Spirit of Aloha Temple et al v. County of Maui et al

Filing 529

ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/30/2023. (cib)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE AND
FREDRICK R. HONIG,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF MAUI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM/RLP
ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Defendant County of Maui seeks summary judgment with
respect to all remaining claims, arguing that even if the land
use regulations infringed on Plaintiffs’ religious rights, the
denial of the requested Special Use Permit satisfies a strict
scrutiny analysis.

That is, Defendant argues that the denial of

the requested Special Use Permit was the least restrictive means
of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
No. 514-1, PageID # 13056.

See, e.g., ECF

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, seek

summary judgment in their favor with respect to Counts I, VI, and
VIII, arguing that the complete denial of the requested Special
Use Permit was not the least restrictive means of furthering a
compelling governmental interest.
# 12301.

See ECF No. 511-1, PageID

In other words, both parties agree that this court must

examine whether the denial of the requested permit was the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental

interest.

This raises several questions that the court asks the

parties to submit supplemental briefing on.
First, when the the Maui Planning Commission denied the
requested Special Use Permit, ECF No. 511-3, PageID #s 12443-60,
did it limit its compelling use analysis to road safety caused by
increased vehicular traffic?

That is, while a commission member

had earlier noted concerns with respect to potable water and
wastewater facilities, see id., PageID # 12449, did the
commission limit its denial to concerns with respect to the use
of Haumana Road?

If so, should this court’s examination of

whether there was a compelling governmental interest also be
limited to the safety of Haumana Road caused by any increase in
traffic?

In other words, the parties should identify the exact

compelling interest that the court should be examining here.
Second, assuming for purposes of discussion that road
safety relating to increased traffic on Haumana Road could be
said to be a compelling interest, what does it mean to require
the least restrictive means of furthering that interest?
much must the interest be “furthered”?

How

While a complete

prohibition on using the road would ensure road safety, why
wouldn’t “furthering” a governmental interest include measures
limiting traffic in this case?

See Russell W. Galloway, Jr.,

Basic Substantive Due Process Analysis, 26 U.S.F. L. Rev. 625,

2

640–41 (1992) (suggesting that a restriction be a substantially
effective means for advancing a governmental interest).
Third, why wouldn’t limitations on the number of events,
number of attendees, time of events, and imposition of shuttles
sufficiently address road safety relating to increased vehicular
traffic?

Was the County of Maui’s outright denial of the

requested Special Use Permit the least restrictive means of
furthering what it says was its compelling interest?

See

Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F. Supp. 2d 477,
551 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007)
(“Assuming, without determining, that traffic constitutes a
compelling interest in this instance . . . , the Court finds,
based on the evidence in the record, that defendants’ outright
denial of the special permit was not the least restrictive means
of addressing that interest because measures existed to mitigate
any potential increase in traffic caused by the Project.”
(citation omitted)).
The parties should consider trial testimony by William
Spence, the County of Maui’s planning director.
438, 439.

See ECF Nos.

Spence testified about the conditions that the Maui

Planning Department was recommending with respect to the
requested Special Use Permit.

For example, the Maui Planning

Department recommended in Condition # 7 that classes be limited
to 24 attendees, with no more than four classes per week between

3

10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Similarly, church services were to be limited

to 24 attendees once per week between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Events

such as weddings were to be limited to 40 attendees and 48 events
per year, with no more than four events in any month.
were to be used when events had 25 or more people.
511-3, PageID # 12438.

Shuttles

See ECF No.

Spence testified that these conditions

would limit the activity on the property, which would, in turn,
limit the vehicles on Haumana Road and therefore reduce traffic
conflicts on the single-lane Haumana Road.
#s 10105-07, 10112.

ECF No. 439, PageID

At trial, Honig testified that Plaintiffs

had agreed to Condition # 7.

See ECF No. 435, PageID #s 9290-93.

Randall Okaneku, a licensed civil engineer with a
concentration in traffic engineering, also testified at trial.
See ECF No. 436, PageID #s 137-38.

The court qualified Okaneku

as an expert in the field of traffic engineering, including
traffic safety.

Id., PageID # 9609.

Okaneku testified about the

Maui Planning Department's recommendation to the Maui Planning
Commission.

See id., PageID #s 9703-09.

Like Spence, he opined

that the Maui Planning Department's "mitigation measures would
minimize the amount of traffic increase on Haumana Road" caused
by granting Plaintiffs the requested Special Use Permit, and that
these conditions were reasonable.
9708.

ECF No. 437, PageID #s 9706,

In addition to the conditions, Okaneku testified that he

would also recommend the installation of pullouts so that a

4

vehicle could pull over to let another vehicle driving in the
opposite direction pass, as well as appropriate signs saying that
cars should yield to oncoming traffic.

Id., PageID # 9709.

That

is, in terms of vehicle conflicts on the single-lane Haumana
road, Okaneku opined that those conflicts could be mitigated by
imposing conditions that would lessen traffic on the road.
Fourth, given this trial testimony, can this court
decide as a matter of law whether the Maui Planning Commission,
in denying the permit, failed to adopt the least restrictive
means of furthering what the County identified as a compelling
governmental interest?

If not, what fact(s) must be tried to

determine whether strict scrutiny is satisfied?
No later than July 17, 2023, the court asks each party
to submit a single supplemental brief of no more than 2,500 words
limited to the issues discussed in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 30, 2023.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v. County of Maui, Civ. No. 14-00535 SOM/RLP;
ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

5