Hawaii Supreme Court: Honolulu IAL Notice Requirements Hawaii Rejected by LUC

• The Hawaii Supreme Court is reviewing whether Honolulu adequately notified nearly 1,800 landowners before proposing their Oahu properties for "Important Agricultural Lands" (IAL) designation.
• The Hawaii Land Use Commission (LUC) rejected Honolulu's proposal in June 2022, citing insufficient notice to property owners.
• Honolulu mailed approximately 1,800 notices and published a newspaper advertisement, but the LUC received about 100 calls from landowners claiming they were never informed.
• The LUC identified significant gaps in Honolulu's notification efforts, including outdated addresses and notices sent to only one owner on jointly held properties.
• The case highlights the critical importance of robust landowner notification procedures for land use designations under Hawaii land use law.

This significant undertaking, aimed at Oahu farmland preservation, involves nearly 1,800 landowners whose properties would be subject to the IAL designation.

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently examined the City and County of Honolulu's notification procedures concerning its proposal to designate approximately 41,000 acres of Oahu farmland as "Important Agricultural Lands" (IAL). This significant undertaking, aimed at Oahu farmland preservation, involves nearly 1,800 landowners whose properties would be subject to the IAL designation. The central question before the high court was whether Honolulu adequately informed these property owners before submitting its recommendation to the Hawaii Land Use Commission (LUC).

Honolulu's initiative, which spanned roughly six years in its development of agricultural land maps, faced a setback in June 2022 when the Hawaii Land Use Commission rejected the city's proposal. The LUC determined that Honolulu had not met the requisite notice requirements stipulated by state law and administrative rules. This rejection prompted the current review by the Hawaii Supreme Court, highlighting the critical importance of robust landowner notification procedures for land use designations in Hawaii.

Brad Saito, representing Honolulu, contended that the city adhered to state law in identifying the lands and presenting its advisory recommendation to the LUC. He argued that the commission's role should have been to proceed directly to rulemaking, where specific lands would be proposed for designation and public input gathered. Honolulu's Department of Planning and Permitting had initially mailed approximately 1,800 notices to landowners, with about 138 subsequently returned as unclaimed. Following this, staff conducted ownership record research and dispatched a second round of notices, of which only a few were undeliverable. Additionally, the city published a half-page notice in local newspapers.

Despite these efforts, the Land Use Commission received around 100 phone calls from landowners during public hearings who asserted they had never been notified, a volume unprecedented for a single matter. Deputy Attorney General Miranda Steed, representing the LUC, explained that the commission found significant deficiencies in Honolulu's notification process. These included instances where notices were sent to only one owner on jointly held properties, outdated addresses were used, and some landowners received no information at all. Saito conceded under questioning that there was no follow-up action with constituents, though he could not explain why.

The legal debate centered on the nature of Honolulu's submission and the LUC's responsibilities. Saito maintained that the city's recommendation was purely advisory, not intended to resolve disputes among property owners. Conversely, Steed argued that Honolulu had a statutory obligation to undertake reasonable actions to notify landowners, and the LUC's initial task was to determine if this bar was met—a process she characterized as a declaratory action, distinct from formal rulemaking or a contested case.

Justice Lisa Ginoza questioned why relying solely on real property tax records for notification might be insufficient. Steed clarified that while the statute doesn't mandate actual notice to every single landowner, the LUC's findings revealed substantial gaps in Honolulu's efforts. Ginoza further inquired about the recourse available to landowners once an IAL designation is finalized, noting that such a designation would restrict future rezoning and limit farm dwellings to family members and active farm workers. Steed indicated that landowners could testify during rulemaking, challenge the rule in circuit court, or petition the commission to lift a designation if the land no longer met the criteria. However, Ginoza pressed on why landowners wouldn't have a formal opportunity to contest the designation during the rulemaking phase itself, to which Steed responded that under Hawaii Revised Statutes 205-49, a property owner would not be a party to the rulemaking once it reaches the LUC. Saito reiterated in rebuttal that the law does not compel the city to guarantee every landowner actually receives notice.

This case holds significant implications for Hawaii land use law and future agricultural land designations. Justice Ginoza highlighted that while the constitutional provision for Important Agricultural Lands dates back nearly 50 years, the specific statutory framework only became effective in 2005. Notably, no county in Hawaii had successfully navigated this designation process until now, leading Steed to acknowledge the "growing pains" involved in implementing the framework.

Lawyers representing property owners should closely monitor this Hawaii Supreme Court decision for precedent on challenging land use changes based on inadequate notice. Concurrently, government agencies must review their compliance with statutory notice requirements to prevent similar challenges, particularly concerning Honolulu IAL notice requirements Hawaii. The outcome will likely shape how future Important Agricultural Lands designation processes are conducted across the state, emphasizing the need for meticulous landowner notification Hawaii.

This case highlights the critical importance of robust landowner notification procedures for land use designations in Hawaii. Lawyers representing property owners should monitor this Hawaii Supreme Court decision for precedent on challenging land use changes based on inadequate notice, while government agencies must review their compliance with statutory notice requirements to avoid similar challenges.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service