Opinion ID: 870822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ICA Majority

Text: The ICA issued its published opinion on May 22, 2009, and, as discussed more fully infra, a majority of the court concluded that, pursuant to HAR § 11-200-26, [12] the DPP is required to conduct a two-step inquiry to determine whether a[] SEIS is required, Unite Here!, 120 Hawai`i at 465, 209 P.3d at 1279, specifically: (1) Whether the action (the [p]roject) has changed substantively in size, scope, intensity, use, location or timing? And if so, (2) Will the change in any of these characteristics likely have a significant effect and result in individual or cumulative impacts not originally disclosed in the EIS? Id. (emphases in original). With respect to the two-part inquiry, the ICA reasoned that: If the DPP answers the first question in the negative, no further inquiry is necessary as no other statement [for the [p]roject] will be required. If the DPP answers the first question in the affirmative ( i.e., finding there is a substantive change in one of the aforementioned characteristics), then the DPP is required to determine whether the change will likely have a significant effect and result in individual or cumulative impacts not originally disclosed in the original EIS. Id. (citations omitted) (some brackets in original). In other words, the ICA majority determined that there must be a substantive change in the action (the [p]roject) before a[] SEIS is to be considered. Id. (emphasis in original). The ICA concluded that: (1) [t]he [1985 EIS] detailed only an `approximate phasing of the development for the resort[,]' id. at 466, 209 P.3d at 1280; (2) [n]either the [1985] EIS nor the governmental entities imposed a timing condition[,] id. ; and (3) there was no substantial change in the [p]roject. Id. The ICA also concluded that a SEIS was not required because the subdivision application did not constitute an action under HEPA and that, therefore, the 1985 EIS covered the entire [p]roject, including the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication. Id. at 467, 209 P.3d at 1281. Consequently, the ICA affirmed the circuit court's amended final judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. The ICA did not specifically address Kuilima's contentions that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under HRS § 343-7 or that subdivision application was exempt from HEPA; nor did it review the defendants' contention that the Environmental Council exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27.