To reiterate, the
circuit court determined that any unaccepted reports were
returned to Laumaka, and there was a lack of evidence suggesting
that Appellees “maintained” any reports or copies of the reports
that were unaccepted by DPP. On March 17, 2006, DPP “accepted” a
geotechnical report prepared for the subject property by Masa
Fujioka and Associates. On April 20, 2006, DPP found that a
“preliminary Drainage Report” prepared by Mitsunaga and
Associates for the subject property as “acceptable.” These
accepted reports were made available to the public on the sane
day they were accepted. In light of the analysis above, DEP's
acceptance of these reports demonstrates its choice to “maintain”
or “retain possession or control” over the reports. See SHO20,

83 Hawai'i at 402, 927 P.2d at 394. Further, there is a lack of

3
1+" FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

evidence in the record on appeal to suggest that DPP withheld

disclosure of any other accepted “government report,” or, as

 

 

explained above, “information maintained by” it in any “physical
form.” See HRS $§ 92F-3, -11; SHOPG, 83 Hawai'i at 402, 927 P.2d

at 394. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court correctly

 

determined that, pursuant to the UIPA, the engineering reports
submitted to DPP in connection with Laumaka’s subdivision
application did not constitute “government records” prior to
their acceptance by DPP.*

B. The Circuit Court Erred In Its Determination That Appellees
Violated Neither Its Administrative Rules Nor the HAPA.

The circuit court found “that the actions of DEP was
[sic] consistent with [Appellees'] departmental policy and
procedures. Once OPP had accepted the consultants’ reports,
these reports were immediately made available to the public.”
Further to this point, the circuit court found that counsel for
DPP had “represented that all reports or documents relating to
the subdivision have been turned over to [NVA] immediately after
DPP had accepted the reports or documents.” “Conversely,” the
circuit court determined that the unaccepted reports “were not
kept within DPP files, DPP did not maintain a copy of the
reports(,] and DPP returned these reports to [Laumaka].”
Moreover, NVA “failfed] to present evidence to prove that DEP

maintained or withheld reports inconsistent with departmental

+n Light of the foregoing disposition, consideration of whether
the engineering reports fall under the deliberative process exception to the
OIFA Is unnecessary.

 

 

14
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WES

 

HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

policies or procedures.” The court thus determined that “(t]he
DeP Rules are consistent with the UIPA and based on the

above, there is no showing that the enactment of departmental
rules had violated ite own rules and procedures nor violated the
HAP.”

“(z)nterpretation of @ statute is a question of law
which this court reviews de nove. Where the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous, our only duty is to give effect
to its plain and obvicus meaning.” Tamashiro v, Dep't of Human
Serve., 112 Hawai'i 388, 398, 146 P.3d 103, 113 (2006) (brackets
added) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “(TJhe general
principles of construction which apply to statutes also apply to
administrative rules.” Brown v, Thompson, 91 Hawai'i 1, 9% 979
P.2d 586, 594 (1999).

Section 1-2(b) of DeP’s “Rules of Practice and
Procedure” (“DPP's Rules") states, as follows:

ALi department files are public records and nay be
examined upon request. Permit files include applications,

Gltsctor's reports, naps and arawinga, written testanony,

Sorrespandence, tape recordings or written minutes of
proceedings, orders, and all other pertinent documents

 

Section 1-3(b) (2) of DPP’s Rules states, as follows: “In its
role as the [central coordinating agency], the department, in
coopernation [sic] with other city, state, and federal agencies,
shall... (mJaintain and update a master file of building
permit applications, subdivision applications, land use permits,
and land use designations on Oahu.” The word “department” is
defined under section 1-1 of DPP’s Rules as “the department of

planning and permitting, City and County of Honolulu.” All other

1s
 

‘+* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

words are undefined

Adduced from counsel at a hearing on NVA’s motions for
partial summary judgment, OPP's administrative process prior to
its approval of an engineering report appears to be as follows:

[T]he records policy of DFP is basically to have 2
subdivision application, the consultants turn in thelr draft
Feports, and during this process the City may write coment
lipon the actual report. Then it returns that report to the
consultant and/or Geveloper for furtner clarification ox
further supplenentation.. The City does not retain a copy of
the report as st exchanges it back to the consultant or to
fhe developer and-- until the city formally accepts the
Feport, once e has been satisfied that ali of ts questions
3nd ingviries have been answered. At that tine st formally
ts 1 accepts a report and at that time, only at that ti
Le'the public Sble'to access these reports.

 

  

 

 

NVA maintains that DPP’s practice of publicly disclosing
engineering reports only after they have been deemed acceptable
constitutes improper rule making in violation of HRS § 91-1(4)
(1993), and is contrary to its administrative rules.’

HRS § 91-1(4) defines a “rule” as “each agency
statenent of general or particular applicability and future
effect that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy,
or describes the organization, procedure, or practice
requirenents of any agency.” However, “[t]he term does not
include regulations concerning only the internal management of an
agency and not affecting private rights of or procedures
available to the public, nor does the term include declaratory
rulings issued pursuant to section 91-8, nor intra-agency
memoranda." HRS § 91-1(4).

+e note that Appellees’ answering brief fails to “controvert” this
point of error and argunent raised by NVA in its opening brief. Gee HRAP Rule
Bacal.

16
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

In this light, “each agency shall[] . . . make
available for public inspection all rules and written statements
of policy or interpretation formulated, adopted, or used by the
agency in the discharge of its functions.” HRS § 91-2(a) (3)
(1993). Moreover, “[nJo agency rule{] . . . shall be valid or
effective against any person or party, nor may it be invoked by
the agency for any purpose, until it has been published or made
available for public inspection as herein required, except where
@ person has actual knowledge thereof.” HRS § 91-2(b).

In this case, DPP’s Rules clearly require DPP to
wmaintain and update a master file of . . . subdivision
applications.” DPP’s Rules § 1-3(b) (2). Further, DPP’s Rules
indicate that this “file” includes the subdivision application
itself, all accompanying engineering reports and written comments
thereon, “and all other pertinent documents.” See DPe’s Rules §
1-2(b) ("Permit files include applications, . . . correspondence,

. and all other pertinent documents."). Because section 1-
2b) of DPP’s Rules unambiguously states that “[a]1l department
files are public records and may be examined upon request [,]”
Laumaka’s “file,” “maintain(ed] and update(d]" by DPP “as the

[central coordinating agency],” constitutes a “public record{]

 

and may be examined upon request.” gee DPP's Rules $$ 1-2(b),
3(b) (2). Construed in this manner, we hold that DPP violated its
Rules by refusing to make available to the public any unaccepted
engineering reports and written coments thereon.

Consequently, DPP’s policy of refusing to publicly

disclose these engineering reports prior to their approval

uv
‘+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

constitutes @ “rule” inasmuch as it “affect(s]" the “procedures
available to the public,” and “implements, interprets, or
prescribes . . . policy, or describes the . . . procedure(] or
practice requirements of” DPP. See HRS § 91-1(4).

Further, the record on appeal fails to reflect and, as
noted above, Appellees have not argued that DPP’s policy was
“published or made available for public inspection[,]” or that
NVA had “actual knowledge” of the policy prior to its initial
request. See HRS § 91-2(b). Because DPP has not complied with
the mandated requirements of HRS Chapter 91, DPP was proscribed
See id,

Therefore, we also hold that the circuit court erred in its

from “invok{ing]” its policy “for any purpose,

 

determination that DPP did not violate the HAPA by refusing to
publicly disclose any unaccepted engineering reports and written
comments thereon. Accordingly, all of DPP’s “files,” which
includes the Launaka “file,” are “public records and may be
examined upon request.” See DPP’s Rules § 1-2(b).

C. Laumaka’s Subdivision Does Not “Propose the Use of State or

County Lands.”

 

NVA asserts that the circuit court erred in its

determination that HEPA is inapplicable." The circuit court

VA asserts that Appellees adnitted that an EA should be prepared
linen Jeffrey Lee (*iee"), 2 staff planner employed by the City and county of
Honcluis, completed an “Environmental Checklist” for Puu Paka DP, Lic’s
fubsivision application in January 2008.” In this checklist, Lee placed =
Ghecknazk in a box that stated that HEPA “[alpplies. as checkedf.)*
Imsedistely below this bex are seven other boxes representing choices
enplaining why HEPA applies, which includes » bor labeled *seate/County
Lahas/Funds.”" Lee cid not place a checkmark in any of these boxes. In a
signed declaration dated May 24, 2006, Lee declared chat he “mistakenly
Checked the box labeled ‘Applies as checked,’ and instead “eeant to check the
continue.

 

 

ae
{+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

ultimately found that the following aspects of Laumaka’s proposed
subdivision did not “[p)ropose the use of state or county lands”:
(2) a drainage system located within the boundaries of Laumaka’s
subdivision will connect to a proposed extension of Puu Paka
Drive without going beneath, across, or passing over state or
county land, (2) existing county sewage lines will connect to
drain pipes located within Laumaka’s proposed subdivision without
going beneath, across, or passing over state or county land, (3)
an easement of 0.130 acres ouned by the “Territory of Hawaii”
runs adjacent to and through a portion of Launaka’s proposed

subdivision, and (4) “the undertaking of rockfall reduction

 

strategies or inspection or protective measure in the [stat
owned] forest” located directly above the Laumaka subdivision.
HEPA’ s purpose is expressed through HRS § 343-1 (1993),

as follows:

‘The legislature finds that the quality of humanity's
environment is critical to hunanity’s well being, that
Rosanicy’s sctavities nave broad and profound effects upon
the interrelations of all conponents of the environment, and
thet an epvironnental review process Will integrate the
Feview of environmental concerns with existing planaing
processes of the State and couneses and alert decision
akere to significant eavivenmental effects which may result
From the inplerentation of certain actions. The legislature
Eurther finds that the process of reviewing environmental
effects it desirable because environmental consciousness is
‘enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and
public participation during the review process benefits all

 

box lapsiés "boss not apply.!*

NVA clains that Lee’s purported admission creates a genuine issue of
rin) fect that should have precluded summary judgment on the envirenmental
Senent iseue. However, for reasons discussed herein, the following
Giscussion ultimately holds thet, as a matter of law, certain sspects of
Launaka’s subdivision does not propose the “use” of state
Therefore, whether a genuine issue of material fact exists
purported aduissicn ig inconsequential to the resoluticn of this issue.

13

   

   
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

Jes involved and society as a whole.
It is the purpose of this chapter to establish
system of envircrmental review which will enaure that
Ghvironsentel concerns are given appropriate consideration
Gn decision making along with economic end technical

    

As explained by this court:

HEPA ia triggered whenever an agency or an applicant
proposes an action which falls within one of eight

Eategories sat forth in RE § 343-S(a) (1993). This section
Gneguivocaily states that “an environmental assessment shall,
be requires” for these actions. HRS § 343-S(a) (emphasis
added). The general rule that environmental aasesenente
are required for ail proposed actions is qualified by HRS §
343-6(a) (71 (1993), which provides for exemptions for
certain classes of actions, which, “because they will
probably have mininal or no significant effects on the
Sovironment, are declared exempt from the preparation of an
Aseesement.© HRS 6 343-6(a) (71

Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. County of Mau'i, &6 Hawai'i 66, 70,
947 P.2d 378, 382 (1997). This case involves interpretation and

 

 

 

 

application of HRS $ 343-5(a) (1) (Supp. 2007), which mandates, in
pertinent part, that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided, an
environmental assessment shall be required for actions that{]
(p]ropose the use of state or county lands... .”

NVA asserts that an EA must be completed because
Launaka’'s proposed subdivision will require use of and connection
to the county's drainage and sewer systens. NVA also asserts
that an EA must be completed “[sJo long as there is a ‘use’ of
city or state lands,” without regard to “the size of the ‘use’
and comparisons to the scope and size of the overall project.”
We disagree.

In Kahana Sunset Owners Ass’n, the defendant filed an
application for a Special Management Area (“SMA”) permit that was

preparatory to development of Napilihau Villages I, II, 11, and

20
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IV on the island of Mau'i, 86 Hawai'i at 68, 947 P.2d at 380.
The proposed development would install a new, thirty-six-inch
drainage line beneath a public street, which then connected to an
existing twenty-four-inch culvert beneath a public highway. Id.
at 71, 947 P.2d at 383. Tt was undisputed between the parties
that this constituted a “use of state or county lands.” Id.
(quoting HRS § 343-5(a)(1)) (quotation marks omitted).

‘The Mau'i Planning Commission eventually granted the

defendant's SMA permit, and determined that the completion of an

 

EA was not required. Id. at 68, 947 P.2d at 380. The circuit
court affirmed the Connission’s decision. Id. On appeal to this
court, the plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that if an EA is
required, “the document must address the environmental effects of
the entize proposed development, not just the drainage systen.”
Id, at 14, 947 P.2d at 386. Pursuant to Hawai'i Administrative
Rules (“HAR”) § 11-200-7," this court held that the plaintiff's

“assertion is correct(,]” inasmuch as “[i]solating only that

 

WAR § 11-200-7 provides, as follows:

A group of actions proposed by an agency or an
applicant shall be treated aa a single action when:
(1) The component actions are phases oF
increments of a larger total undertakings
(2) An individual project is 2 necessary
precedent for 4 larger project:
(G) An individual’ project repr
commitment to a larger project) oF
(a) The actions in question are easentiaily
identical ana 2 single statement will adequately
address the impacts of each individual action ané
those of the g¥oup of actions ae a unole

 

 

 

(exphases added.) HAR $ 11-200-2 defines an “action” to mean “any program oF
project to be initiated by an agency or applicant.”

2a
‘++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

particular component of the development for environmenta
Indeed, “the action proposed” in Kahana Sunset Owners Aes’n “is

the entire Nepilihau development,” and “the proposed drainage

 

nt would be improper segmentation of the project.” Id.

system is part of the larger project and is a ‘necessary
precedent’ for the development.” Ig, (citation omitted).

In Citizens for the Protection of the North Kohala

Coastline v. Count wai'i, 91 Hawai'i 94, 103, 979 F.2d 1120,
1129 (1999) (“Citizens”), the plaintiff asserted that the
proposed construction of two underpasses below a public highway
constituted a “use” of state lands. These underpasses were to be
used for golf carts and maintenance vehicles to travel to
portions of a golf course situated on either side of the public
highway. Id. The defendant asserted, inter alia, that
environmental review under HRS chapter 343 was unnecessary
because the construction of two underpasses under a state highway
did not constitute a “use” of state lands. Id, In light of
Kahana Sunset Owners Ase’n, this court disagreed with the

defendant inasmuch as it was “clear” that the construction would

 

constitute “use of state lands for purposes of HRS § 343-5(a) (1)

Id. In contrast, this court noted that “the potential
use of” a public highway that led to the project did not
constitute a “use” of state land. Id. at 103 n.8, 979 P.2d at
1129 n.8.

In Sierra Club v. Office of Planning, state of Hawai'i,
109 Hawai‘ 411, 413, 126 P.3d 1098, 1100 (2006), Castle & Cooke
and Pacific Health filed a petition with the Land Use Commission

22
++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

to reclassify certain land from an agricultural district to an
urban district so that Castle & Cooke could develop a project
consisting of thousands of homes, a commercial center, elementary

school, park, church/day care, recreation center, and the Pacific

 

Health Center." The “Project’s” “Infrastructural Report” stated
that Castle & Cooke would eventually construct a thirty-six-inch
sewage line that would transport wastewater from the project to
the Waipahu Wastewater Treatment Plant, as well as a water line
to provide water to the “Project.” Id, Construction of these
lines would require Castle & Cooke to tunnel beneath several
public highways. Id.

‘The defendants asserted, inter alia, that the petition
for reclassification did not trigger HRS § 343-5's EA requirement
because the petition did not constitute an “action” within the
meaning of HRS Chapter 343. Id, at 415, 126 P.3d at 1102. This
court disagreed with the defendants assertion because, in light
of HRS § 343-5(a) and HRS § 343-2 (Supp. 2005),"? the “Project”
itself, rather than the petition, was the “action” contemplated
by the plain language of HRS $ 343-S(a). Id. This court also

determined that the “Project” proposed the “use” of state lands

“inasmuch as the construction of the sewage and water

 

% this was defined collectively by this court a the “Project.”
‘Sienra Club, 109 Hawai'i at 413, 126 Ps at 1100.

% An “action” is defined as “any program or project to be initiated
by any agency or applicant." HRS § 343-2. "Agency" is defined as “any
Slpartnent, officer board, or commission of the state or county governtent
Which is a part of the executive branch of that governnent.” Id. “applicant”
Ie'derined a "any person who, pursuant to statute, ordinance, oF rule,
officially requests approval for a proposed action.” Id.

23

 

 
#* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

transmission lines will require tunneling beneath state
highways.” Ids

Tt is undisputed that the “action” in this case is
Launaka’s subdivision, To reiterate, Laumaka’s subdivision
consists of approximately 45.9 acres of steep mountainside land
in Nu'uanu valley. The property is located above or adjacent to
Puu Paka Drive, Kama‘aina Drive and Place, Kahawalu Drive, and
Ragsdale Drive on the southern edge of the valley. The property
had been zoned for residential use since approximately 1943, and
is currently undeveloped. The development plan proposes the
creation of nine large subdivision lots on the property. Each
lot has the capability of supporting two homes, inasmuch as each
of the nine lots has more than double the required minimum zoning
lot size.

According to the “Preliminary Drainage Report” prepared
by Mitsunaga and Associates, several detention basins will be
constructed within Laumaka’s subdivision to limit surface runoff
“to predevelopment conditions.” The purpose of these basins is
to detain any increase in storm water discharge by reducing the
flows upstream of the roads “due to the addition of impervious
areas including building structures, driveways and the extension
of existing streets.”

The development plan calls for an extension of Puu Paka
Drive into Laumaka’s subdivision. This extension ends in a cul-
de-sac, and the development plan indicates that it may be
dedicated to the county sometime in the future. Apparently, the

“Puu Paka Drive drainage system” involves connecting basin

24
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

 

numbers 6, 7, and 8 to the cul-de-sac portion of the proposed
extension of Puu Paka Drive. Basin numbers 6 and 7 connect to
the “Puu Paka Drive drainage systen” via a drain pipe within a

drainage easement in favor of one of the nine lots within the

 

subdivision, Basin number 8 connects directly with the “Puu Paka

 

Drive drainage system.” This connection is not within any
easement. The drainage system then discharges through an
existing thizty-inch drain Line at the bottom of the property,
which appears to be within an easement in favor of the City and
County of Honolulu.

NVA is essentially asserting that any “use of state or
county lands{,)" no matter what the nature of that “use” may be,
is sufficient to satisfy HRS § 343-5(a)(1)’s requirement that an
“action{]" “(p]ropose the use of state or county lands... .”
‘The word “use” is undefined within HRS Chapter 343. The
“ordinary meaning” of the word “use” is “to employ for some
purpose; put into service; make use of[.]” The Random House
College Dictionary 1448; see Leslie, 109 Hawai'i at 393, 126 P.3d

at 1080. In light of this meaning, the word “use” could be

construed to apply to any “use” of state or county land, no

matter what or how benign that “use” may be.
However, this interpretation flies in the face of the

fact that this court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument in

* there appears to be a total of nine detenticn basins that comprise

the drainage system in Launaka's subdivision, which are numbered "I" through
"9." the so-called “Puu Paka Orive drainage systen” is a part of a larger
drainage system within the subdivision, ana includes only @ few of these
Setention Basins

 

28
{¢* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Citizens that the “potential use of” a public highway leading to
the development project constitutes a “use” of state land. 91
Hawai's at 103 n.8, 979 P.2d at 1129 9.8. Clearly, this court
has recognized that the boundaries of the meaning of the word
“use,” as contemplated by HRS § 343-5(a) (1), is not unlimited in
possibilities. See id, Therefore, we decline to apply the
ordinary meaning of the word “use” in interpretation of HRS §
343-5(a) (1).

“Laws in pari materia, o upon the same subject matter,
shall be construed with reference to each other. what is clear
in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful
in another.” HRS § 1-16 (1993), Further, “[t]his court must
read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and
construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose.” Kahana
Sunset Owners Ass'n, 86 Hawai'i at 71, 947 P.2d at 363.

HEPA’s purpose is “to establish a system of
environmental review which will ensure that environmental
concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making
along with economic and technical considerations.” HRS § 343-1.
‘This court has observed that the “purpose of preparing an
environmental assessment is to provide the agency and any
concerned menber of the public with the information necessary to
evaluate the potential environmental effects of a proposed
action.” Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n, 86 Hawai'i at 72, 947 P.2d
at 384. However, this court’s decisions interpreting HRS § 343-
Sta) (1)’s requirement of “use of state or county lands” have so

far been limited to projects that require tunneling or

26
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

construction beneath state or county land. See Sierra Club, 109
Hawai'i at 415-16, 126 P.3d at 1102-03; Citizens, 9) Hawai'i at
105, 979 P.2d at 11317 Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n, 86 Hawai'i at
71, 947 P.2d at 383. This court has not held that merely
connecting privately-owned drainage and sewage lines to a state
or county-owned drainage and sewage system is sufficient to
satisfy HEPA’s requirement of “use of state or county lands.”
Indeed, construing the word “use” in a manner suggested
by NVA could result in countless possibilities of “uses” that
would fall within the scope of the Hawai'i Environmental Policy
Act, which we believe was not intended by the legislature. See
HRS § 343-1) see also Citizens, 91 Hawai'i at 103 n.8, 979 P.2d
at 1129 n.8. Moreover, were we to construe HEPA’s requirement of
“use of state or county lands” in a manner suggested by NVA, we

would be misconstruing the weight of our prior case law, which

consisted of facts that illustrated a “use” that vas more than
merely a connection to state or county “lands.” For example, the
“use” in Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n was the fact that the
proposed development would install a new, thirty-six-inch
drainage line beneath, and not merely in connection to, a public
street. 86 Hawai'i at 71, 947 P.2d at 383, Similarly, the “use”
in Citizens vas the fact that the two underpasses would require
construction beneath a state highway, rather than merely a
connection to the land beneath the highway. 91 Hawai'i at 103,
979 P.2d at 1129. Also similar is the “use” in Sierra Club,

where construction of the “Project's” sewage and water

transmission lines required tunneling beneath, rather than merely

2
1* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

a connection with, mu
16, 126 P.3d at 1102-03.

ple state highways. 109 Hawai'i at 415-

Although NVA’s concern regarding the environmental
risks posed by Laumaka’s subdivision is understandable, we must
remain mindful of our duties to follow the law. Because the

record, at best, indicates that Laumaka’s drainage and sewer

 

Lines will merely connect to the “Puu Paka Drive drainage system”
and existing county sewer lines, the instant case is
distinguishable from Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n, Citizens, and
Sierra Club. Therefore, in light of the foregoing analysis, we
decline to extend the meaning of the word “use” to the
circumstances of this case, where the evidence indicates that
Launaka’s drainage and sewer lines merely connect to the “Puu
Paka Drive drainage system” and existing county lines without
requiring construction or tunneling beneath state or county
lands. See HRS § 343-1; Sierra Club, 109 Hawai'i at 415-16, 126
P.3d at 1102-03; Citizens, 91 Hawai'i at 103, 979 P.2d at 1129;
Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n, 86 Hawai'i at 71, 947 P.2d at 3837
see also Citizens, 91 Hawai'i at 103 n.8, 979 P.2d at 1129 n.8,
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in its
determination that there is no “use” of state or county land
because the “detention basins are connected and routed through
the Puu Paka Drive drainage system,” and the drainage line will
not require tunneling or construction beneath state or county
lands. We also hold that the circuit court correctly determined
that connecting the county’s existing sewage lines to Laumaka’s

Lines did not constitute a “use” of county land because Laumaka’s

28
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sewage lines would not require tunneling or construction beneath
state or county Land.

Additionally, it is well established that a party that
moves for summary judgment has the burden “to show the absence of
any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under
applicable principles of substantive lay, entitles the moving
party to judgment as a matter of lav.” Jou v. Dai-Tokvo Bova
State Ins. Co., 116 Hawai'i 159, 164, 172 P.34 471, 476 (2007)
(block format and citation omitted). *{T)his burden has two

components”:

First, the moving party has the burden of producing
support for’ its claim chat? (1) no genuine issue of
aterial facts exists with respect to the essential elenents
DE the claim or defense which the notion seeks to establish
OF which the motion questions; and (2) based on the
Undisputed facts, it is entitied to summary Juagnent as a
matter of law. Only when the moving party satsefies its
Thitia2 burden of production does the burden shift to the
non-moving party to respond to the notion for summary
judgment and demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to
Qenersi allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of
trial

 

Second, the moving party bears the ultimate burden of
persuasion. This burden always remains with the moving
Party and requires the moving party to convince the court
Ehat no genine issue of material fact exists and that the
noving part [sic] is entitled to sumary judgment as 2
matter of law.

Id. (quoting Erench vs Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc., 105 Hawai'i 462,
470, 99 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2004).
NVA filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the

 

HEPA issue on October 27, 2006. However, in its findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and order denying NVA’s motion for
partial summary, the circuit court determined that NVA “failed to

[make any} show[ing] beyond the fact that the existing county

29
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sewage lines will connect to the drain pipes on the Laumaka
subdivision.” As a result, the court could not find any “use of
state or county lands” because the mere fact that Laumaka’s
Grainage and sewage lines “will connect to a county line, without
actually going beneath, across, or passing over 4 state or county
land will not trigger the” BA requirement.

In its opening brief, NVA avers that “(t]he City will
be required to dig under Puu Paka to provide for the sewer
connections." However, NVA does not include a citation to the
record to support its assertion. Moreover, in its opening brief,
NVA neither quoted, in its points of error section, the portion
of the circuit court’s finding that NVA “failed” to carry its
burden in its motion for partial summary judgment, nor argued or
assigned as error that such a finding was clearly erroneous. See
RAP Rule 26 (b) (4) (C) (instructing that an opening brief shall

contain a points of error section, which “shall also include the
following: . . . (C) when the point involves a finding or
conclusion of the court or agency, a quotation of the finding or
conclusion urged as error{]"). Consequentiy, we hold that the
circuit court correctly determined that NVA has not successfully
carried its burden on its motion for partial summary judgment.
NVA also claims that Laumaka will be required to “use”
state land in order to complete a “slope stability analysis to
determine the risks of slope failure and rockfalls” and “perform
appropriate mitigation measures." In enacting HEPA, Hawaii's
legislature found that “the process of reviewing environnental

effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is

30
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public
participation during the review process benefits all parties

involved and seciety as a whole.” HRS § 343-1. Laumaka’s

 

subdivision is located at the base of a heavily forested
mountainside, which is owned by the state, The state Department
of Land and Natural Resources sent DPP a letter dated April 17,
2006, which recommended that DPP require Launaka to perform a
“slope stability analysis” and “appropriate mitigation measures
to address the risks identified by the study and other known

hazards However, for reasons discussed above, NVA's
argument is unpersuasive because the “slope stability analysis”
ds not a “use” contemplated by HRS § 343-5(a) (1). See HRS § 343-
1; Sierra Club, 109 Hawai'i at 415-16, 126 P.3d at 1102-03;
Citizens, 91 Hawai'i at 103, 979 e.2d at 1129; Kahana Sunset
Ouners Ass'n, 86 Hawai'i at 71, 947 P.2d at 383; see also
Citizens, 91 Hawai'i at 103 n.8, 979 P.2d at 1129 n.8.

Finally, the circuit court found that there is an
easement of 0,130 acres that runs adjacent to and through a
portion of the Laumaka subdivision, which is a “hiking right of
way” owned by the “Territory of Hawaii.” NVA appears to assert
that Laumaka’s subdivision will “use” state land simply because
this easement exists within Laumaka’s subdivision. However, NVA
does not point to anything in the record indicating that
Launaka’s subdivision will in fact “use” the easement in any way.

Because this easement merely exists within Laumaka’s subdivison,

a
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

NVA's assertion is without merit.

D. NVA Has Not Successfully Carried Its Burden Of Showing
Irreparable Damage For a Preliminary Injunction.

 

In the circuit court, NVA sought a preliminary

 

injunction preventing DPP from further review and processing of
Laumaka’s subdivision application. NVA also sought an order
requiring DPP to turn over all engineering reports pending review
and evaluation for acceptance by DPP, including any comments
thereon, The circuit court ultimately determined that NVA
unsuccessfully met its burden to warrant the issuance of a
preliminary injunction for the following reasons: (1) the
engineering reports and comments thereon did not constitute
“government records” under HRS § $2F-3; (2) even if DPP kept
copies of any unaccepted reports, these reports and DPP’s written
comments thereon would fall under the deliberative process
exception to the UIPA; (3) NVA failed to timely appeal DEP’ s
denial of access to either the circuit court or the state Office
of Information Practices pursuant to HRS § 92F-15(a) (1993)** and
HRS § 92F-15.5 (1993);"" (4) plans and reports that have not been

 

% ie note that Appelless contend that state or county easezents
cannot be equated with state or county “lands” for purposes of HEPA. On the
Other hand, NVA relies on defining the words “easement” and “land” in support
of its assertion that an easement is akin to “land.” In Light of the
foregoing disposition, consideration of this issue se unnecessary.

ARS $ 92F-15(a), which is entitied "Judicial Enforcenent,”
provides that (2) person aggrieved sy 2 denial of sccess to a government
Fecord may bring an action against the agency at any tine within two years
after the agency denial co compel disclosure.”

 

Wns § 92-15.5(a), which is entitled “Alternative method to appeal
42 denial of access,” provides, in pertinent part, that "[w)hen an agency
‘continue.

 

32
‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

accepted by DPP and not disclosed to NVA are irrelevant to NVA‘S
claim of irreparable harm inasmuch as these reports are not
documents that DPP relies upon when approving subdivision

applications: and (5) assuming, arguende, that disclosure of the

 

reports is required, NVA unsuccessfully established its claim
that it will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary motion is
not granted. On appeal, NVA asserts that, in light of its
foregoing points of error, the circuit court erred when it denied
its motion for 2 preliminary injunction because it should have

been given the opportunity to review and comment upon the

 

engineering reports prior to DPP’s acceptance of them.
“the grant of a motion for a preliminary injunction is
within the discretion of the [trial] court.” Rapp ye
Disciplinary Bd, of Havai'i Supreme Court, 916 F, Supp. 1525,
1538 (D. Haw. 1996); Consolidated Amusement co. v. Hughes, 22
Haw. $50, 554 (Hawai'i Terr, 1915) (*[T]he right to a temporary
injunction . . . rests in the discretion of the trial court
but any abuse of such discretion, either in granting or refusing,
will be ground for reversal on appeal.”). Accordingly, whether
the trial court erred in either granting or denying a motion for
a preliminary injunction is reviewed under the abuse of

discretion standard. ee Mottl v, Mivahira, 95 Hawai'i 381, 384

 

continue
‘bes @ person access to 4 government record, the person may appeal the
Genial to the office of infornetion practices in accordance with rules edopted
pursuant to section 92F-42(12)."

 

 

We note that Appellees, in thelr answering brief, did not provide
2 counter-argunent to this point of error raised by MVR.

33
*#* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

n.8, 23 P.3d 716, 719 n.5 (2001) (“The United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the

federal district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing

 

the preliminary injunction .
22 Haw. at S54.

“the test for granting or denying temporary injunctive

 

relief is three-fold: (1) whether the plaintiff is likely to

 

prevail on the merits; (2) whether the balance of irreparable
damage favors the issuance of a temporary injunction? and (3)

whether the public interest supports granting an injunction.”

Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Hous, § Cty. Dev, Corp, of

Hawai'i, 117 Hawai'i 174, 211, 177 P.3d 884, 922 (2008); see Life
ofthe Land v. Arivoshi, 59 Haw. 156, 158, 577 P.2¢ 1116, 1118

(1978) (same). “[T]he more the balance of irreparable damage
favors issuance of the injunction, the less the party seeking the
injunction has to show the likelihood of success on the merits.”
ottice of Havaiian Affairs, 117 Hawai'i at 211-12, 177 P.3d at
922 (citation and quotation marks omitted) .

In its order denying NVA‘s motion for preliminary
injunction, the circuit court found, contrary to NVA’s claim that
it was unable to meaningfully participate in the planning and
permitting process, that NVA had, in fact, participated in the
governmental process and had voiced its concerns about Laumaka’s
subdivision, For example, the circuit court found that NVA had
contacted and/or had discussions with Appellees Henry Eng and
David Tanoue, the Honolulu City Council and its members, the

Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu, the Nuvanu-Punchbowl

34
‘++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Neighborhood Beard, and state legislators. ‘The circuit court
also found that DPP had made available for review and copying all
accepted engineering reports.

Additionally, in its findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the circuit court found that the unaccepted reports were
returned to Laumaka, and DPP did not retain a copy of the
unaccepted reports. Further, Laumaka filed a “Stipulation Re
Production Of Documents To Plaintiff” on November 13, 2006,
wherein Laumaka and NVA stipulated that on or before April 28,
2006, Laumaka made available to NVA “for review and copying all
prior drafts of the accepted reports and the . . . comments to
said reports to the extent maintained by Laumaka, its agents, and
its consultants[.]” Tt was also stipulated that NVA “agree(d]
that the issue of the production of the reports and the . . .
comments thereto is, therefore, moot as to the documents
provided.”

At the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for summary
judgment, the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: can you articulate what records you have

not received? It’s my understanding fron the last round of

Proceedings that whatever the City had they had disclosed to

Your clients and that [Laumaka) by way of stipolation with

[vay hae provides the records that the City dsdn't keep,

incluging the comments. What records in addition to chet

have you not received?

INVA]! “I think there’ two things that we would say
le haven't received yet and that’s —~ we haven't received
the records direct ly. fron the City.

‘THE COURT: Nell, the records that you received from

[Laumekal would be the’ records that the City doesn’t have!
Those are the records with the coments

   

 

 

 

iniaj:” yeah. 1 think that goes to the core problem
that we nave. ‘We're sot really certain what else there may
be out there in existence because there is this
rebingsis City to Caunaka) .

 

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

because the City

And s0 one of our concerns is
hosn"e yet verstied st oF cer
entirely accurate or comple

 

at perhay
Sea it, that

 

     

 

Notwithstanding its argument on appeal, NVA haa not
pointed to anything in the record suggesting that an engineering
report, whether accepted or unaccepted by OPP, is being withheld
from public disclosure. Therefore, we hold that NVA has not
successfully carried its burden of showing irreparable damage to
warrant the issuance of @ preliminary injunction.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing analysis, we affirm in part

and reverse in part the circuit courts May 17, 2007 amended

final judgment.

Janes J. Bickerton and Scott K.
Saiki of Bickerton Lee Dang &

Sullivan for Plaintiff-Appellant

Nuuanu Valley Association

Don 8. Kitaoka and Lori K.K. PEP armse—
Sunakoda, Deputies Corporation

Counsel,’ for Defendants- Bt Ou
Appellees city and County of

Honolulu, Henry Eng, and David

a Cone mason

David B. Rosen of the Law
Office Of David B. Rosen, ALC,
for Intervenor-Appellee Laumaka
Lic

* We note that NVA points to several additional plans and reports

that may be required to be submitted by Launaka to OPP as a result of GPP's
praval of the proposed subdivision. in Light of the foregoing

Appellees must make these plans and reports available for

ion'when received and "upon request.” See OPP's Rules $ 1-2(b).

36