Opinion ID: 2646157
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any procedure in a contested case may be

Text: modified or waived by stipulation of the parties. § 13-1-29 Request for hearing. (a) On its own motion, the board may hold a contested case hearing. Others must both request a contested case and petition the board to hold a contested case hearing. An oral or written request for a contested case hearing must be made to the board no later than the close of the board meeting at which the subject matter of the request is scheduled for board disposition. An agency or person so requesting a contested case must also file (or mail a postmarked) written petition with the board for a contested case no later than ten calendar days after the close of the board meeting at which the matter was scheduled for disposition. For good cause, the time for making the oral or written request or submitting a written petition or both may be waived. (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 13- 25  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  1-31.1,[6] the formal written petition for a contested case hearing shall contain concise statements of:
interest that may be affected by board action on the subject matter that entitles the requestor to participate in a contested case;
with an application before the board;
the requestor deems itself entitled;
serve the public interest; and
board in determining whether the requestor meets the criteria to be a party pursuant to section 13-1-31. As we noted in the factual background of this case, KOH first submitted a written petition for a contested case hearing on May 24, 2010; it resubmitted that petition on July 8, 2010 after a pro forma denial by a person at DLNR who apparently did not have authority to reject the original petition. The May 24, 2010 petition, which appears in the record, contains the “concise statements” required by HAR § 13-1-29(b). KOH also made an oral request for a contested case hearing at the August 26, 2010 public hearing in Pukalani, Maui; aside from that request, we also note that at the public hearing, KOH “testified in opposition to the project, citing its impacts on resources in the conservation district[.]” Moreover, after the vote to grant the permit passed at the December 1, 2010 board meeting but before the close of the 6 HAR § 13-1-31.1 applies to hearings concerning violations of the administrative rules and does not apply to a permitting situation as in the present case. 26  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  meeting, KOH made yet another oral request for a contested case hearing pursuant to HAR § 13-1-29(a). The next day, December 2, 2010, KOH filed yet another written petition with BLNR requesting a contested case hearing, also pursuant to HAR § 13-1-29(a). There is no question that KOH did all it could, both prior to and following BLNR’s decision on the permit, to comply with the agency’s rules for requesting a contested case hearing. 4. KOH has standing to appeal because it has sufficiently alleged injury to its interests The final prong of the PASH/Kaleikini test “requires that the claimant’s legal interests must have been injured -- i.e., the claimant must have standing to appeal.” Kaleikini, 124 Hawai#i at 26, 237 P.3d at 1092 (citing PASH, 79 Hawai#i at 431, 903 P.2d at 1252). We evaluate standing using the “‘injury in fact’ test requiring: ‘(1) an actual or threatened injury, which, (2) is traceable to the challenged action, and (3) is likely to be remedied by favorable judicial action.’” Ka Pa#akai O Ka#Aina v. Land Use Comm’n, 94 Hawai#i 31, 42, 7 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2000) (quoting Citizens for the Prot. of the N. Kohala Coastline v. Cnty. of Haw., 91 Hawai#i 94, 100, 979 P.2d 1120, 1126 (1999)). However, in cases involving native Hawaiian and environmental interests, we have been especially concerned that the doctrine of standing not serve as a barrier to a plaintiff’s legitimate 27  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  claims: With regard to native Hawaiian standing, this court has stressed that “the rights of native Hawaiians are a matter of great public concern in Hawai[#]i.” Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 614, 837 P.2d 1247, 1268 (1992), certiorari denied, 507 U.S. 918, 113 S. Ct. 1277, 122 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1993). Our “fundamental policy [is] that Hawaii’s state courts should provide a forum for cases raising issues of broad public interest, and that the judicially imposed standing barriers should be lowered when the “needs of justice” would best be served by allowing a plaintiff to bring claims before the court.” Id. at 614-15, 837 P.2d at 1268-69 (citing Life of the Land v. The Land Use Comm’n [(Life of the Land II)], 63 Haw. 166, 176, 623 P.2d 431, 441 (1981)). We have also noted that, “where the interests at stake are in the realm of environmental concerns[,] ‘we have not been inclined to foreclose challenges to administrative determinations through restrictive applications of standing requirements.’” Citizens, 91 Hawai#i at 100-01, 979 P.2d at 1126-27 (quoting Mahuiki v. Planning Commission, 65 Haw. 506, 512, 654 P.2d 874, 878 (1982) (quoting Life of the Land [II], 63 Haw. at 171, 623 P.2d at 438))). Indeed, “[o]ne whose legitimate interest is in fact injured by illegal action of an agency or officer should have standing because justice requires that such a party should have a chance to show that the action that hurts his interest is illegal.” Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 512-13, 654 P.2d at 878 (quoting East Diamond Head Association v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 52 Haw. 518, 523 n.5, 479 P.2d 796, 799 n.5 (1971) (citations omitted)). See also Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 515, 654 P.2d at 880 (those who show aesthetic and environmental injury are allowed standing to invoke judicial review of an agency’s decision under HRS chapter 91 where their interests are “personal” and “special,” or where a property interest is also affected) (citing Life of the Land v. Land Use Commission [(Life of Land I)], 61 Haw. 3, 8, 594 P.2d 1079, 1082 (1979)); Akau v. Olohana Corporation, 65 Haw. 383, 390, 652 P.2d 1130, 1135 (1982) (an injury to a recreational interest is an injury in fact sufficient to constitute standing to assert the rights of the public for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief); Life of the Land [II], 63 Haw. at 176-77, 623 P.2d at 441 (group members had standing to invoke judicial intervention of LUC’s decision “even though they are neither owners nor adjoining owners of land reclassified by the Land Use Commission in [its] boundary review”); Life of the Land [I], 61 Haw. at 8, 594 P.2d at 1082 (group members who lived in vicinity of reclassified 28  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  properties and used the subject area for “diving, swimming, hiking, camping, sightseeing, horseback riding, exploring and hunting and for aesthetic, conservational, occupational, professional and academic pursuits,” were specially, personally and adversely affected by LUC’s decision for purposes of HRS § 91-14). Id. at 42-43, 7 P.3d at 1079-80; see also Mottl v. Miyahira, 95 Hawai#i 381, 393, 23 P.3d 716, 728 (2001) (“To date, the appellate courts of this state have generally recognized public interest concerns that warrant the lowering of standing barriers in two types of cases: those pertaining to environmental concerns and those pertaining to native Hawaiian rights.”). In its petition to BLNR requesting a contested case hearing and in its statement of the case on agency appeal to the circuit court, KOH emphasized that its members have used the Haleakalâ summit area to engage in traditional and customary practices as well as enjoy the views, natural beauty, and quiet of the area and thus allege that construction of the proposed facilities will directly and adversely affect their ability to engage in traditional and customary practices and enjoy the area. Due to the procedural history of this case, in which the requested contested case hearing was not held prior to approving the permit and the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss KOH’s agency appeal, we are bound, even on further appeal, to deem KOH’s factual allegations as true. See, e.g., Buscher v. Boning, 114 Hawai#i 202, 212, 159 P.3d 814, 824 (2007) (“A trial 29  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. The court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff . . . .” (internal citations omitted)). Because we must accept KOH’s assertions as true, we must conclude that KOH had standing to pursue its HRS § 91-14 appeal based on the threatened injury to its Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices and to its aesthetic and environmental interests in the summit area. See, e.g., Kaleikini, 124 Hawai#i at 26, 237 P.3d at 1092; Mottl, 95 Hawai#i at 393, 23 P.3d at 728; Ka Pa#akai, 94 Hawai#i at 42-43, 7 P.3d at 1079-80; Citizens, 91 Hawai#i at 100-01, 979 P.2d at 1126-27; PASH, 79 Hawai#i at 434 & n.15, 903 P.2d at 1255 & n.15; Pele Def. Fund, 73 Haw. at 614-15, 837 P.2d at 1268-69; Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 515-16, 654 P.2d at 880; Life of the Land II, 63 Haw. at 176-77, 623 P.2d at 441; Life of the Land I, 61 Haw. at 8, 594 P.2d at 1082. Accordingly, KOH has met this final requirement, and thus has met all of the requirements, of the PASH/Kaleikini test. We therefore conclude that BLNR should have held a contested case hearing as required by law and requested by KOH prior to decision making on UH’s application, and that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear KOH’s HRS § 91-14 agency appeal. 30  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER