Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Com'n
| Decision Date | 17 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 22564.,22564. |
| Citation | 105 Haw. 296,97 P.3d 372 |
| Parties | LANAI COMPANY, INC., Appellant-Appellee, v. LAND USE COMMISSION and Lanaians for Sensible Growth, Appellees-Appellants and Office of State Planning and County of Maui Planning Department, Appellees-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Russell A. Suzuki and James J.S. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for appellee-appellant Land Use Commission.
Alan T. Murakami and Carl C. Christensen (Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation), on the briefs, Honolulu, for appellee-appellant Lanaians for Sensible Growth.
Gary W. Zakian, Deputy Corporation Counsel, County of Maui, on the briefs, for appellee-appellee County of Maui.
Bruce L. Lamon and Ellen Cirangel (Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel), on the briefs, Honolulu, for appellant-appellee Lanai Company, Inc.
In this appeal, Appellees-Appellants Land Use Commission (the LUC) and Lanaians for Sensible Growth (Sensible Growth) contest the April 26, 1997 order of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (the court)1 reversing the LUC's May 17, 1996 order (1996 Order) which, inter alia, required Appellant-Appellee Lanai Company, Inc. (LCI)(1) to immediately cease and desist any use of water from the high level aquifer for irrigation of the Manele golf course on the island of Lanai pursuant to Condition 10 of its April 6, 1991 Order (1991 Order) and (2) to file a detailed plan with the LUC within sixty days, specifying how it will comply with the LUC's 1991 Order requiring water use from alternative non-potable water sources outside of the high level aquifer. For the reasons set forth herein, we (1) hold that Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 52(a) does not apply to a circuit court's review in an appeal from an agency decision; (2) affirm the court's conclusion that the LUC's 1996 Order was clearly erroneous to the extent it interpreted Condition No. 10 of its 1991 Order as precluding the use by LCI of "any" or all water from the high level aquifer; and (3) remand the case to the court, with instructions that the court remand this case to the LUC for clarification of its findings, or for further hearings if necessary, on the issue of whether LCI used potable water from the high level aquifer in violation of Condition No. 10.
On November 29, 1989, LCI's predecessor in interest, Lanai Resort Partners,2 petitioned the LUC to amend the land use district boundary at Manele, on the island of Lanai, from rural and agricultural districts to an urban district.3 LCI planned to develop an eighteen-hole golf course as an amenity of the Manele Bay Hotel. On October 10, 1990, Sensible Growth, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), and LCI signed a memorandum of agreement (the Agreement).4 It appears from the record that the Agreement was included as Appendix K of the Manele Golf Course and Golf Residential Project Environmental Impact Statement (Environmental Impact Statement or EIS), "accepted by the Maui Planning Commission as an accurate environmental disclosure document."5 The Agreement provided in relevant part that LCI, in "consideration of the mutual promises and agreements" between the parties, agreed to "[e]nsure that no high level ground water aquifer [[6] will be used for golf course maintenance or operation (other than as water for human consumption) and that all irrigation of the golf course shall be through alternative non-potable water sources."
Sensible Growth and LCI submitted proposed findings of fact (findings), conclusions of law (conclusions), and orders, in February of 1991.7 Sensible Growth's proposed order recommended that the LUC impose a condition that "no high level ground water aquifer will be used for golf course maintenance or operation (other than water for human consumption) and that all irrigation of the golf course shall be through alternative non-potable water sources."
By the 1991 Order, the LUC granted LCI's petition. The LUC made the following relevant findings, conclusions, and Decision and Order (order), describing, inter alia, the sources of water for golf course irrigation and granting reclassification of the land:
(Emphases added.)
Subsequent to the reclassification of the land and pursuant to the 1991 Order, the Maui County Council (the County Council), on February 17, 1993, submitted a letter to then-Mayor Linda Crockett Lingle (Mayor Lingle). The County Council noted that "[LCI] ha[d] gone to the [LUC] and stated that water [would] be needed from the high level aquifer, an existing source, which violate[d] the commitment made during the approval process." The County Council explained that "[w]hen the approval was given, it was understood that [LCI] was committed to finding a new source or sources of water to adequately take care of the irrigation needs of the Manele Project." As such, the County Council requested that the Mayor's office direct the Land Use and Codes Division to stop work on the golf course until LCI developed a new source of water.
LCI responded to the County Council's letter in correspondence dated March 4, 1993, addressed to Mayor Lingle. LCI declared that 12 Mayor Lingle wrote on March 4, 1993,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Honda v. Ers
...by substantial evidence, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made. See Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawai`i 296, 314, 97 P.3d 372, 390 (2004) (asserting a "definite and firm conviction" that the Land Use Commission "made a `mistake'" in its enforcem......
-
Tauese v. State, Dlir
...in which this court must determine whether the court under review was right or wrong in its decision." Lanai Co. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawai`i 296, 306-07, 97 P.3d 372, 382-83 (2004) (quoting Soderlund v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 96 Hawai`i 114, 118, 26 P.3d 1214, 1218 (2001)) (internal......
-
County of Haw. v. C & J Coupe Family Ptner.
...this case includes thousands of pages in each condemnation action, for details not provided. Cf. Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawai`i 296, 309 n. 31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n. 31 (2004) (explaining that this court "is not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify an app......
-
County Of Haw.‘i v. Homeowners
...a county to the county official charged with administering the zoning laws for that county[.]” Id. Relying on Lanai Co. v. Land Use Commission, 105 Hawai‘i 296, 97 P.3d 372 (2004), in which this court held that HRS § 205-12 authorizes counties, but not the LUC, to enforce chapter 205, the I......
-
Case Notes
...preclude use of all water from the high-level aquifer, only the "potable" water. Lanai Co. v. Land Use Commission, 105 Hawaii 296, 314, 97 P.3d 372, 390 (2004). Because the LUC's 1996 Order did not contain reasonably clear findings as to whether the Resort used potable water in violation of......