Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Honolulu
102 Haw. 465, 78 P.3d 1, 2003 Haw. LEXIS 512 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A constitutional provision that explicitly directs the legislature to provide standards and criteria to accomplish a stated goal is not self-executing, and its requirements, such as a supermajority vote for rezoning, are not operative until the legislature enacts the necessary implementing legislation.
Facts:
- Obayashi Corporation owns approximately 1,143 acres of land on the North Shore of O'ahu, designated for agricultural use under state law.
- Previous commercial farming attempts on the property failed due to steep terrain, poor access, and lack of irrigation.
- In December 1993, Obayashi proposed the 'Lihi Lani Project,' a development integrating agricultural activity with 315 large country lots, homes, a YMCA, and other facilities.
- To proceed, Obayashi sought a zoning reclassification from the City and County of Honolulu for 765 acres of its property, from general agriculture (AG-2) to a 'country' designation.
- The State Department of Agriculture submitted a letter to the City stating the project was 'progressive' and well-defined agriculturally.
- The City Planning Department and the Department of Land Utilization both recommended approval of the rezoning.
- The City Council held several public hearings, where it heard hours of testimony from the public, including the Plaintiffs.
- On May 24, 1995, the City Council passed the ordinance rezoning the 765 acres from AG-2 to country designation by a 5-to-4 vote.
Procedural Posture:
- Five days before the City Council vote, Save Sunset Beach Coalition et al. (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the first circuit court against the City and County of Honolulu and Obayashi Corporation.
- After the rezoning was passed, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the ordinance on constitutional and statutory grounds.
- The City and Obayashi (Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted a partial dismissal, ruling that claims regarding specific uses of the property were premature as no final development plans had been submitted.
- A jury-waived trial was held on the remaining claims based on stipulated evidence.
- The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Defendants on all remaining counts.
- Final judgment was entered in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article XI, Section 3 of the Hawai'i Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote to rezone 'important agricultural lands,' apply to a city council's rezoning ordinance when the state legislature has not yet established the standards and criteria for identifying such lands as directed by the same constitutional provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Acoba, J.
No. Article XI, Section 3 is not self-executing, and its two-thirds voting requirement is inoperative until the legislature acts to implement it. The court reasoned that a constitutional provision is not self-executing when it merely indicates principles without providing the rules for their enforcement. The plain language of Article XI, Section 3—'The legislature shall provide standards and criteria'—demonstrates that it requires future legislative action to become operative. The framers' intent, as evidenced by the constitutional convention's debates and the deletion of language referencing a pre-existing land classification system (ALISH), confirms that they deliberately tasked the future legislature with defining 'important agricultural lands.' Because the legislature has not yet enacted these standards and criteria, the provision's supermajority requirement does not apply, and the City Council's 5-to-4 majority vote was sufficient to pass the rezoning ordinance. Furthermore, the court held that rezoning by ordinance is a legislative act, which is entitled to a presumption of validity and can only be overturned if shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or invalid.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of self-executing constitutional provisions in Hawai'i, establishing that a provision's directive for future legislative action is a strong indicator that it is not self-executing. The ruling effectively places the constitutional protection for 'important agricultural lands' in a state of dormancy, contingent upon future legislative action. By classifying rezoning as a legislative act, the court also raised the standard of review for zoning challenges, granting substantial deference to the political decisions of county councils and making such challenges more difficult for opponents to win. The case highlights the critical interplay between constitutional mandates and the legislative action required to give them practical legal effect.
