Chapter 205A

Coastal Zone Management

CHAPTER 205A

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

Part I. Coastal Zone Management

Section

205A-1 Definitions

205A-2 Coastal zone management program; objectives and

policies

205A-3 Lead agency

205A-3.5 Public advisory body; establishment; composition

205A-4 Implementation of objectives, policies, and

guidelines

205A-5 Compliance

205A-6 Cause of action

Part II. Special Management Areas

205A-21 Findings and purposes

205A-22 Definitions

205A-23 County special management area boundaries

205A-24, 25 Repealed

205A-26 Special management area guidelines

205A-27 Designation of special management area authority

205A-28 Permit required for development

205A-29 Special management area use permit procedure

205A-30 Emergency and minor permits

205A-30.5 Prohibitions

205A-31 Repealed

205A-32 Penalties

205A-33 Injunctions

Part III. Shoreline Setbacks

205A-41 Definitions

205A-42 Determination of the shoreline

205A-43 Establishment of shoreline setbacks and duties and

powers of the department

205A-43.5 Powers and duties of the authority

205A-43.6 Enforcement of shoreline setbacks

205A-44 Prohibitions

205A-45 Shoreline setback lines established by county

205A-46 Variances

205A-47 Repealed

205A-48 Conflict of other laws

205A-49 Adoption of rules

Part IV. Marine and Coastal Affairs

205A-61 Definitions

205A-62 Duties and responsibilities of the lead agency

205A-63 Agency duties to coordinate related programs

205A-64 Public participation

Part V. Other Provisions

205A-71 Artificial light on shoreline and ocean waters

Note

Broadband services; exemption from certain permitting requirements. L 2011, c 151; L 2013, c 264, §3; L 2016, c 193, §§1, 2.

Department of transportation’s bridge rehabilitation and replacement program; temporary exemption from certain construction requirements of this chapter through June 30, 2017 or until completion. L 2012, c 218.

Cross References

Kaho‘olawe island reserve, see chapter 6K.

Climate adaptation, see chapter 225P.

Law Journals and Reviews

Native Hawaiian Cultural Practices Under Threat. I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 1.

Timesharing in the 1990s. I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 89.

Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City and County of Honolulu: The Sufficiency of Legislative Hearings in an Administrative Setting. 12 UH L. Rev. 499.

Shoreline Setback Regulations and the Takings Analysis. 13 UH L. Rev. 1.

The Lum Court, Land Use, and the Environment: A Survey of Hawai`i Case Law 1983 to 1991. 14 UH L. Rev. 119.

Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission: The Affirmative Duty to Consider the Effect of Development on Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights. 16 UH L. Rev. 303.

Ala Loop and the Private Right of Action Under Hawai‘i Constitution Article XI, Section 9: Charting a Path Toward a Cohesive Enforcement Scheme. 33 UH L. Rev. 367 (2010).

The Moon Court, Land Use, and Property: A Survey of Hawai‘i Case Law 1993-2010. 33 UH L. Rev. 635 (2011).

Case Notes

Existence of chapter does not preclude private right of action to force beach access. 65 H. 383, 652 P.2d 1130.

Chapter requires county planning commission to give cultural interests asserted by public interest group “full consideration” and obligates commission to “preserve and protect” native Hawaiian rights to the extent feasible when issuing SMA permits. 79 H. 425, 903 P.2d 1246.

No private right of action for damages existed for commercial tour boat operators under Kauai county’s special management area rules (Hanalei Estuary Management Plan) or under Hawaii administrative rules, chapter 256, entitled “Ocean Recreation Management Rules and Areas”, as promulgated under this chapter and chapter 200, respectively, where both rules were not promulgated with the objective of protecting business interests or competition, but rather with the objective of protecting and preserving the environment for the general public. 110 H. 302, 132 P.3d 1213 (2006).

As this chapter and the Kauai county planning commission’s rules did not prohibit developer from proposing the developer’s shoreline setback in developer’s application for the special management area use permit, and commission was not prohibited from accepting the developer’s setback in approving the permit, the commission’s use of the developer’s setback was consistent with the plain language in the permit order, as also reflected in plaintiff’s deed; thus, commission’s imposition of developer’s setback on plaintiff’s land was justified. 115 H. 477, 168 P.3d 929 (2007).

Where the city council did not delegate the power to determine the effects on archeological resources and the means to protect the resources to a private petitioner, and conditioned the issuance of any development permit for the rail project on its receipt of documentation that a programmatic agreement to minimize and mitigate adverse effects on historic properties as generally described in the final environmental impact statement had been executed, the city and State gave full consideration to cultural and historic values as required under this chapter. 128 H. 53, 283 P.3d 60 (2012).

Chapter does not apply to any development, existing or planned, for which permits listed in L 1975, c 176, §3 were issued or ordinances were passed prior to December 1, 1975. 4 H. App. 304, 666 P.2d 177.