Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. 28359.,28359.
• Citation: 194 P.3d 1126,119 Haw. 164
• Parties: PONO, an unincorporated association; Walter Ritte, Jr.; Wayde Lee; Matthew Adolpho; and Joseph Kalipi, as individuals and members of Pono, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, and Halona Kaopu'Iki, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. MOLOKAI RANCH, LTD., a Hawai'i corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, and James W. Mozley, Jr.; Charles Jencks, as an individual and in his capacity as Director of the County of Maui, Department of Public Works and Waste Management; Linda Crockett Lingle, as an individual and in her capacity as Mayor of the County of Maui; County of Maui, a governmental entity, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

194 P.3d 1126

119 Haw. 164

PONO, an unincorporated association; Walter Ritte, Jr.; Wayde Lee; Matthew Adolpho; and Joseph Kalipi, as individuals and members of Pono, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, and Halona Kaopu'Iki, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. MOLOKAI RANCH, LTD., a Hawai'i corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, and James W. Mozley, Jr.; Charles Jencks, as an individual and in his capacity as Director of the County of Maui, Department of Public Works and Waste Management; Linda Crockett Lingle, as an individual and in her capacity as Mayor of the County of Maui; County of Maui, a governmental entity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 28359.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai`i.

October 21, 2008.

David Kimo Frankel (Alan T. Murakami and Anthony F. Quan, Jr., with him on the briefs) (Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation), Honolulu, for plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants-appellants.

Gregory W. Kugle (Kenneth R. Kupchak, with him on the brief) (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert), Honolulu, for defendant/counterclaimant-appellee.

Mary Blane Johnston, deputy corporation counsel (Jane E. Lovell, deputy corporation counsel, on the brief), County of Maui, for defendants-appellees County of Maui, Charles Jencks, and Linda Crockett Lingle.

WATANABE, Presiding J., and FUJISE, J.; with FOLEY, J., concurring separately.

Opinion of the Court by WATANABE, Presiding J.

This appeal concerns the development by Molokai Ranch, Ltd. (MR or Molokai Ranch) of fifteen commercial overnight campgrounds (Project) on agricultural lands with a soil classification rating of C, D, E, or U (also referred to as "non-prime agricultural lands") that are located along the "Great Molokai Ranch Trail" on the west end of Moloka'i. In June 1995, MR wrote to Linda Crockett Lingle, then-mayor of the County of Maui (Mayor Lingle), Charles Jencks (Jencks), then-director of the County of Maui, Department of Public Works and Waste Management (DPW), and other County of Maui (Maui County) officials to inquire whether the Project could be developed on non-prime agricultural lands and to determine what regulatory permits would be needed for the Project. (Mayor Lingle, Jencks, and Maui County are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Maui Defendants.") Jencks responded to MR by letter that the Project was a permitted use on non-prime agricultural lands and that the only permits required for the Project were building permits for the yurts, tent platforms, restrooms, pavilions, and other camping facilities to be constructed as part of the Project. Thereafter, MR obtained necessary building permits, began construction of camping facilities at different campgrounds, and began marketing the various campgrounds to prospective visitors to the island of Moloka'i.

On June 25, 1997, Pono, an unincorporated association, and several individuals who were members of Pono¹ (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought the underlying action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against MR, James W. Mozley (Mozley),² and Maui Defendants³ (collectively, Defendants), challenging the Project on multiple grounds and requesting that the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) enjoin further implementation of the Project and vacate any building permits issued to MR for the Project.

This appeal is taken from the Amended Final Judgment entered by the circuit court⁴ on December 14, 2006 against Plaintiffs and implicitly in favor of MR and Maui Defendants (collectively, Appellees) as to Counts I through XIII of the Amended Complaint.⁵ The Amended Final Judgment, which was certified as final for appeal purposes in accordance with Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b), reflected the "Order Granting [MR's] Motions No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7,⁶ Filed August 19, 1998[sic],⁷ and Denying [Plaintiffs'] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. I,⁸ Filed January 12, 2000[,]" entered by the circuit court⁹ on April 28, 2000 (April 28, 2000 Order). In the April 28, 2000 Order, the circuit court determined, among other holdings, that (1) it lacked jurisdiction to determine Count I—Plaintiffs' claim that the Project violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 205, the state land use law (chapter 205 claim)—because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing to the Maui County Board of Variance and Appeals (BVA); and (2) the Project did not violate the requirements of the Moloka'i Community Plan (MCP) (Count VIII). The circuit court declined, on mootness grounds, to determine whether the Project violated HRS chapter 205.

In their notice of appeal filed on January 10, 2007, Appellants¹⁰ challenged the circuit court's decisions as to Counts I through XIII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. In their Opening Brief, however, Appellants focused their arguments on the circuit court's rulings as to Counts I and VIII of their Amended Complaint and acknowledged that their appeal was directed towards MR, not the County Defendants. In summary, Appellants maintain that: (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether MR's Project on agricultural land violates HRS chapter 205; (2) MR's Project on agricultural land violates HRS chapter 205 as a matter of law; and (3) MR's Project violates the MCP as a matter of law.

We conclude that Plaintiffs did not have authority to privately enforce HRS chapter 205 or the MCP against MR and, therefore, lacked standing to invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction to determine their chapter 205 and MCP claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the Amended Final Judgment and the April 28, 2000 Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case began on June 13, 1995, when Keith A. Fernandez (Fernandez), MR's vice president and general manager, wrote a letter to Mayor Lingle and an identical letter addressed collectively to Brian Miskae (Miskae), then-planning director for Maui County; Jencks; and Robert Johnson (Johnson), then-economic development coordinator for Maui County (Mayor Lingle, Miskae, Jencks, and Johnson are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Maui officials") regarding MR's "proposed camping facilities in combination with the `Great Molokai Ranch Trail' program." The letter explained MR's vision for providing varied camping experiences and described three general categories of camps which MR sought to build:

1. Wilderness Camps. Areas set aside for the camper who wishes to provide his [or her] own tent and cooking capabilities. These sites would be provided with trail access, portable sanitary facilities and limited community accessories. Stays would probably be shorter in duration, typically one, two or three nights.

2. Nomadic Camps. Camping areas that could contain up to approximately 60 units. These units would consist of woodsman tents and/or yurts that could be portable and moved from one location to another depending upon seasons, varying weather conditions or programs. In addition to tent sites, these camps would contain self-composting toilets, showers, potable water and some form of camp center or pavilion from which to carry out get-togethers, lectures, community programs, etc.

3. Eco Camps. These camps could duplicate the Nomadic Camps but the tents would sit on wooden platforms. Tents and their platforms could be more permanent as would be self-composting toilets, showers, ancillary camp structures and a camp counselor's dwelling. These locations would be designated and located for year-round usages.

The letter then went on to request answers and assistance from Maui officials in several areas:

In order to establish our camping program and keep it as flexible as possible we need answers and your assistance in several areas.

a. Is a special use permit required for camping in the agricultural district on lands classified C, D, E, or V[sic]?

b. Are building permits required for all structures associated with a camp, ie [sic]: tent platforms, structures containing sanitary facilities, pavilions, camp counselor's quarters, etc.?

c. Are building permits required for portable wooden platforms or foundations for wall tents and yurts?

d. Does the tent or yurt unit by itself require a building permit? This question is directed at the canvas covering and supporting frame structure.

e. Are grading permits or other permits required for the construction of trails to interconnect the campsites?

f. Are any permits required from state agencies such as the Department of Health? If so—what agencies and what permits must be obtained?

g. Is a special use permit required for [MR's] existing camping programs on Ag lands classified C, D, E, or V[sic]? If a special use permit is required, should [MR] discontinue its current camping programs until this permit is obtained?

With regard to scheduling, [MR] wishes to commence construction on the Paniolo Campsite near Puu Nana as soon as possible in the hope of having it functional in November of 1995 for our annual rodeo. We envision the construction of approximately two campsites per year[;] consequently, it will take some five to six years to complete the entire network of trails and camps.

On July 18, 1995, Jencks responded to the questions posed in Fernandez's letter, as follows:

a. Section 205-4.5(c), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), states that "within the agricultural district all lands, with soil classified by the land study bureau's detailed land classification as overall (master) productivity rating class C, D, E, or U shall be restricted to the uses permitted for agricultural districts as set forth in section 205-5(b)."

Section 205-5(b), HRS, then provides that "within agricultural districts, uses compatible to the activities described in section 205-2 ... shall be permitted."

Section 205-2, HRS, then goes on to say that open area recreational facilities are allowed "provided that they are not located within agricultural district lands with soil classified by the land study bureau's...