Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council of City and County of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 18 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 12879,12879 |
| Parties | SANDY BEACH DEFENSE FUND, Friends of Queen's Beach, Life of the Land, Shirley M. Lum, Philip I. Estermann, Elizabeth G. Matthews and Ursula Retherford, Appellants-Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU and Kaiser Development Company, Appellees-Appellees, and Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Company, Intervenor-Appellee. SANDY BEACH DEFENSE FUND, Friends of Queen's Beach, Life of the Land, Shirley M. Lum, Philip I. Estermann, Elizabeth G. Matthews and Ursula Retherford, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee, and Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Company and Kaiser Development Company, Intervenors-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A legislative act predetermines what the law shall be for the regulation of future cases falling under its provisions. A non-legislative act executes or administers a law already in existence.
2. Approval of a Special Management Area use permit application constitutes a non-legislative, not a legislative act.
3. Where there is no ambiguity in the language of a statute, and the literal application of the language would not produce an absurd or unjust result, clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute, there is no room for judicial construction and interpretation, and the statute must be given effect according to its plain and obvious meaning.
4. The City Council, as the legislative branch of the county, is not an "agency" within the meaning of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act ("HAPA"), and is therefore exempt from HAPA when acting in either a legislative or non-legislative capacity.
5. Provision of Coastal Zone Management Act, requiring each county authority to establish "pursuant to Chapter 91" procedures for processing special management area use permit applications, does not subject the City Council, otherwise exempt from the requirements of Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act, to conduct "contested case" proceedings when acting upon individual permits.
6. City Council, otherwise exempt from the requirements of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act, nevertheless complied with the act's rule-making provisions when it adopted an ordinance establishing procedures for processing special management area use permit applications, and therefore did not violate provision of Coastal Zone Management Act requiring each county authority to establish pursuant to Chapter 91 its special management area permit procedures.
7. In order to assert a right to procedural due process, a party must make a preliminary showing that he has a property interest within the meaning of the due process clause.
8. To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it; he must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.
9. The basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.
10. Due process is not a fixed concept requiring a specific procedural course in every situation. Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.
11. Determination of the specific procedures required to satisfy due process requires a balancing of several factors: (1) the private interest which will be affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures actually used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or alternative procedural safeguards; and (3) the governmental interest, including the burden that additional procedural safeguards would entail.
12. Even assuming Appellants' visual and environmental interests in opposing a special management area use permit for development within the coastal zone constitute property interests protected by the constitution, their rights to procedural due process were satisfied by notice and an opportunity to be heard.
13. Unless fundamental rights or suspect classifications are implicated, we will apply the rational basis standard of review in examining a denial of equal protection.
14. To prevail, a party challenging the constitutionality of a statutory classification on equal protection grounds has the burden of showing, with convincing clarity, that the classification is not rationally related to statutory purpose or that the challenged classification does not rest on some ground of difference having fair and substantial relation to the object of legislation, and is therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
15. Discrimination between classes is not per se objectionable so long as any state of facts reasonably can be conceived to sustain it.
16. City Council's decision to provide for public hearings when acting upon special management area use permit applications, while other counties provide contested case hearings pursuant to the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, was not clearly arbitrary and therefore did not violate equal protection clause.
Ronald A. Albu (Gerard A. Jervis, with him on the briefs), Kailua, for appellants Sandy Beach Defense Fund.
Jane H. Howell, Deputy Corp. Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, for appellee City Council of the City and County of Honolulu.
Kenneth R. Kupchak (R. Charles Bocken and Robert H. Thomas, with him on the answering brief and Kamala J. Larsen, with them on the supplemental brief; of counsel, Damon, Key, Char & Bocken), Honolulu, for appellees Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. and Kaiser Dev. Co.
Steven S. Michaels, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief, Honolulu, for amicus curiae, State of Hawaii.
Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.
This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of the procedures employed by Appellee, the City and County of Honolulu ("County") when acting upon applications for Special Management Area ("SMA") use permits pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA"), Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"), Chapter 205A. Appellants, residents and community groups, challenge the County's issuance of an SMA use permit to Appellee Kaiser Development Co. ("Kaiser"). They contend that the Honolulu City Council was required to hold a "contested case" 1 hearing pursuant to the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act ("HAPA"), HRS Chapter 91, when it issued the permit, and that the Council's failure to do so violated the CZMA and deprived Appellants of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The court below dismissed the case, finding no constitutional violation and ruling that the CZMA does not require a legislative body, otherwise exempt from HAPA, to conduct "contested case" hearings in issuing SMA use permits. We agree and therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.
This case arises from the issuance of an SMA use permit to Kaiser by the Honolulu City Council. Kaiser sought to develop approximately 200 single-family homes in the vicinity of Sandy Beach Park on Oahu. Because a portion of the project was located within the boundaries of the "Special Management Area" (SMA) 2 established by the County pursuant to the CZMA, Kaiser was required to obtain an SMA use permit. HRS § 205A-28.
Because this appeal involves a challenge to the procedures adopted by the County pursuant to the CZMA for administering the "Special Management Area" on Oahu, we turn first to a brief examination of the regulatory scheme before discussing the facts particular to the permit issued in this case.
The CZMA imposes special controls on the development of real property along shoreline areas in order "to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii." HRS § 205A-21. Chapter 205A designates the counties as the "authority" to administer the permit system and requires the counties to adopt procedures for issuing permits. HRS §§ 205A-22(2), -29. The Honolulu City Council designated itself as the "authority" for the City and County of Honolulu unlike the other counties of Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii which delegated this function to their respective county planning commissions. See HRS § 205A-22(2).
The Honolulu City Council processes permit applications under procedures set forth in Revised Ordinances of Honolulu ("Revised Ordinances"), Chapter 33. Pursuant to this ordinance, initial processing of such applications is delegated to the Department of Land Utilization ("DLU"). DLU holds a public hearing on the application, and transmits its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Revised Ordinances § 33-5.3, -5.4. The Council generally refers SMA use permit applications to its Committees on Planning and Zoning which make a recommendation to the Council as a whole. The Council grants, denies, or conditions the permit by resolution. Revised Ordinances § 33-5.5.
In processing permit applications, DLU and the Council are guided by the policies, objectives, and guidelines of the CZMA. 3 HRS § 205A-26. The "authority" must make findings that the proposed development (a) will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects; (b) is consistent with the objectives, policies, and guidelines of Chapter 205A; and (c) is consistent with the county general plan and zoning. HRS § 205A-26(2).
In the instant case, the County accepted Kaiser's application for a permit on February 3, 1986. On April 1, 1986, DLU held a public hearing which was attended by twelve persons. Subsequently, the agency transmitted its findings and recommendation of approval to the Council, which referred the application to its Planning and Zoning Committee for consideration. During the following year, the Council as a whole or in committee publicly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Flint v. Cnty. of Kauai
- Tax Found. Hawai‘i v. State, SCAP-16-0000462
-
State v. Bani, No. 22196.
... ... $50.00 contribution to the criminal injuries fund. Defense counsel, however, notified the circuit ... Moreover, the attorney general and county police departments must publicly release ... `i 168, 172, 883 P.2d 629, 633 (1994) ; Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City and County of ... City and County of Honolulu, 89 Hawai`i 221, 226, 971 P.2d 310, 315 ... ...
-
Brown v. Thompson
... ... Toomey, on the briefs, Honolulu", for the plaintiff-appellant Duncan Brown ... \xC2" ... Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council of the City d County of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 ... ...
-
The Protection of the Environment, Cultural Resources, and Quality of Life in Hawaii State Court
...ecosystems." See HRS § 205A-2. In my view they constitute property "owned" by the public. Sandy Beach Defense Fund v, City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 389, 773 P.2d 250, 267 (1989)(Nakamura, J. dissenting) Those who hike it, fish it, hunt it, camp in it, frequent it, or visit it merely to sit in ......
-
Case Notes
...their due process right to be heard at "a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989). The Board was on record in support of the project, and the permit itself was issued before evidence was taken......
-
Case Notes
..."property" within the meaning of the due process clause. See Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City Council of City and County of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 377, 773 P2d 250, 261 (1989) ("we have not found that [aesthetic and environmental] interests rise to the level of 'property' within the meaning of......
-
CHARTING THE BOUNDARIES OF HAWAII'S EXTENSIVE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE POST-WAIAHOLE DITCH.
...Kea II, 431 P.3d 752, 760 (Haw. 2018). (279) Mauna Kea I, 363 P.3d at 228 (quoting Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (289) Mauna Kea II, 431 P.3d at 760. (281) Id. (noting that five of seven board members signed the order granting a permit). (282) Id. ......