526 P.3d 478
Haw.2023Background
- Appellants Kuʻulei and Ahiena Kanahele petitioned the Hawaiʻi Land Use Commission (LUC) for declaratory orders that (a) Mauna Kea astronomy/industrial research facilities are urban, not conservation, uses; (b) further such uses require district boundary amendments; and (c) the cumulative cluster of facilities requires reclassification or removal.
- The LUC held a discretionary hearing, then denied the petition, concluding it lacked authority to issue the requested declarations because the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) governs conservation-district uses and the declaratory device cannot be used to revisit decisions already made.
- The Kanaheles appealed directly to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court; the Court held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under HRS §§ 91-8, 91-14, and 205-19 (as interpreted in Lingle).
- On the merits the Court affirmed the LUC: HRS § 205-2(e) describes what conservation districts include but does not authorize the LUC to exclude or enforce particular uses within conservation districts; HRS § 205-5(a) and chapter 183C delegate governance and enforcement of conservation district uses to DLNR.
- The Court applied Citizens Against Reckless Development (CARD) to bar use of declaratory relief to challenge DLNR’s prior determinations about permissible uses; the Kanaheles’ requested declarations would in practice require a boundary amendment or removal of facilities, thus exceeding LUC authority.
Issues
| Issue | Kanahele(s)' Argument | LUC / Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to appeal directly to the Supreme Court | Lingle treats declaratory orders like contested-case orders; HRS § 205-19 authorizes direct Supreme Court review | No direct review because petition was not a contested case | Court: has jurisdiction under HRS §§ 91-8, 91-14, and 205-19 as informed by Lingle; appeal properly before Supreme Court |
| Whether LUC may issue declarations interpreting HRS § 205-2(e) to exclude astronomy uses from conservation district | LUC can use its districting power to declare certain uses urban and thus require reclassification before those uses continue | Legislature vested governance/enforcement of conservation-district uses in DLNR (HRS § 205-5(a), ch.183C); LUC may set boundaries but not enforce allowed uses | Court: HRS § 205-2(e) does not authorize LUC to exclude or enforce specific uses; DLNR governs/constrains uses in conservation districts |
| Whether declaratory relief is barred because DLNR already decided astronomy uses are permissible (CARD) | Petition seeks interpretation only, not review of DLNR’s decision; CARD inapplicable | CARD bars declaratory petitions that attempt to review already-made agency decisions or where agency has already determined applicability of law | Court: CARD applies; declaratory procedure cannot be used to relitigate DLNR’s prior determinations about permissible uses |
| Practical effect of requested relief (does it compel boundary amendment or removal?) | Petition only asks for statutory interpretation; UH could remove facilities instead of seeking amendment | Requested declarations would force UH/State to seek boundary amendment or remove facilities, thus effectively requiring reclassification/enforcement | Court: Kanaheles’ requested orders would in practice compel a boundary amendment or removal, confirming relief exceeds LUC authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Hawaiʻi Gov’t Emps. Ass’n, [citation="107 Hawai'i 178, 111 P.3d 587"] (2005) (declaratory orders have same status as contested-case orders for review).
- Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Honolulu, [citation="114 Hawai'i 184, 159 P.3d 143"] (2007) (HRS § 91-8 declaratory procedure not meant to review concrete agency decisions that already have spoken).
- Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., [citation="136 Hawai'i 376, 363 P.3d 224"] (2015) (Mauna Kea I) (review of DLNR permitting actions).
- Matter of Conservation Dist. Use Application HA-3568 for the Thirty Meter Telescope, [citation="143 Hawai'i 379, 431 P.3d 752"] (2018) (Mauna Kea II) (affirming DLNR CDUP after contested case).
- Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, [citation="76 Hawai'i 128, 870 P.2d 1272"] (1994) (contested-case requirement discussion).
- Morgan v. Planning Dep’t, Cnty. of Kauaʻi, [citation="104 Hawai'i 173, 86 P.3d 982"] (2004) (administrative agencies possess only powers granted by statute).