Opinion ID: 870822
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DPP's SEIS procedures

Text: Regarding DPP's SEIS procedures, the plaintiffs submitted the depositions of (1) Arthur Challacombe, the person designated by the [County] as the most knowledgeable on the obligations of the County['s] DPP to enforce the State of [Hawaii's] environmental rules and regulations, (2) Mario Siu-Li, DPP's senior planner, and (3) James Peirson, another DPP planner. With respect to how DPP obtains its evidence to aid in determining whether to require a SEIS, Challacombe stated that, if there's evidence submitted to [DPP,] we will review the evidence. If . . . we have no evidence, then we have nothing to. . . base a determination on. Challacombe noted that there must be some sort of development trigger, i.e., if . . . the condition of the SMP called for X . . . units and the building permit application doubles that, . . . that would cause concern and give us evidence that we need to look at further. He further emphasized that, if everything's the same, if nothing's changed, then we have no evidence and no need to require or ask for a [SEIS]. Siu-Li similarly testified that normally the inquiry [DPP] make[s] is whether the project conforms to the approved permit. According to Peirson, who drafted the response letter on behalf of Eng to Shafer, one of the concerned citizens requesting a SEIS: [E]very time a permit comes in, it isn't a standard question that needs to be asked, hmm, does a [SEIS] have to be done. We will examine the impacts associated with the request, determine what agencies that have expertise in-certain matters need to review it to let us know whether there's issues that we need to be concerned about that might have changed or things that might be necessary or impacts that need to be mitigated. And when we get that kind of feedback, then we have an opportunity to . . . take action, for instance, such as requiring a [SEIS] or requiring additional studies or reports and things like that. With regard to the DPP's process to determine whether to require supplemental review, Challacombe testified: Q. [By the plaintiffs' counsel] [W]ould[] you look at the cumulative to see what's . . . been built around the subdivision to determine the cumulative impacts of something before you grant the subdivision application? A. [By Challacombe] I would look at the cumulative impact of the project on the community, not the other way around. Q. Okay, but in doing that, you'd have to know what the community is at the time, right, you're looking at? A. That's correct. Q. And . . . the DPP wouldn't have done that unless somebody came to them with evidence that the community has changed in some way since the original [permit or application] was granted . . .? A. I wouldn't do it. . . . If the project doesn't change, if the project is the same that was what was approved, then there is no evidence of cumulative impact. . . . . Q. In your experience, have there been other projects where the SMP and unilateral agreement had been approved, but the project wasn't initiated for another 20 years[.] I'm just trying to find out if there's any limits on this . . . I understand this is your opinion, that time is irrelevant. A. Timing is one of the components in. . . the review. It is important. It is not the sole criterion. Q. And is it your understanding, though, that then 20 years just by itself is not sufficient to trigger some thought, gee, maybe things have changed a little bit and we ought to come investigate? A. If the project hasn't changed, then the project hasn't changed so there are no new impacts. Q. Unless the surrounding community has changed, right? There might be if the surrounding community has changed, no? A. If the surrounding community's changed, we would consider that, but we. . . would need the evidence. Q. And you would wait for somebody to present evidence to you, rather than go out and look and see if the surrounding community has changed? A. In terms of the building permit, again, we would compare. We would take that into account. Again, I go back to the traffic study. We, I am sure, are going to require an updated traffic study at the time of building permit application for the Kuilima development. A twenty year old traffic study is not sufficient, because as you pointed out, there may be factors in the community that have changed, i.e., traffic. (Emphases added.) With respect to the review process in the instant case, Siu-Li indicated that, in drafting his response to Gill, the other concerned citizen and an officer of Unite Here!, requesting a SEIS, his initial assumption was that no SEIS would be necessary, and, as a result, he relied on the past determination of a SMP and his colleague's (Peirson's) response letter to Shafer. He further indicated that he did not go back and review the 1985 EIS and, thus, was not fully apprised of its contents nor did he review the original SMP. Addressing the changes that have occurred over the twenty years since the 1985 EIS, Siu-Li testified: Q. [By the plaintiffs' counsel] Did you have a question in your mind . . . before you drafted that letter [to Gill], whether or not the delay of almost 20 years might have a significant impact on the environment or surrounding community? . . . . A. [By Siu-Li] No, I didn't. But like I said, we had some discussions before drafting the letter, and the consensus was that the passing of the time by itself alone would not necessarily trigger a [SEIS]. . . . . Q. [B]efore your letter of January, are you aware of any consideration given by DPP as to whether or not the surrounding community had changed in the 20-year period? A. Well, you know, everything has changed in 20 years. I mean, that's without even saying. You know, whether the project itself has changed, that's something that has not been shown to us. (Emphases added.) Peirson also testified with respect to the timing of the project as follows: Q. [By the plaintiffs' counsel] Wasn't there a projected phasing [indicated in the 1985 EIS] to be finished with the project by 1996? A. [By Peirson] There was, I think, one sentence in the EIS that had a proposed phasing, followed by a footnote or a second sentence that qualified that phasing. But what I would explain to you, as a matter of reading what the entitlement is, there's a difference between what an applicant proposes and what the council disposes in terms of an authority. If they don't adopt the phasing as a condition of the approval, it doesn't matter what might have been proposed. There was no phasing required as a condition of its approval; and therefore, the passage of time itself could not constitute a substantive change to the project. Q. Could not, you said? A. Not under the authority granted by that particular permit. Q. And you don't believe that it could ever require another review under Chapter 343? A. Are you asking simply because of the passage in time? Q. Let's start there. Yes. A. No. (Emphases added.)