Opinion ID: 1251866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: limitation of record on appeal

Text: Oceanview argues that the superior court erred in excluding from the record on appeal the proceedings and decision in Royal Krest Construction, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, No. 3 AN 78-7612 Civ. (3d Dist.Super.Ct., Feb. 25, 1980). In that case, Royal Krest asked for and was denied permission to expand the Flying Crown airstrip by extending taxiways from the airstrip into the Oceanview North Subdivision. The superior court held that the Board's finding that expansion and development of the Flying Crown airstrip would create safety problems was reasonably supported by the record. Oceanview contends that because it supplied the record of Royal Krest to the Board, the case should have been included in the record on appeal to the superior court. While we agree that any matter submitted to an administrative agency involved in an adjudicative proceeding may be included in the record on appeal, we find that the superior court's error was harmless. On appeal from an administrative appeal to the superior court we review the merits of the administrative determination directly, except to the extent that supplemental evidentiary proceedings have taken place in the superior court. National Bank of Alaska v. State, Department of Revenue, 642 P.2d 811, 816 (Alaska 1982). We have reviewed the excluded material in light of appellant's substantive contentions and find that it has no bearing on them.