Goo v. Mayor Alan Arakawa
| Decision Date | 19 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. SCWC–30142.,SCWC–30142. |
| Citation | 321 P.3d 655,132 Hawai'i 304 |
| Parties | Karen GOO, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Mayor Alan ARAKAWA, Successor–In–Interest to Mayor Charmaine Tavares, William Spence, Director of Planning, County of Maui, Successor–In–Interest to Director Jeff Hunt, County of Maui, Respondents/Defendants/Cross–Claim Defendants/Appellees/Cross–Appellants/Cross–Appellees, and VP and PK(ML) LLC, KCOM Corp., Defendants/Intervenor–Defendants/Cross–Claim Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross–Claimants/Appellees/Cross–Appellees/Cross–Appellants, and Kila Kila Construction, Defendant/Cross–Claim Defendant/Cross–Claimant, and (John G.) John G's Design & Construction, Inc., Defendant/Cross–Claimant/Cross–Claim Defendant, and New Sand Hills LLC., Respondent/Defendant/Intervenor-Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, and David B. Merchant; Joyce Takahashi ; Brian Takahashi, Defendants/Intervenor–Defendants, and Diane L. Reaser, et al., Defendants/Intervenor–Defendants/Counter–Claimants, and Hookai, LLC, Sandhills Estates Community Association, Respondents/Intervenors/Appellees/Cross–Appellees/Cross–Appellants, and Cheryl Cabebe, Gerry Riopta, and Melissa Riopta, Intervenor–Defendants/Appellees/Cross–Appellants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
David J. Gierlach, Honolulu, and Lance D. Collins, for petitioners.
Patrick K. Wong, Caleb P. Rowe, Brian T. Moto, and Jane E. Lovell (Madelyn S. D'Enbeau on the briefs), for respondents Mayor Alan Arakawa, Successor–in–Interest to Mayor Charmaine Tavares, William Spence, Director of Planning, County of Maui, Successor–in–Interest to Director Jeff Hunt, County of Maui.
Ronald T. Ogomori, Nathan H. Yoshimoto, Honolulu, and T.F. Mana Moriarty, for respondents New Sand Hills, LLC., VP and PK (ML), LLC., KCOM Corp., and Sandhills Estates Community Association.
This case addresses the issue of the procedure that an appellate court should follow when a case becomes moot on appeal and one party seeks vacatur of the lower court's judgment.
We hold that the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) erred in vacating the circuit court's judgments and December 31, 2008 Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment in this case and remanding the case for dismissal. In addition, we conclude that the ICA did not err in affirming the circuit court's denial of plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.
On Maui, approval of development projects is a three-phase process. Phase I involves approval of ordinances by the Maui County Council (Council) that include prescribing the height and density of structures to be built in a project. Phase II requires approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission. Phase III requires the approval of the final plat by the director of the Department of Planning. According to the Charter of the County of Maui, the director of the Department of Planning is charged with enforcing the zoning ordinances. Maui County Charter § 8–8.3(6).
Approval of subdivisions requires the approval of various state and county agencies. Ultimately the planning director can approve subdivisions if they "conform to ... the county general plan, community plans, land use ordinances, the provisions of the Maui County Code, and other laws relating to the use of land[.]" Maui County Code § 18.04.030 (1993).
At the time of the relevant events in this case, Title 19, Article II, of the Maui County Code (MCC), known as the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), stated that "[n]o building shall exceed two stories nor thirty feet in height." Prior to September 4, 1991, the CZO "definitions" section defined "height" as the "vertical distance from finished grade to the highest point of the finished roof surface[.]" (pre–1991 definition) (Emphasis added).
On September 29, 1988, an application was filed for Phase I approval of the Maui Lani Project District (MLPD). On June 20, 1990, the Council enacted Ordinance 1924, which constituted Phase 1 approval for the MLPD. MCC Chapter 19.78, which codified Ordinance 1924, restricted structures in residential sub-districts to "two-stories, not exceeding thirty feet."
On September 18, 1990, the MLPD received Phase II approval when the Maui Planning Commission approved the MLPD's preliminary plat site plan.
On September 4, 1991, the Council enacted Ordinance 2031 (Height Restriction Law), which changed the definition of "building height." "Height" was defined as "the vertical distance measured from a point on the top of a structure to a corresponding point directly below on the natural or finish grade, whichever is lower." (post–1991 definition) (Emphasis added).
The Height Restriction Law also provided definitions for "natural grade" and "finish grade." "Natural grade" was defined as "the existing grade or elevation of the ground surface which exists or existed prior to man-made alterations such as grading, grubbing, filling, or excavating." "Finish grade" was defined as "the final elevation of the ground surface after man-made alterations such as grading, grubbing, filing, or excavating have been made on the ground surface."
On October 18, 2003, the Sandhills Project within the MLPD received preliminary subdivision approval, and on March 12, 2004, it received Phase III approval. According to former Planning Director Michael Foley (Planning Director), "[t]he Planning Department reviewed the project relative to the finished grade and did not consider the effect of fill on building heights." In other words, the Planning Department did not calculate fill into the allowable building heights of structures in the MLPD.
On August 2, 2004, the Department of Public Works and Waste Management issued a Grading and Grubbing Permit for the Sandhills project that included a warning that adding fill to any lots would "reduce the allowable height to less than 30 feet from finished grade." On the same day, the Fairways project within the MLPD received preliminary subdivision approval. The preliminary subdivision approval letter for the Fairways project included a similar warning concerning the effect of fill on building heights.
On December 14, 2004, the Planning Director sent an "Interdepartmental Transmittal" rescinding the Planning Department's recommendation of Phase III approval for the Sandhills project based on the fact that the developers who were building the project had raised the finished grade of the project by adding tons of fill on top of the natural ground, and homes built on the fill could violate the Height Restriction Law because their rooftops would be higher than 30 feet from the lower natural grade.
On December 22, 2004, as a result of the rescission, representatives of the developers of the Sandhills and Fairways projects (collectively, "subject projects") had a private meeting with Mayor Alan Arakawa (Mayor), the Planning Director, and numerous representatives from various county agencies. At this meeting, the developers expressed their concerns about the County's application of the post–1991 definition of "height" to the MLPD and the County's "rescission" of final subdivision approval. The developers expressed their belief that Ordinance 1924, which had constituted Phase 1 approval for the MLPD, authorized the application of the pre–1991 definition of height, and the developers had already expended "substantial funds in conjunction with the Sandhills project."
As a result of this meeting and various internal communications, the Mayor orally advised the developers that the County "would continue to adhere to [the pre–1991 definition] to interpret the height restriction since the Sandhills and the Fairways Projects had already received Phase I and Phase
On May 31, 2005, the Mayor sent a letter to one of the developers confirming this oral agreement. The Mayor wrote that to resolve the conflict over the issue of developments using fill with regard to building projects, which were approved before the 1991 re-definition of height, "I made an administrative decision to allow the project to proceed with the building heights determined from the finished grade." The Mayor's letter went on to state, "Project District Phase III approval was granted based on this decision."
A copy of this letter was sent to the Planning Director on December 22, 2005, seemingly in response to the Planning Director's inquiry concerning the county's granting of Phase III approval for the Fairways project. By mid–2007, both the Sandhills and Fairways projects had received Phase III approval pursuant to the Mayor's decisions.
C.
On July 18, 2007, in response to the grading and compacting of "tons of dirt" allegedly over thirty feet high and a retaining wall of equal size "loom[ing]" over their houses and blocking their view planes over a "pleasant green valley," Karen Goo, et al. (Homeowners), filed a complaint against the Mayor and the Planning Director (collectively, "County") alleging that the Mayor had unlawfully exempted the subject projects from the Height Restriction Law. The complaint also alleged tort claims against the County, defendants VP and PK (ML), KCOM Corp. and, eventually, New Sand Hills (collectively, "Developers") alleging.1 Counts I and II sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the County to enforce the Height Restriction Law generally and specifically to projects in the MLPD.
On November 16, 2007, Homeowners filed a motion for partial summary judgment (MPSJ). Homeowners' MPSJ requested an order that the County enforce the Height Restriction Law definition of "height" on the subject projects, and Developers be required to remove any improvements made in violation of the CZO's post–1991 definition.
On December 28, 2007, Developers filed a motion to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawaiiusa Fed. Credit Union v. Monalim
...decline to deviate from the basic principle of law that fact-finding should be left to the fact-finder. See also Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 304, 317, 321 P.3d 655, 668 (2014) ("[A] trial court is better equipped than an appellate court operating at a distance to fashion equitable relief.")......
-
Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Ass'n v. Cnty. of Maui & Maui Cnty. Council
...233] (1994) , that, in general, ‘mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review.’ See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 302 [304], 314, 321 P.3d 655, 665 (2014) ." We further observed that, as a practical matter, the parties had stipulated to vacate one of t......
-
In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated July 17
...appellate review, it is not the function of the appellate court to conduct its own evidentiary analysis. See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 304, 317, 321 P.3d 655, 668 (2014) (holding that a fact-intensive inquiry is best handled by a trial court, not an appellate court, especially when the re......
-
Bridge Aina Le'A, LLC v. Haw. Land United Statese Comm'n, Civ. No. 11-00414 SOM-KJM
...the three prongs and is therefore not entitled to attorneys' fees under the private attorney general doctrine. See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Haw. 304, 318, 321 P.3d 655, 669 (2014) ("All three prongs must be satisfied by the party seeking attorneys' fees."). 1. Prong One: Vindication of a Public ......