CourtListener 10759363

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-DEC-2025
07:49 AM
Dkt. 53 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

COCONUT PLANTATION BEACH INVESTORS, LLC, Appellant-Appellee,
v.
ADAM ROVERSI, in his capacity as Director of the Kauai County
Housing Agency; KAUAI COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY,
Appellees-Appellants,

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Appellees-Appellants Adam Roversi and the Kauaʻi County

Housing Agency (collectively, the Housing Agency) appeal from

the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit's (circuit court) (1)

"Appellant[-Appellee] Coconut Plantation Beach Investors, LLC's

[(CPBI)] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and

Order" (Order), filed on September 15, 2023, and (2) "Final

Judgment," filed on October 5, 2023. 1

1 The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

CPBI is the current owner of a project development on

Kauaʻi (the Project). On January 24, 2007, the Kauaʻi County

Planning Commission issued a Special Management Area Use Permit

SMA(U)-2006-5 (SMA), Project Development Use Permit PDU-2006-7,

and a Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-10 (collectively, the

Permits) to the Project's former owner. 2 It is undisputed that

the Kauaʻi County Code (KCC) did not impose a "workforce housing"

requirement at the time the Permits were issued. 3

Kauaʻi County adopted KCC chapter 7A on December 10,

2007. Chapter 7A made workforce housing an exaction under

certain circumstances. Despite the Project receiving the

Permits prior to the adoption of KCC chapter 7A, in July 2022,

the Housing Agency determined that "as a project requiring

building permits," the Project "must satisfy [chapter 7A]

workforce housing requirements." CPBI appealed, and the Housing

Agency upheld its initial decision. CPBI then appealed the

Housing Agency's decision to the circuit court, and the circuit

2 CPBI acquired the Project after the Permits were issued. The
Project's start date was delayed due to litigation, and Kauaʻi County waived
the two-year deadline for the Project's SMA permit and acknowledged that the
five-year construction period requirement in the Permits would not start
until building permits are obtained. The record reflects that, as of the
date of the circuit court's Order, construction had not yet commenced on the
Project, and that neither the previous owners nor CPBI have pulled building
permits for the Project.

3 The record reflects that, although there was no workforce housing
requirement when the Permits were issued, Condition No. 18 of the Permits
specifies that the Project developer will provide employee housing for no
fewer than three employees.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court entered its Order and Final Judgment vacating the Housing

Agency's decision.

This secondary appeal followed. The Housing Agency

raises four points of error, contending that the circuit court

erred when it ruled that: (1) "the [Housing Agency's] workforce

housing requirement violated KCC § 7A-1.5"; (2) "[KCC] [c]hapter

7A was not intended to be applied to projects that had

previously obtained zoning permits"; (3) "the Deputy Planning

Director had authority to waive [KCC] [c]hapter 7A workforce

housing requirements for the [P]roject"; and (4) "the Housing

Agency was estopped from assessing a workforce housing

requirement."

We review secondary appeals de novo, and apply the

standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g)

(2012 & Supp. 2016) to determine whether the circuit court's

determinations were right or wrong. Flores v. Bd. of Land &

Nat. Res., 143 Hawaiʻi 114, 120, 424 P.3d 469, 475 (2018)

(citations omitted).

HRS § 91-14, entitled "Judicial review of contested

cases," provides in relevant part:

(g) Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the
decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions
for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the
decision and order if the substantial rights of the
petitioners may have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders
are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative,
and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion.

HRS § 91-14(g).

"Under HRS § 91-14(g), an agency's conclusions of law

are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions

regarding procedural defects under subsection (3); findings of

fact under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of

discretion under subsection (6)." United Pub. Workers, AFSCME,

Loc. 646 v. Hanneman, 106 Hawaiʻi 359, 363, 105 P.3d 236, 240

(2005) (cleaned up).

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we first address the Housing Agency's contention that the

Project is subject to KCC chapter 7A.

"When interpreting a municipal ordinance, we apply the

same rules of construction that we apply to statutes." West

Maui Resort Partners LP v. Cnty. of Maui, 154 Hawaiʻi 121, 131,

547 P.3d 454, 464 (2024) (quoting Ocean Resort Villas Vacation

Owners Ass'n v. Cnty. of Maui, 147 Hawaiʻi 544, 553, 465 P.3d

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

991, 1000 (2020)). "[W]here the statutory language is plain and

unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and

obvious meaning." Id. at 132, 547 P.3d at 465. Moreover, this

language "must be read in the context of the entire ordinance

and construed in a manner consistent with the purposes of the

ordinance." Save Diamond Head Waters LLC v. Hans Hedemann Surf,

Inc., 121 Hawaiʻi 16, 25, 211 P.3d 74, 83 (2009) (citation

omitted).

KCC chapter 7A provides that the workforce housing

requirement applies to, as relevant here:

. . . .

(2) Zoning or building permits for the development or
redevelopment of land or buildings on a lot of record
in any residential, resort, or commercial district
for the construction of or conversion into more than
10 residential dwelling units or time share units, or
more than 20 hotel rooms.

KCC § 7A-1.4.1(c)(2) (emphasis added).

KCC § 7A-1.5 governs the time in which the Housing

Agency must make a workforce housing assessment, and instructs

that,

(a) The workforce housing assessment for any project subject to
this Chapter shall be resolved with the Housing Agency
prior to final subdivision approval or zoning permit
approval, whichever occurs first, or if neither is
applicable to the project, prior to building permit
application.

(b) The workforce housing assessment for any project subject to
this Chapter shall be assessed once per project, except
that an additional workforce housing assessment may be
applicable to a project, after initial assessment, when

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

increased residential or resort density is subsequently
granted by the County.

KCC § 7A-1.5(a), (b) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to its plain language, KCC § 7A-1.5(a)

instructs that the Housing Agency shall "resolve[]" a workforce

housing assessment for "any project subject to this Chapter

. . . prior to final subdivision approval or zoning permit

approval, whichever occurs first." The record reflects that the

Project was granted final zoning permit approval in January

2007. Thus, the Housing Agency's deadline for resolving a

workforce housing assessment had expired in January 2007, which

was prior to the adoption of KCC chapter 7A in December 2007.

There is nothing in the language of KCC chapter 7A

that indicates the drafters' intent that the provisions

governing workforce housing assessments should have

retrospective application. We therefore conclude that the

circuit court was not wrong in determining that KCC chapter 7A's

workforce housing requirement does not apply to the Project.

See In re Medeiros Testamentary Tr. & Life Ins. Tr., 105 Hawaiʻi

284, 293, 96 P.3d 1098, 1107 (2004) ("The common law rule

disfavors retroactive application of laws. This rule is

codified in HRS § 1-3 (1993), which provides that '[n]o law has

any retrospective operation, unless otherwise expressed or

obviously intended.'") (citation omitted). In light of this

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conclusion, we need not reach the Housing Agency's remaining

points of error.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Order and

Final Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 15, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Charles A. Foster,
Deputy County Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
County of Kauaʻi Associate Judge
for Appellees-Appellants.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Leila M. Rothwell, Associate Judge
for Appellant-Appellee.