|
1/28/24,3:08 PM Save Sunset Beach Coalition v.City and County of Honolulu,78 P.3d 1 -Haw:Supreme Court 2003-Google Scholar
<br /> On June 8,1995,Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging,in effect,the development plan amendment,the Special Management Area Permit,and the zoning
<br /> reclassification on both constitutional and statutory grounds and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief.[!-2I
<br /> On December 5,1995,a pretrial protective order was issued regarding a legal memorandum requested by the Plaintiffs from Obayashi,titled"State Agricultural District
<br /> Restrictions."LL3J This memorandum was listed as a reference in an environmental impact statement(EIS)114J prepared by University of Hawai'i Professor emeritus Dr.Frank
<br /> Scott on behalf of Obayashi.The court found that the memorandum was inadvertently disclosed to Dr.Scott,but held that the attorney-client privilege was not waived.
<br /> On October 10,1995,Obayashi filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as to all counts.On January 5,1996,the City filed a joinder in Obayashi's motion to dismiss
<br /> or for summary judgment.On January 9,1996,Plaintiffs filed a counter-motion for summary judgment.
<br /> On March 27,1996,an order of dismissal was granted regarding counts II,III,IV,and V of the Plaintiffs'complaint on the ground that the issues raised were"premature."IL5]In
<br /> $ the order,the court expressly concluded that"no formal development plan or permit application has been submitted or final agency action taken."I 3 The court also denied'8
<br /> Plaintiffs'request for a temporary restraining order.
<br /> On September 9,1997,a jury waived trialLL7J based on stipulated evidence was held on the remaining claims in the amended complaint,namely counts I,VI,VII,Vill,IX and
<br /> X.On October 15,1997,the court issued findings and conclusions in favor of Defendants-Appellees City and Obayashi(collectively Defendants)as to all the remaining counts.
<br /> On January 30,1998,final judgment was entered in favor of the City and Obayashi and against Plaintiffs.On February 4,1998,Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
<br /> 11.
<br /> On appeal,Plaintiffs contest only the City's rezoning of 765 acres of land from AG-2 to country designation for the 315 country lots by City Council bill number 88,112J and the
<br /> granting of the discovery order preventing the production of the legal memorandum prepared for Obayashi.Plaintiffs do not challenge the dismissal of counts II,III,IV,and V.
<br /> Plaintiffs raise essentially the following arguments:(1)the City's act of rezoning the land from agricultural to country was a quasi-judicial act and,thus,directly reviewable by
<br /> this court on a de novo basis;(2)Article XI,section 3 of the Hawai'i State Constitution is self-executing and requires a two-thirds majority vote to approve the zoning change;
<br /> (3)because no standards and criteria have been designated by the legislature pursuant to Article XI,section 3,no"important"agricultural lands may be rezoned;(4)there was
<br /> no requirement that the legislature specifically designate agricultural lands as"important"under Article XI,section 3,as the drafters intended to adopt standards published just
<br /> prior to the 1978 constitutional convention;(5)the Country zoning change conflicts with ROH§21-5.30(c);(6)the City's approval of country zoning exceeded statutory
<br /> authority granted it under HRS chapter 205 and was inconsistent with the State's agricultural district designation of the land;and(7)the court erred in issuing the December 5,
<br /> 1995 protective order.W'�
<br /> III.
<br /> A.
<br /> As to Plaintiffs'first argument on appeal,and in connection with the proper standard of review,we must decide whether rezoning of property by a county ordinance is a quasi-
<br /> judicial or legislative action.Plaintiffs argue that the rezoning affects only the property of Obayashi and accordingly the proposed changes should be subjected to a higher
<br /> standard of review.To support this contention,Plaintiffs cite an Oregon case which states that
<br /> 9 's[An a]ction is legislative when it affects a large area consisting of many parcels of property in disparate ownership....Conversely,action is considered quasi-judicial when it
<br /> applies a general rule to a specific interest,such as a zoning change affecting a single piece of property,a variance,or a conditional use permit.
<br /> Allison v Washington Co.,24 Or.App.571,548 P.2d 188,190-91 (1976)(quoting Fasano v.Board of County Commis,264 Or.574,507 P.2d 23(Or.1973),).Contrary to the
<br /> Plaintiffs'position,this standard appears applicable only to"spot zoning."This court has defined spot zoning as
<br /> an arbitrary zoning action by which a small area within a large area is singled out and specially zoned for a use classification different from and inconsistent with
<br /> the classification of the surrounding area and not in accord with[a]comprehensive plan.
<br /> Life of the Land v.City Council,61 Haw.390,429,606 P.2d 866,190(1980).The usual presumption of validity may not be accorded spot zoning because of the absence of
<br /> widespread community consideration of the matter.
<br /> [A]determination of the use of a specific and relatively small parcel will affect only the parcel owner and the immediate neighbors.When that is the case,limited
<br /> community interest will mean little or no public debate.This limited interest,in turn,elevates concern over whether the rights of the individuals affected are
<br /> adequately safeguarded,and deference is inappropriate.
<br /> J.C.Juergensmeyer,T.E.Roberts,Land Use Planning and Control Law 191(1998)(emphasis added).Here,however,there is no indication of arbitrariness or concern over
<br /> whether rights have been properly safeguarded,see Life of the Land,61 Haw.at 429,606 P.2d at 890,,inasmuch as the property encompasses a large area and substantial
<br /> public comment and deliberation took place.Therefore,further spot zoning analysis is unnecessary.
<br /> B.
<br /> The City rezones by ordinance.See HRS§46-4(1993)("Zoning shall be one of the tools available to the county to put the general plan prepared or being prepared to guide
<br /> the overall future development of the county.");see generally Charter§6-1514("The council shall,after public hearings,enact zoning ordinances which shall contain the
<br /> necessary provisions to carry out the purposes of the general plan and development plans.").Although this court has stated,in dictum,that rezoning is a"legislative action of
<br /> the city council,"Kailua Comty.Council v.City&County of Honolulu,60 Haw.428,432,591 P.2d 602,605(1979),we have never expressly held that rezoning is a legislative
<br /> function.We do so now.
<br /> In Lam Yip Kee,this court considered whether an ordinance adopted by the City altering the designation of a small parcel of property from high to low density apartment use
<br /> was valid.70 Haw.at 184-85,767 P.2d at 819.A second ordinance,passed by an initiative vote,not only redesignated the property on the development map,but also"down-
<br /> zoned"the property.Id.This second initiative was found to be invalid at the trial court level,and the City appealed this ruling.Id.
<br /> On appeal,the landowner argued that(1)the ordinance was not in conformity with the general plan because the council was merely a"rubber stamp"to the voter initiative and
<br /> thus did not comply with the Hawai'i State Planning Act,HRS Chapter 226;and(2)the ordinance was illegal"spot zoning,"because the surrounding areas contained high
<br /> density apartments.In holding that the original city council ordinance was valid,this court stated that"[t]he enactment of and amendments to development plans constitute
<br /> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3834089830730945441&q=regulates+permissible+land+uses&hl=en&as_sdt=4,12 2/11
<br />
|