Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — SCWC-15-0000478

No. SCWC-15-0000478, Friday, March 19, 2021, 2 p.m.

PROTECT AND PRESERVE KAHOMA AHUPUA‘A ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, MICHELE LINCOLN, MARK ALLEN, LINDA ALLEN, and CONSTANCE B. SUTHERLAND, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, and STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees/Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorneys for Petitioner Stanford Carr:

Craig G. Nakamura and Arsima A. Muller of Carlsmith Ball LLP

Attorneys for Petitioners Maui Planning and County of Maui:

Moana M. Lutey, Corporation Counsel; Thomas W. Kolbe and Caleb P. Rowe, Deputies Corporation Counsel

Attorney for Respondent PPKAA:

Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D Collins

NOTE: Order granting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/20/21.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.

[  Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ]

Brief Description:

This case arises from Stanford Carr Development, LLC’s (“Carr”) application for a Special Management Area (“SMA”) use permit to build a housing project (“the Project”) in the County of Maui’s SMA. The Protect and Preserve Kahoma Ahupua‘a Association (“PPKAA”) filed a petition to intervene in the SMA use permit application proceedings with the Maui Planning Commission (“Commission”), seeking to address the Project’s environmental and aesthetic impacts. The Commission denied PPKAA’s petition to intervene because PPKAA failed to demonstrate its interests were different from those of the general public. The Commission approved Carr’s SMA permit application.

On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) determined PPKAA had standing to intervene as a matter of right, and that PPKAA was denied procedural due process to protect its Hawai‘i Constitution article XI, section 9 right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act. The ICA also determined the Commission was required to make findings on the Project’s consistency with the Maui County general and community plans pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 205A-26(2)(C) (2017).

On certiorari, Carr and the Commission maintain that PPKAA did not sufficiently assert an injury in fact to establish standing and that PPKAA was not denied due process. Carr and the Commission also argue the Commission was not required to make findings regarding the Project’s consistency with the general and community plans because a resolution by the Maui County Council permitted the Project to proceed without obtaining a community plan amendment.