Source: http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2012/11/guest-post-status-of-appeal-of-land-use-commissions-hoopili-approval.html
Timestamp: 2015-02-01 11:37:48
Document Index: 668659230

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 91', '§91', '§205', '§91', '§205', '§205', '§91']

inversecondemnation.com: Guest Post: Status Of Appeal Of Land Use Commission's Hoopili Approval
« More Amicus Briefs In Koontz: Nollan/Dolan Apply To All Exactions |
| HAWICA: Water Commission Needs To Conduct Constested Case When Amending Instream Flow Standards »
Earlier this year, the Hawaii Land Use Commission granted
district boundary amendments (Under Hawaii's statewide zoning, a "boundary amendment" is a reclassification of land, similar to a rezoning) effecting the reclassification
of land from the "agricultural" district to the "urban" district for Castle &
Cooke Homes’ proposed Koa Ridge development, and for Horton-Schuler Homes’
proposed Ho`opili development, both sited on agricultural land on Oahu. The Hawaii chapter of the Sierra Club filed agency appeals in both cases to the Hawaii Circuit Court of the
First Circuit (1-CC-12-1-001999 and 1-CC-12-1-002000). We aren't commenting on these cases because we've got a stake in the game (our partner Greg Kugle is lead counsel for one of the parties), but our old friend Paul
Schwind has agreed to pinch hit. He recently attended the first day in court, and his report follows. Since we're involved in this case, our usual disclaimer is probably more applicable than usual: these aren't our words, our thoughts, or those of our clients.
Status of Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter’s Agency Appeal of Land Use
Commission District Boundary Amendment for Horton-Schuler Homes’ Ho`opili
In keeping with a long tradition in Hawaii that land use cases are litigated
in court on procedural rather than substantive grounds, the opening skirmish in
Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter et al. v. D.
R. Horton-Schuler Homes LLC et al. (1CC-12-1-002000; Haw. 1st Cir. 2012) was fought over whether one of the parties’ appeal in the case
should be disallowed. Sierra Club Hawaii
Chapter had been granted intervenor status during the Land Use Commission’s
(LUC) quasi-judicial hearings on developer Horton-Schuler Homes’ petition for
district boundary amendment from agricultural to urban. On July 20, 2012, Sierra Club filed an appeal
of the LUC’s decision and order granting the land use reclassification, within
the 30 days prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act for requesting
judicial review of a contested case administrative hearing (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14). Another intervenor, Friends of Makakilo,
filed a "cross-appeal" on August 2, 2012, beyond the statutory deadline for an agency
appeal. Horton-Schuler and the LUC moved
to dismiss Makakilo’s cross-appeal; the City and County of Honolulu Department
of Planning and Permitting (DPP) and the State Office of Planning (OP),
respectively, joined in these motions to dismiss. On October 9, Judge Rhonda Nishimura heard
argument on the motions and opposition thereto and issued her ruling orally;
the written Order drafted by counsel for the lead prevailing party
(Horton-Schuler) was filed on November 9.
Judge Nishimura began by setting the context for the parties as the
interplay among Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 72 and 81 (re appeals to a circuit court), Hawaii
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4.1 (re cross-appeals), and pertinent case law. She asked counsel for the parties to address
(1) the time limits for cross-appeals, and (2) what is an "aggrieved" party
that can claim standing for an appeal.
Sarah Hirakami opened for the LUC by arguing that cross-appeals are
not allowed under HRS §91-14. Although
Makakilo intervened at the agency level and is an automatic appellee, HRAP Rule
1(b) (re rules not to affect
jurisdiction) does not extend the jurisdiction of the circuit court to
entertain a cross-appeal in cases such as this. Jurisidiction here is governed by the scope of intervention allowed to
parties in an LUC proceeding under the Land Use Law (HRS §205-4(e)) and the
right of appeal under HRS §91-14 from the outcome of a proceeding (HRS
§205-4(i)).
Gregory Kugle followed for Horton-Schuler by arguing that
notwithstanding HRAP Rule 2.1 (re
appliability of other court rules in the appellate courts), HRAP itself applies
only in the appellate courts (i.e.,
not in the circuit courts acting on an agency appeal); therefore, cross-appeals
are not allowed in the circuit courts. Further, an aggrieved party during an LUC proceeding is limited to the
30-day right of appeal set forth under HRS §205-4(i) and HRS §91-14. Jordan
v. Hamada, 643 P.2d 73, 75-76 (Haw. 1982) is directly on point (appellant must be a "person aggrieved" by a decision and order in a contested case, and must have
participated in the agency hearing in that case). In the Schuler-Homes LUC docket, Friends of
Makakilo was allowed to intervene on five specific issues as a group
representing neighborhood interests. Their cross-appeal goes far beyond that into areas in which they have no
interest as a "person aggrieved." Judge
Nishimura added that for standing to lie, an aggrieved party must be
specifically, personally, and adversely affected by the agency decision from
which appeal is taken. See, e.g., In re Hawaiian Electric Co., 535 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Haw. 1975).
Linda Paul responded for Friends of Makakilo that cross-appeals are not appeals. Just because HRCP Rule 72 does
not mention cross-appeals does not mean they are not allowed. In arguing that cross-appeal is a
constitutional right of due process under the separation of powers doctrine,
Ms. Paul cited to Alakai na Keiki, Inc. v.
Matayoshi, 277
P.3d 988, 1008 (Haw. 2012) (the power to adjudicate disputes is
constitutionally conferred upon the courts; accordingly, judicial review is
available to resolve a procurement dispute between a vendor and the Department
of Education, even where certain "exclusive" judicial powers have been
statutorily delegated to the DOE).
[Note: this decision makes no
mention of cross-appeals.] She further
cited to E & J Lounge Operating Co.,
Inc. v. Liquor Comm'n of City and County of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432, 439 and
n.14 (Haw. 2008) (intervenors filed a notice of cross-appeal to the
Intermediate Court of Appeals following the Liquor Commission’s notice of
appeal from the decision and order of the circuit court; pursuant to HRAP Rule
4.1, every other party’s appeal after the first is designated as a cross-appeal). [Note: this decision refers to cross-appeals at the appellate level, not in a
circuit court.] At this point, Judge
Nishimura asked, what is the legal basis for cross-appeal under HRS Chapter 91
and the HRCP? Without answering that
question, Ms. Paul responded that Makakilo is a "person aggrieved" under the
five issues for which they were allowed to intervene; for example, they
provided testimony to the LUC as to the personal impact of increased traffic
In rejoinder, Mr. Kugle referred
to Ka Pa`akai o Ka`aina v. Land Use Comm’n, 7
P.3d 1068, 1076 (Haw. 2000), in which several parties each filed timely
agency appeals which were then subsequently consolidated by the circuit court;
there were no "cross-appeals" at the circuit court level. This court need not reach the "person
aggrieved" question, although traffic impact is not personal or specific. Bottom line, Makakilo did not file a timely
appeal within the mandatory 30 days.
Judge Nishimura then announced
her ruling as soon as the parties concluded their arguments. She granted the motions to dismiss Makakilo’s
cross-appeal, reasoning that Makakilo, as an intervenor, had the right to file
a timely agency appeal under Chapter 91 but did not do so. Having thus dismissed the cross-appeal, she indicated
that the question whether Makakilo had been specifically, personally, and
adversely affected (by the LUC decision and order approving Horton-Schuler’s
Ho`opili development) did not fall within the ambit of her ruling.
proceeding? If you fail to timely file a
pleading in court, it is best not to rely on inapposite case law and avoid
answering the judge’s direct question while attempting to justify your lapse of