Hokuli'a ruling fuels debate over land use

By Vicki Viotti
Advertiser Staff Writer

A judge's ruling against the owners of a luxury Big Island development has put pressure on the state to define more clearly what land the agriculture industry needs and how that acreage should be protected.

A panel convened by lawmakers two years ago to fulfill a mandate to protect "important" agricultural lands has been working to hammer out a package for the next legislative session. But the Sept. 9 ruling in the controversial Hokuli'a case has added momentum, said Anthony Ching, executive officer of the state Land Use Commission.

"It's the other part of the equation," said Ching, who is a member of the Agricultural Working Group, which spans regulatory agencies, the agriculture industry, environmental groups and others. "If you question the development of ag subdivisions as legitimate use in the ag district, then you need definitions with respect to what is ag."

Hokuli'a is the name of a 1,500-acre luxury subdivision on the South Kona coast of the Big Island. It has been in the works for more than a decade but, in the past three years, the project by 1250 Oceanside Partners has been embroiled in a complex lawsuit over its broad impact on the environment and Hawaiian cultural artifacts.

On Sept. 9, Circuit Court Judge Ronald Ibarra ruled that state law required Oceanside to get Land Use Commission approval as well as county permits. He ordered the work stopped until the commission either reclassifies the land from agriculture to urban or declares that further action isn't needed.

Ching said the commission has received no petition yet from Oceanside. Executives for the company said their first stop this week is back in court, where they hope for a change in the work-stoppage order.

Meanwhile, Lyle Anderson, who owns the majority interest in Hokuli'a, described the decision as "the most unfair thing I've ever seen, not just in my career but my whole life."

"If there's an issue about the land-use law, they need to fix that," he said. "This remedy that Judge Ibarra is trying to do isn't fixing anything ... we are being singled out."

Anderson maintains that reversals in developments will scare off future investors for other projects statewide.

Attorneys for Oceanside's opponents have argued instead that conflict over what's acceptable on agricultural land is primarily a Big Island issue, that Hokuli'a is unusually large and that the case wouldn't worry developers pursuing more typical projects. Some developers have said, however, that investors not familiar with Hawai'i would not see the fine distinctions and are likely to feel nervous about sinking money in projects here.

While private industry assesses the potential fallout, some lawmakers want to press ahead with efforts to clarify the law. State Rep. Ezra Kanoho, D-15th (Lihu'e, Koloa) is chairman of the House Water, Land Use and Hawaiian Affairs Committee and convened the legislative working group two years ago to help define important agricultural land.

The end result of its work, he said, will be standards that will designate more clearly which lands should be saved for agriculture unless both the Land Use Commission and county authorities agree it can be released for housing or other urban uses.

The struggle to come up with standards predates Hokuli'a by years, Kanoho said, but the same clash — between development forces and groups that oppose projects for environmental or cultural reasons — complicates both this Big Island project and the larger lawmaking effort.

"The legislative process requires a meeting of the minds and a discussion, and there's never been a consensus," he said.

Reach Vicki Viotti at vviotti@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8053.