|
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 /> [5]ROH§21-5.30 describes the purpose of country districts and enumerates four guidelines for identifying potential country district lands.It states:
<br /> (a)The purpose of the country district is to recognize and provide for areas with limited potential for agricultural activities but for which the open space or rural quality of agricultural lands is desired.The district is intended to
<br /> provide for some agricultural uses,low density residential development and some supporting services and uses.
<br /> (b)It is the intent that basic public services and facilities be available to support the district but that the full range of urban services at urban standards need not be provided.Typically,the country district would be applied to
<br /> areas outside the primary and secondary urban centers,which are identified by city adopted land use policies.
<br /> (c)The following guidelines shall be used to identify lands which may be considered for this district:
<br /> it)Lands which are within the State-designated Urban District and designated either agricultural or residential by adopted city land use policies.
<br /> (2)Lands which are not predominantly classified as Prime,Unique,or Other under the ATISH]system.
<br /> (3)Lands where a substantial number of existing parcels are less than two acres in size.
<br /> (4)Lands where existing public facility capabilities preclude more intense development.
<br /> (Emphasis added.).
<br /> [�J HRS§205-3(2001)slates that"[I]and use boundaries existing as of June 2,1975,shall continue in full force and effect subject to amendment as provided in this chapter[.]"HRS§205-3.1(2001)relates that"[d]istrict
<br /> boundary amendments involving land areas greater than fifteen acres shall be processed by the land use commission pursuant to section 205-4."In turn,HRS§205-4(2001)provides procedures and requirements for the
<br /> land use commission to follow in amending district boundaries.
<br /> [7]As noted before,HRS§205-2(a)states that there are four major land use districts,"urban,rural,agricultural,and conservation."HRS§205-2(b)states that"[u]rban districts shall include activities or uses as provided by
<br /> ordinances or regulations of the county within which the urban district is situated."
<br /> [8]In Lam Yip Lae. td.,70 Haw.at 182 767 P.2d at 817„this court explained that the 1973 Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu(Charter)was amended"for creation of eight'development plans'for the City
<br /> and County of Honolulu."Adevelopment plan is a"relatively detailed scheme[]for implementing and accomplishing the development objectives and policies of the general plan within the several parts of the city."Id.(citing
<br /> Charter§5-409).In addition,
<br /> [e]ach development plan consists of a textual component and a map component.The textual component contains statements of standards and principles with respect to land uses within the area,design principles and
<br /> controls,the desirable sequence of development,and other factors important to the orderly implementation of the General Plan.The development plan"Land Use Map"indicates the location of various uses such as
<br /> residential,recreation and parks,agricultural,commercial,military,and preservation.The"Public Facilities Map"shows the existing and future location of roads and streets,sewer lines and other proposed facilities.
<br /> Id.at 182,767 P.2d at 817-18(Citations omitted).Honolulu's general plan has been described as a long range plan setting forth various policies for new development.
<br /> Designed to cover a wide range of objectives,the Honolulu general plan is supposed to"set forth the city's broad policies for the long range development of the city,"addressing the general social,economic,environmental,
<br /> and design needs of the city.It includes within its purview policy and development objectives relating"to the distribution of social benefits,the most desirable uses of land within the city,the overall circulation pattern and the
<br /> most desirable population densities"within the city.The development plans are supposed to implement the general plan's goals.
<br /> D.Callies,Regulating Paradise:Land Use Controls in Hawaii 26(1984)(footnote omitted).
<br /> M Pursuant to HRS§205A-22(2001),a'"[s]pecial management area use permit'means an action by the authority authorizing development the valuation of which exceeds$125,000 or which may have a substantial
<br /> adverse environmental or ecological effect,taking into account potential cumulative effects."See also Curtis v.Board ofAgnaals.County of Hawai'i,90 Hawaii 384,389 n.5,978 P.2d 822,827 n 1999),.
<br /> H0]According to ROH§21-2.10(1990),there are two agricultural zones,"restricted"and"general"with the map designation of"AG-1"and"AG-2"respectively.
<br /> [11j HRS§141-1(8)states:
<br /> Planning and development.Administer a program of agricultural planning and development,including the formulation and implementation of general and special plans,including but not limited to the functional plan for
<br /> agriculture;administer the planning,development,and management of agricultural park projects;review,interpret,and make recommendations with respect to public policies and actions relating to agricullural land use;
<br /> assist in research,evaluation,development,enhancement,and expansion of local agricultural industries;and serve as liaison with other public agencies and private organizations for the above purposes.In the foregoing,
<br /> the department of agriculture shall act to conserve and protect agricultural lands,promote diversified agriculture,increase agricultural self-sufficiency,and ensure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands.
<br /> (Emphases added.).
<br /> [12]In Count I,Plaintiffs asserted that the City did not comply with the requirements of Article IX,section 3 of the Hawai'i State Constitution in its purported rezoning of Defendants'property and consequently they are entitled
<br /> to both declaratory and injunctive relief that would enjoin the rezoning.Count II of Plaintiffs complaint alleged that Obayashi's residential developmentwas inconsistent with the State's"agricultural"designation and the
<br /> Country Land Use Ordinance,and Plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the development under this"agricultural"land use classification.In Count III,Plaintiffs alleged that the City's actions
<br /> violated the State and County land use laws and ordinances.Counts IV and V purport that Defendants submitted an"agricultural duster"development which did not qualify as a"farm dwelling"within the meaning of HRS
<br /> Chapter 205 and violates Land Use Ordinance maximum density restrictions.Count VI asserts that the proposed"country"zoning is also inconsistent with State"agricultural"designation and violates the Land Use
<br /> Ordinance.Count VII maintained that the development plan amendment procedures violated the Land Use Ordinance and City Charter because it is unlawful to amend the plan"on an ad hoc basis prior to completion of the
<br /> Planning Director's pending biennial Development Plan review."To this end,count VIII also argued that the amendment and zoning procedures violated HRS§46-4(1993),because it was not"accomplished within the
<br /> framework of a long range,comprehensive general plan prepared or being prepared to guide the overall future development of the county."Count IX alleged that the permit application was insufficiently detailed to
<br /> adequately assess conditional uses of the project.And,finally,Count X asserted that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits,and thus Plaintiffs were entitled to interim injunctive relief in the
<br /> form of a temporary restraining order,preliminary injunction,or other appropriate interim relief.
<br /> [13]The Honorable Judge Daniel G.Heely presided over this matter.
<br /> [L4J An EIS is defined as"an informational document prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under section 343-6 and which discloses the environmental effects of a proposed action,effects of a proposed action an
<br /> the economic and social welfare of the community and Slate,effects of the economic activities arising out of the proposed action,measures proposed to minimize adverse effects,and alternatives to the action and their
<br /> environmental effects."HRS§343-2(1993).
<br /> [15]The Honorable Judge Colleen K.Hirai presided over the motions to dismiss and the motions for summary judgment.
<br /> [16]In its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,Obayashi stated that it had yet to comply with the requirements of ROH§21-8.30-6("Before the submission of a cluster housing,agricultural or country cluster
<br /> application,the applicant may undergo a 21 day conceptual review of the project by submitting a preliminary site plan drawn to scale showing the approximate location and dimensions of all proposed structures,roadways,
<br /> common open areas and recreational facilities.").See also ROH§21-5.50-3("All cluster housing applications shall be processed in accordance with Section 21-8.30-6.");ROH§21-5.30-3(b)("Country clusters shall be
<br /> processed in accordance with Section 21-8.30-6.").Presumably,the court made its conclusion based upon this submission.
<br /> In its answering brief on appeal,Obayashi additionally maintains that individual lots must be established by approving a subdivision of the property,see ROH§22-3.3("No person shall subdivide or consolidate any land
<br /> unless the plans therefor conform to the provisions of this article...and have been duly approved by the director."),grading and building permits must be approved,and approvals obtained for the specific items like a
<br /> wastewater treatment plant and campgrounds.
<br /> [17]The Honorable Karen K.Blondin presided over this trial.
<br /> [18]As noted by Obayashi,Plaintiffs do not challenge either the development plan amendment or the Special Management Area permit.
<br /> [19]Plaintiffs contest several findings and conclusions,insofar as they are supportive of the aforementioned arguments on appeal.Each of these challenged findings and conclusions is addressed with the related issue
<br /> discussed herein:(1)finding number 50,relating to the number of acres classified under the ALISH system,see infra note 22;(2)finding number 61,indicating that the guidelines in ROH§21-5.30(c)were utilized by the City
<br /> in approving the zoning change,see infa part VIII.;(3)finding number 64 stating that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the zoning change from agriculture to country was inconsistent or violated HRS
<br /> chapter 205,see infra part IX.;(4)conclusion number 5 maintaining that Bill 88 did not violate Article XI,Section 3 of the Hawai'i State Constitution,see infra part III.;and(5)conclusion number 6 ruling that Plaintiffs did not
<br /> demonstrate that the rezoning violated ROH§21-5.30 or HRS chapter 205,see infra parts VIII.-XIII.
<br /> `201 Conclusion number 5,see supra note 19,ruled that bill number 88 did not violate Article XI,Section 3 of the Hawai'i State Constitution.
<br /> [21]Act 273 stated,in pertinent part:
<br /> SECTION 2 State of Hawai'i land evaluation and site assessment commission....
<br /> (b)Purpose and operation.The commission shall identify,develop,and recommend for legislative adoption important agricultural lands pursuant to the land classification system specified in subsection(d)....
<br /> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3834089830730945441&q=regulates+permissible+land+uses&hl=en&as_sdt=4,12 9/11
<br />
|