DW Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC.
339 P.3d 685
Haw.2014Background
- 1989: LUC reclassifies Waikoloa land from agricultural to urban with 15 conditions including a 30% affordable-housing mandate.
- 1991: LUC issues amended order with 15 conditions, notably 30% affordable housing and quarterly reports.
- 2005: LUC amends affordable-housing condition to reduce minimum affordable units to 385 and extends timelines.
- 2008–2009: LUC issues OSC and, after hearings, reverts land to agricultural when Bridge and predecessors allegedly failed to perform.
- Bridge assigns land to DW Aina Le'a Development; DW proceeds with substantial development actions and expenditures (> $20 million).
- 2011: LUC final order reverts to agricultural; circuit court reverses; this court affirms in part and vacates in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HRS 205-4(g) authorize reversion with OSC and require strict boundary-change procedures when substantial commencement occurred? | DW/Bridge argue substantial commencement requires LUC procedures. | LUC argues OSC allows reversion without standard 205-4 procedures if no substantial commencement. | Yes to OSC authority; but here substantial commencement occurred, so standard procedures apply. |
| Did the LUC comply with 205-4(h), 205-16, and 205-17 when reversing after substantial commencement? | DW/Bridge say reversal without these findings violates state plan and standards. | LUC contends broad discretion to impose conditions and revert; requirements satisfied by factual record. | Circuit court correctly held LUC failed to satisfy those statutory factors when substantial commencement existed. |
| Did the circuit court err in considering documents outside the administrative record and in ruling on constitutional claims? | LUC argues improper record; DW/Bridge challenging the procedures as unconstitutional. | Circuit court properly reviewed record; LUC’s constitutional challenges inadequately supported. | Record-strike issue remanded; constitutional rulings reversed as to due process/equal protection. |
| Was DW/Bridge’s due process and equal protection rights violated by LUC’s procedures? | DW/Bridge claim rolling OSC and delays violated due process and treated them unequally. | LUC had broad discretion; historical project delays justify the challenged actions. | Yes for lack of proper due process findings; no violation of equal protection given rational basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanai Co. Inc. v. Land Use Commission, 105 Hawai'i 296 (Haw. 2004) (enforces enforcement of conditions; LUC enforcement powers largely with counties; 205-4(g) empowers voiding if no substantial commencement)
- In re Lanai Co. Inc., 97 P.3d 372 (Haw. 2004) (discusses enforcement and authority boundaries between LUC and counties)
- Lopez v. State, 328 P.3d 320 (Haw. 2014) (substantive due process requires substantial relation to public welfare)