Court Opinion

ID: 9551696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:57:40.876223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:25.208135
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT BY
PADGETT, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit affirming a Land Use Commission decision and order re*134classifying certain property situate Kalauao, District of Ewa, Oahu, Hawaii from conservation to urban. We reverse.
The decision and order of the Land Use Commission (hereinafter “LUC”) was filed August 30, 1979.
Section 343-5(a)(2), HRS as amended by Act 197 of the Session Laws of 1979, provides:
Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions which:
(2) Propose any use within any land classified as conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205.
Appellants contend that this language required an environmental assessment prior to the reclassification from conservation to urban. Appellees contend that the reclassification was not an “action” and that hence, no environmental assessment was required. The word “action” is defined in § 343-2(2) as follows:
“Action” means any program or project to be initiated by any agency or applicant.
Section 343-1, HRS, (which was a new section added by Act 197, Session Laws of 1979) provides:
The legislature finds that the quality of humanity’s environment is critical to humanity’s well being, that humanity’s activities have broad and profound effects upon the interrelations of all components of the environment, and that an environmental review process will integrate the review of environmental concerns with existing planning processes of the State and counties and alert decision makers to significant environmental.effects which may result from the implementation of certain actions. The legislature further finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole.
It is the purpose of this chapter to establish a system of environmental review at the state and county levels which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate con*135sideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations.
Scott R. Nakagawa for appellants.
Francis M. Izumi for appellees, Lear Siegler, Inc. and Lear Siegler Properties, Inc.
Benjamin M. Matsubara (Ukishima isf Matsubara of counsel) for appellee, Land Use Commission.
Steven S. C. him, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for appellee, Department of General Planning.
In adopting Act 197, the legislature expressed its concern with the preservation of the environment and indicated a desire that there be an environmental assessment with respect to any proposed use of conservation land. However, given the wording of § 343-5(a)(2), there could never be an environmental assessment because of such use after the land had been reclassified to urban since it would then no longer be classified as conservation. If, therefore, we accept the appellees’ position, § 343-5(a)(2) would apply only where an application for a permit for such use is made to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (hereinafter “DLNR”) pursuant to what is now § 13-2-19 of that department’s regulations.
This would mean that someone desiring to make use of conservation lands would be subject to the issuance of an environmental assessment when applying for a permit from the DLNR under that department’s highly restrictive regulations, but could, and would, avoid such a requirement entirely by simply applying to the LUC for a reclassification. In view of the wording of the statute, the legislative findings and the State’s environmental policy (Chapter 344, HRS), we dó not believe the legislature intended or the statute requires any such result. Certainly, had that been the intent of the statute, appropriate language to accomplish such a result could easily have been drafted. We hold that when an application is made for the reclassification of conservation lands to other uses, an environmental assessment is necessary before the LUC can reclassify the lands.
Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.