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

Home

Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections Pursuant to PD Rule 3-1(c), once a petition for declaratory ruling has been filed, the Planning Director"shall" respond in one of three ways: (a) "deny the petition in writing, stating the reasons for such denial;" (b)"issue a declaratory order on the matters contained in the petitions;" or(c) "set the matter for a public hearing, as provided in Sections 3-2, 3- 3 and 3-4 of" the the PD Rules. Presumably, the Planning Director can also respond through some combination of the three. However, unlike administrative rules promulgated by other agencies, PD Rule 3 does not provide any basis or discretion for the Planning Director to refuse or fail to respond to requests for declaratory ruling that are within his jurisdiction and otherwise satisfy PD Rule 3. See, e.g., CARD, 114 Haw. at 195, 159 P.3d at 154 (discussing administrative rule allowing the Honolulu Planning Director to refuse to issue declaratory rulings on matters within his/her jurisdiction on a number of grounds, including that the "issuance of the declaratory ruling may adversely affect the interests of the city in any litigation which is pending or may reasonably be expected to arise" and"[fJor- other good cause"). An agency commits clear errors, abuses its discretion, and acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of the law, when its failure or refusal to issue a declaratory ruling is not grounded in HRS § 91-8 or its administrative rules governing petitions for declaratory rulings.Id., 114 Haw. 184, 195, 159 P.3d 143, 154 (2007). Nothing in HRS § 91-8 or PD Rule 3 grants the Planning Director discretion to either fail to respond to requests that are within the Planning Director's authority and jurisdiction, or reform requests for declaratory rulings in a manner that avoids addressing the substance of the request. 19