Opinion ID: 2607272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obligations Under the CZMA

Text: Within the scope of their authority, all agencies in Hawai`i must ensure that their rules comply with the objectives and policies of the CZMA. HRS §§ 205A-4(b) and -5. Moreover, the neighbor island county planning commissions and the Honolulu City Council are specifically required to give full consideration ... to ... cultural ... [and] historic ... values as well as to needs for economic development when implementing the objectives, policies, and SMA guidelines set forth in the CZMA. HRS § 205A-4(a) (emphasis added). In accordance with statutory mandates, HPC Rule 9-11(C) provides that the relevant governmental authority may grant a SMA use permit only upon finding that the proposed development: (1) will not have any significant adverse environmental or ecological effect; [17] (2) is consistent with [CZMA] objectives and policies ... and the [SMA] guidelines; [18] and (3) is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances. A significant adverse effect, for the purposes of deliberations upon a SMA permit application, [19] includes the expected primary or secondary consequences of a proposed development, as well as the shortand long-term effects or cumulative consequences of the proposal. Accordingly, the HPC may not issue a SMA use permit unless it finds that the proposed project will not have any significant adverse effects. Cf. Hui Alaloa v. Planning Comm'n, 68 Haw. 135, 705 P.2d 1042 (1985). In Hui Alaloa, the Maui Planning Commission (MPC) failed to make the requisite finding that a proposed development on the island of Moloka`i was consistent with CZMA historic protection and preservation objectives. Notwithstanding the inclusion of permit conditions requiring the developer to retain a qualified archaeologist and to substantially comply with the CZMA and HAPA, we vacated the MPC's orders granting SMA permits. The following factors, inter alia, may constitute significant adverse effects: (a) an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource, including but not limited to, historic sites and view planes; (b) effects upon the economic or social welfare and activities of the community, County or State; and (c) actions contrary to the objectives and policies of [the CZMA] and the [SMA] Guidelines[.] HPC Rule 9-10(H)(1), (4) & (10) (emphases added). See also HPC Rule 9-6(A)(2); HRS § 205A-2(b)(2) (one of the CZMA's objectives and policies is to protect and preserve those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian ... history and culture ) (emphasis added). The interests asserted by PASH fall within these broad categories; therefore, they are entitled to protection under the CZMA. [20] See HRS § 205A-21 (finding that special controls on development are necessary to avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options, and to ensure ... adequate access); HPC Rule 9-11(C) (authorizing the the HPC to attach reasonable terms and conditions to SMA permits); cf. Hammond v. North Slope Borough, 645 P.2d 750, 761-62 (Alaska 1982) (holding that Alaska's version of the CZMA requires its agencies to assure opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources and to issue development permits only where consistent with Alaska's environmental and cultural interests). In order for any conditions placed on a SMA permit issued by the HPC on remand to be deemed reasonable, they must bear an essential nexus to legitimate State interests and must be roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development. See infra section V.B. (discussing the respective requirements from Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 836, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 3148, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994)). Here, the relevant State interests are reflected in article XII, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution (1978) and HRS § 1-1. See infra section IV.B. In other words, the HPC may require dedications appropriately tailored to the special and quantifiable burdens associated with granting discretionary benefits to Nansay, through a SMA permit, which facilitate development of the company's land. Conditions that ensure continued access to the subject property for the legitimate and reasonable practice of customary and traditional rights would presumably comply with constitutional prohibitions against the uncompensated taking of private property. See infra section V.B.