Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate

• Decision Date: 09 December 1983
• Docket Number: Nos. 8554,9025,s. 8554
• Citation: 4 Haw.App. 633,675 P.2d 784
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals
• Parties: OUTDOOR CIRCLE; Congress of Hawaiian People; Kailua Neighborhood Board; Kailua Community Council; The American Association of University Women, Windward Branch; Social Concerns Committee of the Windward Coalition of Churches; The Lanikai Association; The Hawaii Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc.; Council of Presidents; Representative Faith Evans; Arthur R. Beaumont; Hope Gray Miller; and Department of General Planning, City and County of Honolulu, Appellants, v. HAROLD K.L. CASTLE TRUST ESTATE; Harold K.L. Castle; Henry H. Wong; Michael C. Baldwin Trust, et al.; State of Hawaii, Land Use Commission; and State of Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic Development, Appellees. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF HAWAII, Appellant, v. LAND USE COMMISSION, State of Hawaii; Harold K.L. Castle, et al.; Department of General Planning, City and County of Honolulu; and The Ad Hoc Committee for Kawainui, Appellees. SHORELINE PROTECTION ALLIANCE; Outdoor Circle; Congress of Hawaiian People; Environmental Education Association of Hawaii; Hawaiian Trail & Mountain Club; Kailua Neighborhood Board; Kailua Community Council; Kaneohe Community Council; The Kailua, Hawaii Branch of the American Association of University Women; Social Concerns Committee of the Windward Coalition of Churches; The Lanikai Association; The Hawaii Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc.; The Maunawili Community Association; Council of Presidents Policy Committee; Representative Faith P. Evans; Representative Andrew K. Poepoe; Dorothy Babineau; Arthur R. Beaumont; Hope M. Gray Miller; and Manuel N. Sproat, Appellants, v. HAROLD K.L. CASTLE TRUST ESTATE; Harold K.L. Castle; Henry H. Wong; Michael C. Baldwin Trust, et al.; State of Hawaii, Department of Planning & Economic Development; State of Hawaii, Land Use Commission; and Department of General Planning, City and County of Honolulu, Appellees.

Page 784

675 P.2d 784

4 Haw.App. 633

OUTDOOR CIRCLE; Congress of Hawaiian People; Kailua

Neighborhood Board; Kailua Community Council; The American

Association of University Women, Windward Branch; Social

Concerns Committee of the Windward Coalition of Churches;

The Lanikai Association; The Hawaii Federation of Garden

Clubs, Inc.; Council of Presidents; Representative Faith

Evans; Arthur R. Beaumont; Hope Gray Miller; and Department of General Planning, City and County of Honolulu, Appellants, v. HAROLD K.L. CASTLE TRUST ESTATE; Harold K.L. Castle; Henry

H. Wong; Michael C. Baldwin Trust, et al.; State of Hawaii,

Land Use Commission; and State of Hawaii, Department of

Planning and Economic Development, Appellees.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF

HAWAII, Appellant, v. LAND USE COMMISSION, State of Hawaii; Harold K.L. Castle,

et al.; Department of General Planning, City and

County of Honolulu; and The Ad Hoc

Committee for Kawainui, Appellees.

SHORELINE PROTECTION ALLIANCE; Outdoor Circle; Congress of

Hawaiian People; Environmental Education Association of

Hawaii; Hawaiian Trail & Mountain Club; Kailua

Neighborhood Board; Kailua Community Council; Kaneohe

Community Council; The Kailua, Hawaii Branch of the

American Association of University Women; Social Concerns

Committee of the Windward Coalition of Churches; The

Lanikai Association; The Hawaii Federation of Garden Clubs,

Inc.; The Maunawili Community Association; Council of

Presidents Policy Committee; Representative Faith P. Evans;

Representative Andrew K. Poepoe; Dorothy Babineau; Arthur

R. Beaumont; Hope M. Gray Miller; and Manuel N. Sproat, Appellants, v. HAROLD K.L. CASTLE TRUST ESTATE; Harold K.L. Castle; Henry

H. Wong; Michael C. Baldwin Trust, et al.; State of

Hawaii, Department of Planning & Economic Development;

State of Hawaii, Land Use Commission; and Department of

General Planning, City and County of Honolulu, Appellees.

Nos. 8554, 9025.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.

Dec. 9, 1983.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The applicable standards of review of an administrative agency's decision by a circuit court are the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g).

2. In the review of an agency's decision, a presumption of validity is accorded to a decision of an administrative body acting within its sphere of expertise.

3. An appellate court's review of the circuit court's review of an administrative agency's decision is based on the right/wrong standard. In order to determine whether the circuit court's decision was right or wrong, the appellate court must apply HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency's decision.

4. HRS chapter 92, Hawaii's Sunshine Law, requires open deliberation of the adjudicatory functions of the Land Use Commission.

5. The adjudicatory functions of the Land Use Commission include the adoption of conclusions of law to be included in the agency decision. Hawaii's Sunshine Law requires the Land Use Commission, at the least, to disseminate the drafted conclusions of law and adopt them at an open meeting.

6. An agency decision made in violation of the Sunshine Law is voidable only upon proof of wilful violation.

7. HRS chapter 91, Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act, does not preclude an administrative agency from disallowing repetitious arguments and cross-examination.

8. A separate ruling on a party's proposed findings of fact in the agency's decision is not required by HRS § 91-12.

9. Superfluous findings of fact do not create a contradiction between the agency's findings and conclusions of law.

Jack F. Schweigert, Honolulu (Earl Ignatius Gettelfinger, Honolulu, with him on the reply brief; Schweigert & Associates, Honolulu, of counsel), for appellants Outdoor Circle, et al.

Benjamin M. Matsubara, Honolulu (Mervyn M. Kotake, Honolulu, with him on the brief; Ukishima & Matsubara, Honolulu, of counsel), for appellee Land Use Com'n, State of Hawaii.

Lloyd Y. Asato, Honolulu (Morio Omori, Honolulu, with him on the brief), for appellees Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate, Harold K.L. Castle, Henry H. Wong, Michael C. Baldwin Trust, et al.

Before BURNS, C.J., TANAKA, J., and RONALD B. GREIG, Circuit Judge, in place of HEEN, J., Recused.

TANAKA, Judge.

These appeals are from the April 17, 1979 order entered in the consolidated case of First Circuit Court Civil Nos. 54296 and 54303, which constitute our No. 9025, and from the November 4, 1981 decision filed in First Circuit Court Civil No. 59608, which is our No. 8554. The order and decision, in essence, affirmed the decisions and orders of the Land Use Commission (LUC) denying the reclassification of 244.15 acres of land located at Kailua, Oahu, near the Kawainui Marsh (subject property), from urban to conservation, except as to 70.78 acres of marsh lands.

Although many parties, including the State Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED) and Department of General Planning of the City and County of Honolulu (DGP), appealed LUC's decisions and orders to the circuit court, only twelve appellants are before us in these appeals. They are the Outdoor Circle; Congress of Hawaiian People; Kailua Neighborhood Board; Kailua Community Council; The American Association of University Women, Windward Branch; Social Concerns Committee of the Windward Coalition of Churches; The Lanikai Association; The Hawaii Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc.; Council of Presidents; Representative Faith Evans; Arthur R. Beaumont; and Hope Gray Miller (collectively the appellants).

The questions raised on appeal are (1) whether the circuit court erred in holding that LUC committed no reversible procedural errors, and (2) whether the circuit court erred in concluding that LUC made no reversible substantive errors in its decisions and orders. We answer no to both questions and affirm.

On October 12, 1976, DPED filed with LUC its petition requesting reclassification of the subject property ¹ from urban to conservation. ² Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 205-4(e)(1) (1976), DPED and DGP were mandatory parties in the proceeding. As owners of portions of the subject property, Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate, Harold K.L. Castle, Henry H. Wong, and Michael C. Baldwin Trust (collectively Castle) were admitted as parties in the proceeding upon their intervention as permitted by HRS § 205-4(e)(3). Under the provisions of HRS § 205-4(e)(4), appellants and other parties were permitted to intervene.

Between March and September 1977, LUC held a pre-hearing conference and five full-day hearings and all mandatory and intervening parties presented evidence. In January 1978, LUC held three public action meetings and adopted specific findings of fact. At the last public action meeting, LUC voted 5 to 2 to deny the petition. Subsequently, conclusions of law were adopted, and on March 7, 1978, a decision and order was filed.

On April 5, 1978, DPED appealed LUC's decision and order to the circuit court in Civil No. 54296. On April 6, 1978, appellants and other intervening parties likewise appealed to the circuit court in Civil No. 54303, in which DGP joined. On April 17, 1979, in the consolidated case of Civil Nos. 54296 and 54303, the circuit court entered its order affirming LUC's decision and order in all particulars, except as to the marsh portions of the subject property which should have been reclassified as conservation. The circuit court remanded the matter to LUC for the limited purpose of determining the boundary of the marsh acreage of the subject property.

On May 16, 1979, appellants and certain other intervening parties filed their notice of appeal from the circuit court's April 17, 1979 order. On February 19, 1981, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

In the interim, on May 30 and June 26, 1979, LUC held additional hearings on the remanded matter. On October 3, 1979, LUC filed its decision and order determining that 70.78 acres or 28.99 percent of the subject property constituted marsh lands and appended to its order a map delineating the newly designated conservation lands.

On November 5, 1979, appellants and other intervening parties appealed LUC's October 3, 1979 decision and order to the circuit court in Civil No. 59608. ³ On November 4, 1981, the circuit court affirmed LUC's October 3, 1979 decision and order. Appellants' timely appeals from the circuit court's November 4, 1981 decision in Civil No. 59608 and April 17, 1979 order in the consolidated case of Civil Nos. 54296 and 54303 followed.

I.

Since the parties disagree concerning the standard of review applicable to these appeals, we will discuss this matter at the outset.

The applicable standards of review of an agency's decision by the circuit court are set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1976). Aio v. Hamada, 66 Haw. 401, 664 P.2d 727 (1983); McGlone v. Inaba, 64 Haw. 27, 636 P.2d 158 (1981); Foster Village Community Ass'n v. Hess, 4 Haw.App. 463, 667 P.2d 850 (1983). HRS § 91-14(g) consists of six separate subsections ⁴ to be applied to the "findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders" of an administrative agency. To reverse or modify an agency's decision and order, HRS § 91-14(g) requires a finding that an appellant's "substantial rights ... may have been prejudiced" under one of the six subsections. Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion under subsection (6).

Furthermore, a review of an agency's decision is always tempered by the precept that:

In order to preserve the function of administrative agencies in discharging their delegated duties and the function of this court in reviewing agency determinations, a presumption of validity is accorded to decisions of administrative bodies acting within their sphere of expertise and one...