Case Title: Hall v. City and County of Honolulu

Citation: 530 P.2d 737

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1975-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
530 P.2d 737 (1975) Elizabeth S. HALL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Henry A. Blakstad and Astrid N. Blakstad, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Florence TOYOSHIBA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 5467. Supreme Court of Hawaii. January 16, 1975. *738 Ted T. Tsukiyama, Honolulu (Keith J. Steiner. Padgett, Greeley, Marumoto & Steiner, Honolulu, of counsel, with him on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants. Robert M. Rothwell, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., KOBAYASHI, OGATA and MENOR, JJ., and SHINTAKU, Circuit Judge, assigned by reason of vacancy. KOBAYASHI, Justice. Appellants appeal from the judgment of the trial court wherein the court held Ordinance No. 3443, amending the General Plan with regards to certain portion of Diamond Head area from residential and apartments to parks and recreation, as valid. We reverse. The question is whether, in enacting Ordinance No. 3443,[1] the appellee observed the strict procedural requirements of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu as construed by this court in Dalton v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 400, 462 P.2d 199 (1969). In brief the pertinent facts are: 1. The General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu was adopted by Ordinance No. 2443 effective May 7, 1964. The subject Diamond Head area was designated primarily residential with a small portion designated for apartment usage. 2. On May 4, 1967, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a proposal to adopt a detailed land use map and development plan for the Waikiki-Diamond Head area upon published notice so stating. The detailed land use map showed no plans for a public park for the subject Diamond Head area. 3. On December 12, 1967, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting a detailed land use plan and a development plan for the subject area, but the matter was taken under advisement by the Council. 4. On April 8, 1969, the mayor transmitted to the City Council the First Report and Recommendation of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Diamond Head, recommending the subject Diamond Head area be saved for park use; and further requested the Council for a moratorium on all building permits in the subject area and to immediately acquire the "Diamond Head Seas Condominium", belonging to certain of the appellants, for park purposes. 5. On May 27, 1969, the City Council requested of the Planning Department and Parks Department to confer with community groups "to formulate proposals for a development plan of the Waikiki-Diamond *739 Head area to be presented to the City Council for approval within 8 months." 6. On June 17, 1969, the Planning Director and Parks Director forwarded to the City Council a communication entitled "Proposed Diamond Head-Waikiki Planning Program" which set forth text criteria for "study areas", "immediate objective", "long range objectives", "major study elements", "time of completion", "study participants" and "study procedures". The communication stated that "nine months will be required to accomplish the planning studies set forth herein." 7. On June 17, 1969, the City Council held a public hearing upon published notice which stated the following purpose: 8. On June 20, 1969, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 239 requesting the Planning Director and Planning Commission to submit their recommendation on the proposed change in the General Plan for the subject Diamond Head area by changing the land use designated from residential to park use. 9. On July 10, 1969, the Planning Director issued two memoranda to the Planning Commission, one of which recommended that the General Plan for the subject Diamond Head area be changed to parks and recreation and the other recommended that the General Plan for the subject area be changed from residential and apartment to parks and recreation. 10. On the same date, July 10, 1969, without any public hearing and without any discussion, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the General Plan. 11. On August 5, 1969, the City Council passed on third reading Bill No. 102 amending the General Plan for the subject Diamond Head area to park use by a vote of 5 to 3, with one member absent. Thereafter Bill No. 102 was immediately signed by the mayor as Ordinance No. 3443. The following are the relevant portions of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu as they existed in 1969 (prior to the amendment presently in effect): On the above mentioned relevant facts and laws the trial court reached the following pertinent conclusions of law: We are of the opinion that the trial court has clearly erred in both conclusions of law. 1. The trial court has failed to take into consideration the important difference that exists between the General Plan and the Development Plan, and the difference between the General Plan and the Detailed Land Use Map. Clearly, under Charter Section 5-509 (1969), the General Plan provides, inter alia, designated specific use of the land available within the City of Honolulu. The Development Plan, under Charter Section 5-510 (1969), merely provides the "detailed scheme for the placement or use of specific facilities within a defined area so as to insure the most beneficial use of such area... . A development plan is within the framework of and implements the general plan." (Emphasis added.) Evidence adduced at the trial shows that the Detailed Land Use Map merely provides in more detail the specific boundaries of the various land use activities shown on the General Plan. 2. The trial court further erred by equating studies on and public hearings of proposals for a development plan and/or of detailed land use map with the necessary, comprehensive and long-range studies of and public hearings on proposals for an amendment of the General Plan covering the subject area. In the instant case the various studies introduced into evidence dealt with proposals of a development plan and/or of detailed land use map and not with studies of a proposition for the amendment of the General Plan. The facts further show, as stated in the communication of the Planning Director and Parks Director, dated June 17, 1969, and the published notice to the public of the City Council for its hearing of June 17, 1969, that a time period of seven to nine months from June 17, 1969, was necessary for the preparation of a comprehensive and long-range study for the proper consideration of an amendment to the general plan of the subject area. No such study was ever submitted and considered before the enactment of the amendment to the General Plan. 3. The trial court further erred in concluding that the required public hearing was held prior to the enactment of the ordinance amending the General Plan. None of the three public hearings (the City Planning Commission hearing of May 4, 1967; the City Council hearing of December 12, 1967; and the City Council hearing of June 17, 1969) relied upon by the trial judge, as conforming to the procedural requirements, dealt with a proposal to amend the General Plan covering the subject area. The published notices of a public hearing limited the hearing, essentially, for adoption of a proposal or changes of a Development Plan and/or of a Detailed Land Use Map of the subject area. The hearings were not only stale but clearly failed to meet the required hearing for an amendment of the General Plan. The Planning Commission at no time, after a duly noticed public hearing, submitted a recommendation to the City Council for an amendment of the General Plan covering the subject area. We are of the opinion that Ordinance No. 3443 was enacted in violation of the essential procedural requirements of the applicable charter provisions as construed in Dalton v. City and County of Honolulu, supra. Clearly, the necessary procedural requirements have not been met. The following requisites are missing: 1. An updated comprehensive and long-range study of the General Plan and of any amendments thereto; 2. A public hearing by the Planning Commission duly noticed to the public and so held for the amendment of the General Plan in question. [1] Ordinance No. 3443, Section I, reads: SECTION I. A portion of the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu at Leahi, more commonly known as Diamond Head, is hereby amended by changing the land uses within the said area as follows: 1. Redesignating Residential areas totaling approximately 29.29 acres to Parks and Recreation; and 2. Redesignating Apartment areas totaling approximately 6.80 acres to Parks and Recreation, all as shown on the map attached hereto marked Exhibit A, and by reference made a part hereof.