## Facts

- Bishop Estate owned land in Kalama Valley (East Honolulu) consisting of “Golf Course 5” and “Golf Course 6,” zoned residential since 1954; Kaiser held contractual rights to possess and develop it for housing.
- Portions of the tract fell within the shoreline special management area, requiring a City special management area (SMA) use permit under coastal zone management law.
- The proposed project was across Kalanianaole Highway from Sandy Beach, a heavily used public recreation area; community members opposed the project due to asserted adverse impacts.
- After public meetings and hearings, the City granted Kaiser an SMA use permit subject to conditions.
- Opponents organized as the Save Sandy Beach Initiative Coalition and sponsored an initiative to reclassify the tract from residential to preservation by amending the City’s General Plan and Development Plan and related land-use controls.
- The City Clerk certified the initiative for the ballot.
- Kaiser and Bishop Estate sued to stop placement of the initiative on the ballot, contending that the initiative would bypass required planning and zoning procedures under the Honolulu City Charter and state law.

## Issues

1. Whether Honolulu’s initiative power permits voters to amend the City’s General Plan/Development Plans and rezone a specific tract from residential to preservation.
2. Whether an initiative is invalid when it conflicts with charter- and statute-prescribed planning and zoning procedures requiring agency review, notice, hearings, and City Council action.
3. Whether courts may enjoin placement of such an initiative on the ballot before an election.

## Decision

- The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s injunction preventing the initiative from being placed on the ballot.
- The court held the initiative invalid because it sought to amend the City’s comprehensive planning and zoning scheme through a process that bypassed procedures mandated by the Charter and relevant statutes.
- The court treated the Charter’s specific planning and zoning procedures as controlling over the Charter’s general reservation of initiative power when the two conflict.

## Legal Principles

- The electorate’s initiative power under a municipal charter is limited; it cannot be used to circumvent charter- or statute-mandated procedures assigned to planning agencies and the legislative body.
- Where a charter establishes a specialized, multi-step process for comprehensive planning and zoning (including administrative review and public hearing requirements), parcel-specific plan or zoning changes must proceed through that process rather than by initiative.
- Courts may grant pre-election injunctive relief to prevent placement on the ballot of an initiative that is outside the initiative power or otherwise invalid as a matter of law.
- Protecting coherent, citywide land-use policy supports restricting ad hoc rezoning or comprehensive plan amendments accomplished through direct vote when such actions would disrupt the integrated planning framework.

## Conclusion

The court barred a voter initiative that would have rezoned a specific Kalama Valley tract and amended Honolulu’s comprehensive plans, holding that the City Charter’s and state law’s prescribed planning and zoning procedures cannot be bypassed through the initiative process.


Kaiser Haw. Kai Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 480, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989)