Mahuiki v. Planning Com'n

• Decision Date: 06 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 7694,7694
• Parties: Samson MAHUIKI, Bernie Mahuiki, William U. Asing, Patsy L. Asing, John Bergholz, Frances E. Chandler, Naotoshi Mikasa, George Mikasa, Philip F. Barber, Marjory F. Barber, William W. Nelsen, Caroline Nelsen, Marjory Yokotake, Michael Olanolan, Janet Olanolan, North Shore Ohana, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PLANNING COMMISSION and Planning Department of the County of Kauai and Alex Ferreira, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 874

654 P.2d 874

65 Haw. 506

Samson MAHUIKI, Bernie Mahuiki, William U. Asing, Patsy L Asing, John Bergholz, Frances E. Chandler, Naotoshi Mikasa George Mikasa, Philip F. Barber, Marjory F. Barber, William W. Nelsen, Caroline Nelsen, Marjory Yokotake, Michael Olanolan, Janet Olanolan, North Shore Ohana, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PLANNING COMMISSION and Planning Department of the County of Kauai and Alex Ferreira, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 7694.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Dec. 6, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

1. One whose legitimate interest is in fact injured by illegal action of an administrative agency or officer should have standing to appeal because justice requires that such a party should have a chance to show that the action that hurts his interest is illegal.

2. A proceeding before a county planning commission in which a landowner seeks to have the legal rights, duties, and privileges relative to the development of his land declared over the objections of other landowners and residents of the area is a "contested case" within the meaning of HRS Chapter 91.

3. The consideration of a condition attached to the original approval of a special management area use permit application does not affect the finality of the original approval for purposes of appeal.

4. Persons who seek to appeal an agency decision pursuant to HRS Chapter 91 must demonstrate that their interests were injured and they were involved in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the unfavorable decision.

5. Standing to appeal from an administrative decision is not conditioned upon formal intervention in the agency proceeding. Participation in a hearing as an adversary is sufficient to give rise to appeal rights, as a public hearing conducted pursuant to public notice can be a "contested case" within the meaning of HRS § 91-1.

6. Persons who file their objections to a proposed development in writing with the agency in conformity with the notice published by the agency have satisfied the requirement of "adversary participation" for purposes of appeal.

7. The declared policy of the Coastal Zone Management Act, HRS Chapter 205A, is to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii.

8. The implementation of the policy of the Coastal Zone Management Act has been delegated in large part to the counties. State primacy nevertheless has been retained as HRS §§ 205A-4 and 205A-28 make clear.

9. The legislature has sought to maintain the integrity of its declared policy by providing guidelines in HRS § 205A-26 to be followed by the counties in reviewing applications for special management area use permits.

10. Where a county agency that has been delegated authority to pass on applications for special management area use permits exercises such authority inconsistently with the guidelines and restraints delineated in HRS § 205A-26, the grant of the permit cannot stand.

E. Courtney Kahr, Lihue, Kauai, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Boyce R. Brown, Jr., E. Cooper Brown, Honolulu, with him on brief, Brown & Bettencourt, Honolulu, of counsel, for defendant-appellee Ferreira.

Max W. Graham, Jr., Michael J. Belles, Lihue, on brief, Deputy County Attys., Lihue, Kauai, for defendants-appellees Planning Com'n, et al. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and LUM, NAKAMURA, PADGETT and HAYASHI, JJ.

NAKAMURA, Justice.

Several Kauai landowners and residents appeal from a dismissal of their request for judicial review of the County of Kauai Planning Commission's approval of Dr. Alex Ferreira's applications for permits to develop a parcel of land in Haena, Kauai, including a special management area use permit required under the Coastal Zone Management Act, HRS Chapter 205A (CZMA or the Act). The dispositive questions are related to the appellants' standing to seek review of the administrative action and the administrative agency's compliance with the CZMA and the rules and regulations issued in furtherance of the Act. Since at least two of the appellants possessed the requisite standing, and the agency disregarded statutory mandates in issuing the use permit, we reverse the circuit court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The real property involved in this controversy consists of approximately 5.277 acres of undeveloped land subject to use regulation under the CZMA and situated at Haena, Kauai, for which Haena, Ltd., a California limited partnership, sought permission from the Planning Commission to develop as a combined condominium apartment and single-family residence project consisting of seventeen condominium units and four single-family dwellings. On August 2, 1978, consolidated applications for a project development permit and a zoning permit, as required by the County of Kauai's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (the CZO), ¹ and for a special management area use permit, as required by the County's Environmental Shoreline Protection Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to and in furtherance of the CZMA, were filed on behalf of the limited partnership by Dr. Ferreira, its general partner. The Planning Commission scheduled a public hearing on the applications for September 27, 1978, and caused notices to be published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Garden Island on September 6, 1978. ² Dr. Ferreira also notified at least two-thirds of the owners and lessees of property adjoining or within three hundred feet of the project site by mail that a hearing on his applications had been set. The published notices expressly informed interested parties that their "[t]estimonies for or against the proposed development should be filed in writing ... before the date of the public hearing or presented in person at the time of the public hearing." See note 2 supra.

Objections to the development, largely related to adverse environmental consequences, were voiced by several persons during the course of the hearing. Eight letters received by the Commission in response to the notices, including one from Mr. and Mrs. Philip F. Barber, reflecting similar concerns were also made part of the record of the hearing. Several members of the Planning Commission likewise expressed misgivings about the plan to construct condominium units in the particular area. The Commission, however, did not render an immediate decision on the applications for the three permits.

The development proposal was on the Planning Commission's agenda for October 11, 1978, but further action thereon was deferred, pending an evaluation and recommendation by the Planning Director. His views on the project were presented to the Commission on October 25, 1978. His qualified endorsement of the proposal was "based on Dr. Ferreira's agreement to revise the development concept to have duplex type buildings, centralized parking, and amenities to be built by the individual owners." In assessing the project for purposes of the special management area use permit, the Director noted the "proposed development consists of some alterations to existing land forms and vegetation" and the density of use would have an impact on the "scenic and environmental character of the area." ³ And his conclusions in this regard were expressed as follows:

Based on the foregoing findings and evaluation, it is concluded that for the SMA Use Permit, in itself, the subject project (with certain modifications) could meet the criteria for the granting of a Special Management Area Use Permit. It is also concluded that the cumulative impact of such individual developments could, however, be substantial enough to adversely affect the environmental character of Haena. The density of development and the nature of use (visitor oriented/resort residential function) are the main factors that are judged to cause the more significant effects to the environment of Haena. In view of the time limit constraints imposed on the Authority to act on this application, it would be prudent to discuss these areas of concern with the applicant prior to the action, or if time is not allowed to discuss these concerns, to impose conditions if to be approved.

Several commissioners, including the chairman, nevertheless reiterated their qualms about permitting the development. But the Commission's decision was to grant the developer the necessary permits, subject to several conditions. The application for the special management area use permit was approved on condition that

(a) the applicant modify the nature of development to that represented by the applicant at the Commission's meeting of October 25, 1978. The development scheme is to provide, for the West half of the parcel, 7 lots to accommodate 5 detached dwelling units for 5 lots and one (1) duplex unit each for the remaining two lots; and the remaining half of the parcel to the East is to be developed into 6 separate lots to accommodate (1) duplex unit per lot. The applicant shall submit a development plan to illustrate definitively the lot arrangements and configurations, the sitting of buildings or building envelope per lot, the parking areas, landscaping etc. Such plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be adhered to in the development of the parcel.

(b) the SMA permit be further subject to all of the conditions to be imposed with the approval of the Zoning and Project Development Use Permits.

The Planning Commission, however, made no finding that the development would "not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect" or that the adverse effect was "clearly outweighed by public health and safety" prior to the approval. ⁴

Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit on November 22, 1978, challenging the Planning Commission's approval of the permits sought by Dr. Ferreira on numerous grounds. While the notice was ostensibly an appeal from a decision rendered by an administrative agency filed pursuant to HRS § 91-14, ...