Kahoma Ahupua’a Case: Upholding Coastal and Community Protections

The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i’s decision in Protect & Preserve Kahoma Ahupua’a Ass’n v. Maui Planning Commission, issued in 2021, examined procedural due process and environmental considerations in land use decisions. The case involved a challenge to a Special Management Area (SMA) use permit issued by the Maui Planning Commission (Commission) for a housing project proposed by Stanford Carr Development, LLC (Carr).

Background of the Case

Carr applied for an SMA use permit to construct 203 housing units and parks on a 24.3-acre site within Maui’s SMA. The Protect and Preserve Kahoma Ahupua‘a Association (PPKAA), an unincorporated community group, petitioned to intervene in the proceedings. PPKAA expressed concerns about potential environmental, cultural, and community impacts, citing issues such as stormwater drainage, scenic views, and traffic congestion. Despite these concerns, the Commission denied PPKAA’s petition, asserting that its interests were not distinct from those of the general public.

PPKAA challenged the Commission’s decisions in court, arguing that the denial violated their right to procedural due process under the Hawai‘i Constitution and that the Commission failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court considered several critical questions:

1. Standing to Intervene: Whether PPKAA demonstrated sufficient interest to justify its intervention as a matter of right.
2. Procedural Due Process: Whether the denial of PPKAA’s petition to intervene violated their constitutional rights under Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, which guarantees a clean and healthful environment.
3. Consistency with Plans: Whether the Commission was required to assess the project’s compliance with Maui’s general and community plans under the CZMA.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The key findings included:

• Standing to Intervene: The court held that PPKAA established standing under the CZMA and the Hawai‘i Constitution, as its members demonstrated specific, direct impacts from the proposed development.
• Procedural Due Process: The court determined that PPKAA’s procedural due process rights were violated. By denying intervention, the Commission prevented PPKAA from presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses, which hindered their ability to protect their environmental and aesthetic interests.
• Plan Consistency: The court emphasized that the Commission was required to determine the project’s consistency with the county’s general and community plans under HRS §205A-26(2)(C). The court clarified that exemptions granted by the county council did not absolve the Commission of this duty.

Conclusion

The ruling in Protect & Preserve Kahoma Ahupua’a Ass’n v. Maui Planning Commission details the court's findings regarding public participation in land use decisions and adherence to statutory requirements for environmental and community planning. The decision also outlines procedural due process and the CZMA’s application in balancing development with environmental protection.

Our Legal Expertise

At Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC, we provide skilled legal counsel in environmental and land use law. Contact us for guidance on navigating complex regulatory and legal challenges.

Image credit: rawpixel, 123RF Free Images