Opinion ID: 1193761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: It is unnecessary for the court to decide whether Young also engaged in other activities constituting development.

Text: As previously stated, in order to deem Young's tour boat operation a development under HRS chapter 205A, this court need only hold that his tour boat operation engaged in any one of the five uses, activities, or operations included under the definition of development in HRS § 205A-22. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Young's tour boat operation changed the intensity of use of water within the SMA, we do not reach the questions whether Young's tour boat operation also engaged, as the circuit court so ruled, in the uses, activities, or operations described in subsections (1) and (3) of HRS § 205A-22.
As previously stated, the Commission pointed to the Coastal Management Plan and the Ad Hoc Committee Report in order to show that the commercial tour boating industry in the Hanalei SMA, generally, and therefore Young's tour boat operation, specifically, had changed the intensity of use of water and land within the SMA, Young, who did not attempt to refute any of the facts presented in the reports, maintains that both reports constitute inadmissible hearsay and were improperly considered by the circuit court. However, because the discussion in section V.A.1, supra, illustrates that the record is sufficient, without reliance upon either report, to establish that Young's tour boat operation constitutes a development, it is unnecessary for us to address this contention.