Sierra Club v. Office of Planning, State

• Decision Date: 27 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26174.,26174.
• Citation: 126 P.3d 1098
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Parties: The SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit corporation registered to do business in the State of Hawai`i, Appellant/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OFFICE OF PLANNING, STATE OF HAWAI`I, Appellee/Defendant-Appellant, and The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i; Lawrence N.C. Ing, in his capacity as Vice-Chairperson of the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i; Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., a Hawai`i corporation; Pacific Health Community, Inc., a Hawai`i corporation; City and County of Honolulu; and Neighborhood Board No. 25, Appellees/Defendants-Appellees.

126 P.3d 1098

The SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit corporation registered to do business in the State of Hawai`i, Appellant/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OFFICE OF PLANNING, STATE OF HAWAI`I, Appellee/Defendant-Appellant, and The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i; Lawrence N.C. Ing, in his capacity as Vice-Chairperson of the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i; Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., a Hawai`i corporation; Pacific Health Community, Inc., a Hawai`i corporation; City and County of Honolulu; and Neighborhood Board No. 25, Appellees/Defendants-Appellees.

No. 26174.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

January 27, 2006.

Deborah Day Emerson and John W.K. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, On the briefs, for appellee/defendant-appellant Office of Planning, State of Hawai`i.

Russell A. Suzuki and Diane Erickson, Deputy Attorneys General, On the briefs, for appellees/defendants-appellees The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i and Lawrence N.C. Ing, in his capacity as Vice-Chairperson of the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i.

Isaac Hall, On the briefs, Wailuku, for appellant/plaintiff-appellee The Sierra Club.

William W.L. Yuen, On the briefs, Honolulu, for appellee/defendant-appellee Pacific Health Community, Inc.

Bruce L. Lamon (of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel), On the briefs, Honolulu, for appellee/defendant-appellee Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc. Lori K.K. Sunakoda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for appellee/defendant-appellee City and County of Honolulu (no brief filed).

Neighborhood Board No. 25 c/o Richard G. Poirier, for appellee/defendant-appellee Neighborhood Board No. 25 (no brief filed).

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by DUFFY, J.

Appellee/Defendant-Appellant State Office of Planning, State of Hawai`i (SOP), appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's September 23, 2003 final judgment entered in favor of Appellant/Plaintiff-Appellee The Sierra Club (Sierra Club).<sup>1</sup> SOP and Appellees/Defendants-Appellees The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawai`i (the LUC), Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc. (Castle & Cooke), and Pacific Health Community, Inc. (Pacific Health) [hereinafter, collectively, Defendants] contend that the circuit court erred by vacating the decision of the LUC.

Based on the following, we affirm the circuit court's September 23, 2003 final judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2000, Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health applied to the LUC to amend a land use boundary for 1,247.983 acres of land in an agricultural district, owned by Castle & Cooke. The petition asked the LUC to reclassify the land as an urban district, so that Castle & Cooke could develop the Koa Ridge Project [hereinafter, the Project], consisting of thousands of homes, a commercial center, elementary school, park, church/day care, recreation center, and the Pacific Health Center. According to the Project's "Infrastructural Report," Castle & Cooke would eventually construct a thirty-six-inch sewage transmission line for the purpose of transporting wastewater from the Project to the Waipahu Wastewater Treatment Plant, as well as a new water transmission line to provide water to the Project. The construction of these lines would require Castle & Cooke to tunnel underneath Kamehameha Highway, the H-1 Freeway, the H-2 Freeway, and Farrington Highway, all of which are state land.

On July 9, 2001, SOP filed a "Statement Of Position Of The Office Of Planning In Partial Support Of The Petition." On July 18, 2001, and by a written order dated August 13, 2001, the LUC granted Sierra Club's and Appellees/Defendants-Appellees Neighborhood Board No. 25's petitions to intervene. On August 3, 2001, Appellees/Defendants-Appellees City and County of Honolulu filed a "Statement Of Position Of The Department Of Planning And Permitting, City And County Of Honolulu."

On August 7, 2001, Sierra Club filed a motion with the LUC to stay proceedings in Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health's petition until they complied with Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, otherwise known as the Hawai`i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) [hereinafter, Chapter 343 or HEPA]. Sierra Club asserted that the plan to construct the transmission lines underneath these highways and freeways involved the "use of state lands," thereby triggering the requirement for an environmental assessment [hereinafter, EA] pursuant to HRS § 343-5 (1993 & Supp.2000). Sierra Club argued that absent an EA, Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health were not entitled to have the LUC grant their application to reclassify the land. Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Sierra Club's motion on August 14, 2001, admitting that an EA was required but arguing that it would be prepared later. The LUC entered a written order denying Sierra Club's motion on September 26, 2001.

On June 27, 2002, the LUC filed its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order." As part of its decision, the LUC reclassified 762.453 acres from an agricultural district to an urban district without requiring Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health to prepare an EA.

On July 23, 2002, Sierra Club filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court. After an oral argument hearing on January 21, 2003, the circuit court entered its "Order Vacating Decision and Order of the State Land Use Commission Filed June 27, 2002 In Docket No. A00-734 and Remanding Petition For Land Use District Boundary Amendment For Further Proceedings" on September 23, 2003. The circuit court ruled that the Project is an "applicant action" that proposes the use of state land within the ambit of HRS § 343-5(c) (1993), and Castle & Cooke and Pacific Health must therefore complete an EA before the LUC can grant their application to amend the land use boundary. Final judgment was entered on September 23, 2003. On October 23, 2003, SOP filed this timely appeal.²

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Review of a decision made by the circuit court upon its review of an agency's decision is a secondary appeal. The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) [(1993)] to the agency's decision.

Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai`i 217, 229, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327 (1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Bragg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 81 Hawai`i 302, 304, 916 P.2d 1203, 1205 (1996)). HRS § 91-14, entitled "Judicial review of contested cases," provides in relevant part:

(g) Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(4) Affected by other error of law; or

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

"[U]nder 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)." In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 81 Hawai`i 459, 465, 918 P.2d 561, 567 (1996) (citing Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate, 4 Haw.App. 633, 638-39, 675 P.2d 784, 789 (1983)). Thus, statutory interpretation is "a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Levi, 102 Hawai`i 282, 285, 75 P.3d 1173, 1176 (2003) (quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 10, 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)). With respect to statutory interpretation, we have stated:

When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gepaya, 103 Hawai`i 142, 145, 80 P.3d 321, 324 (2003) (quoting Troyer v. Adams, 102 Hawai`i 399, 409, 77 P.3d 83, 93 (2003)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Overview of the Environmental Review Process

HRS § 343-1 (1993) states the purpose of HEPA:

The legislature finds that the quality of humanity's environment is critical to humanity's well being, that humanity's activities have broad and profound effects upon the interrelations of all components of the environment, and that an environmental review process will integrate the review of environmental concerns with existing planning processes of the State and counties and alert decision makers to significant environmental effects which may result from the implementation of certain actions. The legislature further finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole.

It is the purpose of this chapter 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.

We described HEPA's environmental review process in Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp.:

Once a proposed action is subject to the environmental review process, an environmental assessment is made by the applicant and is used to evaluate the...