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 26 of 28 PagelD.3086 Section 16. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance that may be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. Ord. 22-7 at 38. This severability clause is indicative of the City Council's intent that Ordinance 22-7 remain effective as regarding those sections not preempted by HRS § 46-4(a). See Nat'l Advert. Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1988) ("whether partial invalidation is appropriate depends on the intent of the City in passing the ordinance and whether the balance of the ordinance can function independently"); accord State v. Pacquing, 389 P.3d 897, 913 (Haw. 2016) ("if, when the [invalid] portion is stricken out, that which remains is complete in itself and capable of being executed in accordance with the apparent legislative intent, it must be sustained." (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the Court declines to invalidate Ordinance 22-7 in its entirety, and instead enjoins its enforcement only insofar as it prohibits the rental or advertisement of 30-89 day rentals lawfully existing as of the Ordinance's effective date. III. Counts II—X: State Law, Federal Law, and Constitutional Claims In addition to Count I, HILSTRA asserts that Ordinance 22-7 violates the state law doctrines of vested rights and/or zoning estoppel (Count II); substantive due process under the United States Constitution (Count 111) and Hawaii Constitution (Count IV); the Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution - 26 -