In all the hand-wringing over the lack of affordable housing in Hawai\u02bbi, the state Land Use Commission is often held out as the whipping boy. Obtaining approvals for redistricting land into the Urban District can be a long and involved process. But at a recent meeting of the commission, LUC executive officer Dan Orodenker rebuffed that criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A review of past Land Use Commission dockets, he said, revealed that \u201cthere are approximately 40,000 to 65,000 housing units that were promised but are unbuilt on various projects all around the state.\u201d That led to the decision to initiate an effort to hire someone \u201cto go out and find out why these projects aren\u2019t moving and what we can do to help them move, to be proactive in trying to get units built that we\u2019ve already approved,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf we could build 45,000 units over the next several years, it would make a big impact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In November, former commissioner Arnold Wong was brought on to facilitate this effort as the LUC\u2019s new \u201cdevelopment coordinator.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe hired Arnold to take on this role, not only because he had a good understanding of how the commission works, being a former commissioner, but also because he has a good understanding of how the private sector works, how the Legislature works. He has good connections in state and county government as well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Orodenker said the initiative had already logged some successes, citing a project in Kihei that had been stalled over the failure of the developer and the Hawai\u02bbi Emergency Management Agency (HIEMA) to agree on the siting of an emergency siren.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cCertain things are just not getting done for various reasons,\u201d Orodenker noted. To move projects that have already had approvals along, \u201cwe\u2019re working with state and county agencies to ensure we can get these projects built. We\u2019ve established a working relationship with the Commission on Water Resource Management, HIEMA, the Hawai\u02bbi Housing Finance and Development Corporation, and the Department of Health, to name a few, to help developers get things moving.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Orodenker said that Wong was focused at the moment on five projects on Kaua\u02bbi, representing several thousand housing units, as well as five projects on Maui, one on Lana\u02bbi, and one on O\u02bbahu. \u201cAdd all these up, we\u2019re looking at 10,000 to 15,000 units,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pulelehua<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the stalled Maui projects called out by Orodenker is Pulelehua. \u201cWe were working very hard on Pululehua for a while, Orodenker said, noting that it stalled out \u201cbecause of the water situation on Maui.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n When it was approved, in 2006, water was determined not to be limited. In the decision and order for the redistricting, the LUC found: \u201cIn the Lahaina region, the Honolua and Honokowai aquifers serve as a source of water for area wells. \u2026 The current pumpage from the aquifers by area wells is substantially below their sustainable yield. The commission on water resource management has not designated either aquifer as groundwater management areas.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the next 10 years, none of the 882 units promised were built. In 2016, Maui Land & Pineapple sold the land to a company headed by Paul Cheng, a Texas-based entrepreneur who claims a history of successful real estate developments, but who also has a federal fraud conviction on his record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2020, the LUC approved amendments to the original decision and order, allowing for the development of up to 1,000 housing units, including some \u02bbohana units on single-family lots, plus 800 multi-family units. Of the latter, 300 were to be rented out as affordable under county guidelines, while 100 were to be sold as affordable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cheng testified that he had the financial resources to develop the project. His company, Maui Oceanview LP, he said, is a partnership \u201cbetween ANICO-EAGLE and USA Infrastructure Investments, LP, of Texas. ANICO-EAGLE is a subsidiary of the American National Insurance Company \u2026 with over $26 billion in assets. \u2026 USA Infrastructure Investments is a Paul Cheng-owned development company based in Texas.\u201d ANICO-EAGLE \u201ctypically finances such construction needs with either construction financing or equity financing,\u201d Cheng told the LUC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the claim of deep pockets to support the development, Cheng lobbied the Maui County Council for help with financing of 60 units in the first phase of development, consisting of a total of 100 multi-family units for purchase at prices deemed affordable for households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income. He was given a subsidy of $18 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, in 2022, the Commission on Water Resource Management designated West Maui groundwater and surface water as water management areas. Existing users need to obtain permits for their ongoing uses, while new users \u2013 such as the Pulelehua development \u2013 are at the back of the line. If they are able to obtain permits at all, it is only if there is sufficient capacity remaining after existing users receive their permits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Environment Hawai\u02bbi <\/em>asked the public information office for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the administrative home of the Water Commission, the status of any request for a water allocation for this project. No response had been received by press time.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the Lahaina fires, Cheng sought an additional $50 million to support the project, which has been revised now to include 1,060 affordable rental units, 100 affordable single-family homes, and 100 homes for sale at market rates. In October, the County Council adopted a resolution in support, urging the administration of Mayor Richard Bissen to expedite a grant of the funds to Cheng. As of last month, no additional grants had been made to Cheng. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At a council meeting in April, the county\u2019s housing director, Lori Tsuhako, was asked about the release of funds from the earlier $18 million grant. Tsuhako said less than $400,000 had been distributed. \u201cRight now, we are working with the developer to address some regulatory issues and until those regulatory issues are satisfied, the department will not reimburse the developer any further,\u201d she was reported to have told the council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pu\u02bbukoli\u02bbi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Just down the road from the Pulelehua is an area mauka of the Ka\u02bbanapali resort that has been approved for urban development since 1993. The original plan called for construction of 1,300 units of housing, with 60 percent of them being affordable. In 2009, landowner Ka\u02bbanapali Land Management Corporation, successor to Amfac, received approval to reduce the number of homes to 940, of which just over half would be in the affordable range.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since then, some of the roadway improvements called for in the 1993 order from the LUC have been built, but, as reported in the December 2023 edition of Environment Hawai\u02bbi<\/em>, not one unit of housing has been erected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Land adjacent to a lot proposed for a hospital, but not included in the LUC redistricting order, is being considered as a temporary home site by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to an environmental assessment prepared in January, about 214 temporary shelters would be erected with FEMA paying for the materials, shipping, and labor, in addition to installation of necessary infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The environmental assessment made no mention of the availability of water for the housing. An inquiry about water availability was made to the Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 public information office, but was not answered by press time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The LUC had scheduled a status report on the Pu\u02bbukoli\u02bbi development for May 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Royal Kunia II<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Last month, the Land Use Commission met to receive an update on plans to develop Royal Kunia II, a 500-acre area redistricted by the LUC in 1993. It was also considering a proposed amendment to change the deadline by which certain infrastructure improvements (irrigation water and electricity) would be available to a 150-acre agricultural parcel that was conveyed to the state earlier this year as a condition of the boundary redistricting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Developer Herbert Horita was the original petitioner. The project called for 800 single-family units, 1,200 multi-family units, 123 acres of light industrial uses, an 18-hole golf course, a public park, and a school site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the years since, ownership changed. By the early 2020s, Haseko Royal Kunia II, LLC, had acquired 211 acres of land on which it now states it intends to erect 1,850 housing units. RK II, LLC, a subsidiary of Jupiter Holdings \u2013 a Delaware-organized, California-based investment company \u2013 had acquired the 123 acres intended for light-industrial and commercial development. No longer was any golf course being considered. Instead, a 161-acre tract was approved for the solar farm being developed by Ho\u02bbohana Solar. Reports submitted by Haseko and RK II confirmed their intention of moving forward with development of the housing and commercial projects. Also, Ho\u02bbohana Solar reported that it had complied with conditions set a decade ago that it provide the infrastructure improvements up to the boundary of the 150-acre ag park.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the April LUC meeting, commissioners heard from a nearby resident (a subcontractor to Haseko) who wanted to see the project move forward. In addition, Chris Delaunay, a representative of Pacific Resource Partnership, vouched for Haseko, mentioning several of the projects that it had developed over the years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That prompted a comment from commissioner Gary Okuda. \u201cThat\u2019s basically what the commission was being told 30 years ago,\u201d he said, noting that he had reviewed the LUC\u2019s prior findings in the docket. Back then, he said, the LUC was told that \u201cwe have a really good developer here, Herbert Horita. He has a track record of building projects, projects for local people, where they can live and raise families. This project is gonna create jobs, be a positive thing for the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnd then here we are, 30 plus years later, and we\u2019re hearing the same thing. Based on your experience and your organization\u2019s experience, what can the Land Use Commission do to make sure that when housing is being promised and jobs for local people are being promised, it\u2019s actually going to take place and we\u2019re not going to be here 30 years later\u201d with the same situation. Maybe a bond should be required? Okuda asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Delaunay replied, stating that he was in favor of the project moving ahead and had no knowledge of earlier endorsements of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Okuda returned to the issue of stalled-out projects in later questioning. With three \u2013 possibly four \u2013 different landowners now having taken on responsibility for moving forward with the project first laid out some 30 years ago, what could the LUC do to ensure that the projects it approves are actually undertaken?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Curtis Tabata, attorney for Haseko, was the first to face Okuda\u2019s grilling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDo you agree that the decision and order, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law [in LUC redistricting approvals] are encumbrances on title?\u201d Okuda asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabata agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat means that whoever goes and obtains an interest in the property \u2026 is subject to and has to follow those encumbrances, correct?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, Tabata agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Okuda continued with his argument that even though Haseko owns only one part of the overall project, the encumbrances on the title mean that Haseko is on the hook to see that the entire development, as anticipated in the 1996 amendment to the original decision and order, is completed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSo,\u201d Okuda said, in the 1996 amended decision, \u201cthere was a list \u2026 of what the land use plan consisted of\u2026 It provided for the construction of 1,250 single-family residential units\u2026 How many of those single-family units have been built as of today?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n None, Tabata acknowledged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s a statement that there would be 750 low-density apartments\u2026 How many have been built as of today?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, none, Tabata replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And has any development occurred on the 123.7 acres that are approved for light industrial use, Okuda asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This portion of the project isn\u2019t to be undertaken by Haseko, Tabata noted. Still, \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The LUC also called for eight acres to be set aside for a school and 11 acres for a public park, Okuda pointed out. Tabata agreed that these elements also had not been satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Tabata defended his client against any suggestion that Haseko was speculating or had any intention other than developing the land, even if no vertical construction had yet occurred. \u201cWe do have all the effort and money Haseko has spent after they acquired the land,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are not land-banking here. Haseko is a developer, not a land banker. There\u2019s too much overhead to just be sitting on the land. They need to develop, build, and sell.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Terry Lee, representing RK II Partners, owner of the area designated for light-industrial development, was up next. He told the commission that to a great extent, his client\u2019s ability to move forward \u201cpiggybacked\u201d on Haseko\u2019s development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe know how we want to develop our roughly 124 acres,\u201d Lee said. \u201cThe problem we have is the timing. \u2026 We have pending with the [Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting] a subdivision application for 37 acres, phase 1 of our development. Unfortunately, as part of that application, we\u2019re piggybacking on a subdivision application by Haseko,\u201d which would put in the needed roadway \u2013 something that Haseko has said won\u2019t be done until 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWell, the DPP needs to first approve that subdivision application before it can continue processing our subdivision application. So our ability to develop our project is heavily dependent on Haseko completing certain things and we are in discussions with Haseko. \u2026 I don\u2019t want to get into the nitty gritties of our contractual disagreements. \u2026 We\u2019re hopeful we\u2019ll work something out with them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee then went on to mention \u201cone other housekeeping matter.\u201d Back in 2004, he said, the LUC effectively inoculated his client from any threat that the land it now owns could be reverted to Agriculture, even if the other owners fail to live up to their commitments. At that time, the then-owner, HRT, negotiated an understanding with the state that if HRT were to purchase the 150 acres for the ag park, the acreage now owned by RK II Partners could not be downzoned, even if the rest of the development was subject to reversion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn other words,\u201d Lee said, \u201cit\u2019s sort of protected from that downside risk.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, Lee continued, \u201cthe ultimate order that came out of the commission is somewhat vague \u2026 It would be helpful if the commission can clarify for us the legal effect of that order.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dan Giovanni, chairman of the commission, noted that this would have to be taken up at another time. \u201cThis is a bit more than a housekeeping matter. \u2026 If you want clarification, you need to file a petition for a declaratory ruling,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then Okuda began to press Lee on the same issues he raised with Tabata. Did Lee agree that the conditions in the LUC boundary amendment approval \u201cbecame and are encumbrances on title?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee agreed, acknowledging that an encumbrance is binding on successor landowners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYour client succeeded to a portion of the property. So in other words \u2026 if for some reason Haseko doesn\u2019t perform its obligations, then there\u2019s a reasonable argument that can be made that \u2026 your client might have to satisfy those obligations,\u201d Okuda said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee answered that this was a legal risk, but it could be obviated should the LUC grant the petition for declaratory relief his client might be filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut as things stand right now,\u201d Okuda said, one could argue \u201cthat your client would be responsible to carry out the obligations of Haseko if Haseko doesn\u2019t perform.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee: \u201cI would agree with that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kona Vistas<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This project, just south of Kailua-Kona village, received LUC approval four decades ago. Approximately half of it was developed \u2013 215 single-family lots, all market-rate lots, no affordable \u2013 and then the work stopped. <\/p>\n\n\n\n About eight years ago, the undeveloped portion, consisting of around 70 acres, was sold and the new landowner, Kona Three, has been working with the county to relaunch the project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It hasn\u2019t gone well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The county\u2019s Leeward Planning Commission has not yet forwarded to the County Council a recommendation on Kona Three\u2019s request to allow it another decade, at least, to complete the project. Concerns have arisen over historic and cultural sites, traffic, drainage problems, and a number of other issues. Community opposition has been fierce, as the LUC members heard when the commission held a status hearing on the project in February. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the discussion among commissioners concerned how the county and developer were proposing to fulfill the requirement in the original decision and order (in 1984) that 10 percent of the housing be affordable under county guidelines. Kona Three had inherited this obligation, amounting to 22 affordable units, when it purchased the undeveloped lands that were part of the original Kona Vistas project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to those 22 units, should the county approve Kona Three\u2019s plans to develop 450 housing units on its 70 acres, the affordable quota would now be 20 percent, in keeping with changes to the county\u2019s affordable housing law. That would make the developer on the hook for a total of 112 affordable units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Commissioner Gary Okuda wanted to know just how many of those units would actually be built, given the county\u2019s past history of allowing developers to get off the hook for affordable housing through the purchase of affordable housing credits. The practice has come under the County Council\u2019s critical scrutiny following disclosure of abuse of that system, with the admitted connivance of a former county housing staffer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How committed is your client to actually building the affordable units? Okuda asked Daryn Arai, the planning consultant for Kona Three. \u201cI don\u2019t want to get into this amorphous area about, \u2018Oh, but we got these housing credits that are floating around,\u2019 and the next thing I know a bunch of people are indicted by a federal grand jury in Honolulu.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe best thing I can tell you at this time,\u201d Arai responded, \u201cthe actual number of affordable units to be constructed is dependent on the number of units they are able to successfully place upon the land.\u201d And this, he added, could not be known until the owners go through a long process of site engineering, grading, roads, infrastructure, and the like. \u201cAll these things could have an effect on the actual number of units that gets placed on the ground. It\u2019s the number of units on the ground that determines the total affordable units.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, Okuda asked, \u201cWhat assurance, since we\u2019ve waited 40 years \u2013 what assurance do we have that 20 years from now \u2026 that the community is gonna still see the same situation, except it\u2019s going to be with a new owner who comes in and gives us commitments that, \u2018yeah, we\u2019re going to do it right.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe only assurance I can give you is that nothing will happen if the entitlements are not kept in place\u201d by the county, Arai replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Okuda turned his attention to Michael Matsukawa, the attorney representing Kona Three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat are we to do on the commission where we seem to have these cases where applicants, landowners, make these promises to the community and we don\u2019t see compliance?\u201d he asked. He noted that a former commissioner \u2013 Dawn Chang, now head of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources \u2013 \u201cstarted suggesting that maybe the applicant should be required to pull a performance bond so that if the infrastructure is not put in, we go to the bonding company, make the bonding company go and pay for it. If affordable housing is not put in, we go to the bonding company, make them pay for it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Matsukawa responded by saying that all of the owners of the 200-plus houses in the already developed portion of the Kona Vistas subdivision \u201chave deed covenants that their properties are subject to the [affordable] homes being produced.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He later elaborated: \u201cAs to Mr. Ohigashi\u2019s question, he raises a good question as to who holds the burden for the 22 units\u2026 The condition was recorded and appears in every deed to every lot. They all have this exception, that the lot owner accepts the condition as an encumbrance on his or her title. So I guess we\u2019re all tied together in the effort to get the 22 lots done.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Commissioner Lee Ohigashi asked Michelle Ahn, the deputy corporation counsel advising the county Planning Commission: \u201cWhat happens if the zoning isn\u2019t approved?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assume, Ohigashi said, that, for some reason, the community enrages all the council people, the council people say, \u2018hey, we\u2019re not going to do this anymore.\u2019 What happens to the 22 houses?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ahn began to reply, but Ohigashi cut her off. \u201cYou can write a brief about my comment, I really don\u2019t care. But what happens to the 22 houses?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n LUC Chair Giovanni then gave Ahn the floor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe county has to approve this rezoning amendment and their concern is not limited to what would satisfy LUC conditions from a 1984 decision. They might have other considerations, such as not having all the poor people in one corner of the development. As we go through the county process, there might be other considerations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ohigashi repeated: \u201cMy question still stands. What happens?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jeff Darrow, deputy director of planning for the county, was the one to reply. \u201cTo be honest with you, I don\u2019t know. Basically, they won\u2019t have a zoning ordinance, which won\u2019t allow them to continue with their project. We have 215 built houses. Does [the responsibility for the affordable units] fall on the backs of the owners of these 215 houses? Does it fall on the petitioner who purchased a portion of the property? Does it fall on the previous developer \u2013 whether they\u2019re around or not, I\u2019m not sure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n (For details on the project, see the articles in the November 2023 edition of Environment Hawai\u02bbi.<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kehalani-Pi\u02bbihana<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When a LUC-approved project has multiple owners, as is the case in the Royal Kunia project as well as others, and the burden of following through on the promises made falls on all of them, individual owners may petition the LUC for relief in the form of bifurcation. This involves having the LUC separate out the requirements associated with their particular piece of the development from the obligations imposed on others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe the most egregious example of an effort to bifurcate a development can be seen in central Maui, where, 34 years ago, landowner C. Brewer Properties LLC obtained redistricting of two widely separated parcels \u2013 one of 545 acres, lying west of Wailuku town; the other one consisting of 79 acres in an irregularly shaped parcel north of \u02bbIao Stream. Over succeeding years, various parties took title to the land. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Among other things, the Land Use Commission\u2019s original decision anticipated 2,400 units of housing, 600 of which \u2013 all affordable \u2013 would be built on the smaller area, while three\/eighths of the units in the Kehalani area would be affordable. Development and sales of homes and lots in the larger area would, commissioners anticipated, provide the landowner with the capital required to build the affordable housing on the Pi\u02bbihana tract, described as having \u201cphysiographic characteristics\u201d that made development and construction more expensive. As chair Jonathan Scheuer put it, \u201cit was cheaper and easier to first develop the Kehalani project area, and income from that would be used to finance the development of affordable housing in the Pi\u02bbihana project area.\u201d Other infrastructure tied to the Pi\u02bbihana project include a bridge across \u02bbIao Stream and roadway and drainage improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2013, two subsidiaries of a California-based investment company purchased the undeveloped land in both parcels. RCFC Kehalani, LLC, took over the mauka portion (called the Wailuku project in reports to the LUC) and RCFC Pi\u02bbihana, LLC, took over the land along \u02bbIao Stream (the Pi\u02bbihana project).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While housing subdivisions and a commercial center had been built in the Wailuku project area, the Pi\u02bbihana project was largely undeveloped. Eventually, RCFC Pi\u02bbihana divested all its holdings to a company, Wailuku Plantation, LLC, owned by Vernon Lindsey, whose history of development projects on the Big Island and Maui is characterized mostly by failure. Lindsey paid around $2 million for the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2019, both companies approached the LUC with the idea of bifurcating the project. By late 2020, the Office of State Planning, Maui County, Wailuku Plantation, RCFC Kehalani, and several individuals to whom Lindsey had already sold off small parcels of land signed off on a stipulated agreement endorsing the idea, with Wailuku Plantation initiating the actual petition for bifurcation. Responsibility for various improvements called for in the original LUC decision would, under the stipulated agreement, be apportioned to either RCFC Kehalani or Wailuku Plantation. Both Wailuku Plantation and RCFC Kehalani were to file statements of costs for developing the remaining conditions relating to their respective lands. In addition, the Pi\u02bbihana landowners were to provide \u201cinformation to verify the financial capability to complete the Pihana Project District development.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n At a hearing on December 30, 2020, the LUC learned from Jason McFarlin, the attorney representing Lindsey, that, in fact, his client did not intend to develop the Pi\u02bbihana land at all and would instead be seeking to have the land revert to the Agricultural District.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis project district requires hundreds of millions of dollars,\u201d he said, money that his client doesn\u2019t have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Land Use Commission voted to deny the petition to bifurcate and ordered the parties to engage in ongoing discussions. They were not to return to the commission \u201cuntil evidence of (1) financial capability is filed with the commission; and (2) the responsibility for various conditions and requirements is resolved, given the information received at this hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties have yet to report back to commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (For more on this project, see the articles in the February 2021 edition of Environment Hawai\u02bbi.<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u02bbAina Le\u02bba<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A dispute over a proposed development of 3,000 acres in the South Kohala district of the Big Island led ultimately to the state Supreme Court decision that left the Land Use Commission largely unable to enforce any conditions it might attach to specific development approvals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n More than 35 years ago, the LUC approved the redistricting of 1,000 acres from the Agricultural to the Urban land use district. The overall project included another 2,000 acres that surrounded the Urban land on three sides. The specifics of the project changed a bit over time. Ownership changed quite a bit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2005, the LUC approved amendments to the project proposed by the then-owner, Bridge \u02bbAina Le\u02bba. The project now included 1,924 housing units, with at least 385 to be affordable under the county definition. When an environmental impact statement preparation notice was published two year later, the proposed development now consisted of more than 3,200 housing units in the Urban core as well as a commercial center and a 40-unit lodge. Five golf courses would straddle the boundary between the Urban and Agricultural lands. In the Agricultural section of the development, Bridge proposed 863 lots intended for large single-family residences. The LUC never endorsed that proposal, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2009, Bridge found a developer, DW \u02bbAina Le\u02bba, LLC, that was to erect the affordable units, all of which were to be ready for occupancy by November 17, 2010. As a show of good faith, in the face of growing skepticism by the commissioners that the deadline would be met, DWAL agreed to have at least 16 of the affordable units completed by March 31, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the LUC made a site visit after that deadline passed, none of the townhouses was completed, causing the LUC to vote to revert the 1,000-acres of Urban land to the state Agricultural District.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That reversion was overturned by the 3rd<\/sup> Circuit Court and, on appeal, the reversion was upheld by the state Supreme Court. The court determined that, because there had been \u201csubstantial commencement\u201d of work on the project, the LUC had no power to revert without going through all the hoops of a redistricting petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since then, the LUC has been had to rely on counties to enforce conditions imposed in redistricting orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, there has been little additional work on the \u02bbAina Le\u02bba site. The current landowner, \u02bbAina Le\u02bba, Inc., a successor to DWAL, has faced nearly insurmountable financing challenges, has gone through bankruptcy, and has lost portions of its proposed development lands through court-ordered foreclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation is in flux, but it is likely that eventually the petition area will be held by several different landowners. Will this result in a petition for reversion, for bifurcation, or for an amendment to the existing decision and order of the LUC? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most likely, the answer won\u2019t be known for years to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Environment Hawai\u02bbi <\/em>has reported extensively on the \u02bbAina Le\u02bba development.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Patricia Tummons<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In all the hand-wringing over the lack of affordable housing in Hawaiʻi, the state Land Use Commission is often held out as the whipping boy. Obtaining approvals for redistricting land into the Urban District can be a long and involved … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[338,524],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-15917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-land-use","category-may-2024","tag-patricia-tummons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15917\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/15919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}