2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Claudia Rohr Testimony

Home

Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 17 of 28 PagelD.3077 22-7 at 1. Language such as this evinces an intent to legislate pursuant to the City's zoning authority, not its rental regulation authority. Having found that Ordinance 22-7 is properly characterized as a zoning ordinance, the Court turns to whether it is conflict-preempted by HRS § 464(a). When considering preemption in the context of zoning, it is "fundamental that authority to zone is conferred by the legislature on the counties." Save Sunset Beach Coal., 78 P.3d at 16 (citing Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244, 246 (Haw. 1989)). Indeed, the "counties are authorized to zone only according to the dictates of HRS § 46-4." Id. Accordingly, "any conflict between the State provisions and the county zoning ordinances is resolved in favor of the State statutes, by virtue of the supremacy provisions in article VIII, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution and HRS § 50-15." Id. at 17. Here, as the Court's previous Order has already explained at length, there is no doubt that Ordinance 22-7 is conflict-preempted by HRS § 464(a). See Dkt. No. 31 at 11-21. The language of both the Ordinance and the statute is clear.14 HRS § 464(a) states: Neither this section nor any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prohibit the continued lawful use of any building or premises for any . . . purpose for which the building or premises is used at the time this section or the ordinance takes effect. 14The Hawaii Supreme Court has instructed "the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself." Ho`omoana Found. v. Land Use Conran n, 526 P.3d 314, 320 (Haw. 2023) (citation omitted). - 17 -