|
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 /> 78 P.3d 1(2003)
<br /> 102 Hawai'i 465
<br /> SAVE SUNSET BEACH COALITION; Life of the Land; Larry McElheny;Benjamin Hopkins;and Peter Cole,Plaintiffs-Appellants,
<br /> V.
<br /> The CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU;Obayashi Corporation;and Obayashi Hawa['i Corporation,Defendants-Appellees.
<br /> No.21332.
<br /> Supreme Court of Hawaii.
<br /> October 20,2003.
<br /> 4 *4 William W.Saunders,Jr.and James J.Bickerton,Honolulu,(Bickerton Saunders Dang&Bouslog),on the briefs,for plaintiffs-appellants.
<br /> Jane Howell,Deputy Corporation Counsel,City&County of Honolulu,on the briefs,for defendant-appellee The City&County of Honolulu.
<br /> John T.Komeiji,Lyle Y.Harada,&Lloyd S.Yoshioka(Watanabe,Ing&Kawashima),on the briefs,for defendants-appellees Obayashi Corporation&Obayashi Hawai'i
<br /> Corporation.
<br /> MOON,C.J.,LEVINSON,NAKAYAMA,ACOBA,and DUFFY,JJ.
<br /> Opinion of the Court by ACOBA,J.
<br /> We hold that in connection with the complaint filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants Save Sunset Beach Coalition,Life of the Land,U]Larry McElheny,Benjamin Hopkins,and Peter
<br /> Cole(Plaintiffs),the first circuit court(the court)correctly applied the propositions stated below except for the last two;the effect of such error,however,was harmless.
<br /> First,the rezoning[21 by Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu(the City)of 765 acres of land located on the North Shore of Oahu and designated for"agricultural
<br /> use M to a"country district"designationM was a legislative act and thus is accorded deference on judicial appeal.Accordingly,the opponents of such a rezoning must
<br /> demonstrate that the rezoning was"arbitrary,unreasonable or invalid[,]"Lum Yip Kee v City and County of Honolulu,70 Haw.179,187,767 P.2d 815,820(1989),in order to
<br /> have the rezoning vacated or reversed.Second,Article A,section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution,which pertains to the preservation of agricultural lands and requires a
<br /> two-thirds vote to approve any reclassification or rezoning of such lands,is not self-executing.Third,the four guidelines in a City zoning ordinance,ROH§21-5.30(c),151 which
<br /> 5 concern*5 the identification of so called"country district"lands,are directory and not mandatory.Fourth,the uses within a City designated"Country"zone may not be broader
<br /> than the permitted uses authorized by HRS§205-4.5(2001),but may be more restrictive.Fifth,the specific issue of whether the uses permitted in country zoning as applied in
<br /> this case is not ripe for review.Finally,whether an attorney-client privilege has been waived through an inadvertent disclosure of a protected item is judicially determined
<br /> through a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the disclosure.
<br /> Accordingly,for the reasons stated herein,we affirm the court's January 30,1998 final judgment.
<br /> I.
<br /> A.
<br /> Plaintiffs oppose a proposed residential development on state-designated agricultural district lands located on bluffs overlooking Sunset Beach.The land in question consists
<br /> of several large parcels owned by Defendants-Appellees Obayashi Corporation and Obayashi Hawai'i Corporation(Obayshi).The total size of this area is approximately
<br /> 1143.6 acres.The land itself is generally depicted as two plateaus,divided by cliffs and ravines.Obayashi attests that several types of intensive commercial farming were
<br /> previously attempted on this property,but were abandoned due to"steep terrain,poor access,lack of appropriate irrigation,and the isolated pockets of good agricultural land."
<br /> In December of 1993,Obayashi proposed the development,designated as the"Lihi Lani Project,"wherein agricultural activity would be integrated with 315 large acre country
<br /> lots;fifty single family homes;eighty elderly rental units;fifty residences;a YMCAfacility;and a variety of trails,parks,and open space.Of interest on this appeal,each
<br /> proposed country lot contains land designated as an"agricultural easement,"to be used for field stock and fruit trees.In addition,a profit sharing agreement is planned for the
<br /> sale of agricultural products from the remaining acres,which are reserved solely for agricultural use.Plaintiffs contend that the proposed homes on these lots are expensive
<br /> ranch-style houses,contrary to the intent of an agriculture district designation.
<br /> On October 26,1994,the state Land Use Commission(LUC)approved a land use district boundary amendmen0l that reclassified 57.3 acres of the property from agricultural
<br /> to urban land use district.L1 This approval is uncontested in the instant case.
<br /> 6 *6 Before development could begin,Obayashi attempted to obtain from the City and County of Honolulu(the City)an amendment to the North Shore Development Plan Use
<br /> Map,10 a Special Management Area Permit for 28 acres of land for the proposed elderly housing and the YMCAfacility,121 and a zoning reclassification of several hundred
<br /> acres of land from general agriculture(also known as"AG-2")t of to country designation.The State Department of Agriculture,pursuant to HRS§141-1(8)(1993),IL1 is
<br /> charged with reviewing and making recommendations with respect to agricultural planning and development.It submitted a letter to the City stating that Lihi Lani project was
<br /> "progressive"and more agriculturally defined then most approved agricultural subdivisions.After reviewing the proposed development,the City Planning Department and the
<br /> City Department of Land Utilization recommended approval.Thereafter,several public hearings were held before the City Council at Honolulu Hale,and at the Kapolei and
<br /> Haleiwa Elementary Schools.The City Council heard hours of testimony,including that of Plaintiffs.
<br /> On May 19,1995,five days before the City Council voted on the proposed change,Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the court.Copies of this complaint were circulated to the City
<br /> Council on the same day,as well as a letter from Plaintiffs'attorney suggesting that the City Council postpone its final vote on the Lihi Lani project so that the land use laws
<br /> could be more closely studied in the hopes of"avoid[ing]a protracted legal battle."
<br /> 7 *7 On May 24,1995,the City Council passed,by a 5-to4 vote,bill number 89 granting a development plan amendment,resolution number 94-232 approving a SMA permit,
<br /> and bill number 88 to rezone 765 acres from AG-2 to country designation.
<br /> B.
<br /> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3834089830730945441&q=regulates+permissible+land+uses&hl=en&as_sdt=4,12 1/11
<br />
|