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

Heading: facts

Text: As aptly summarized by the ICA: In the 1980[]s, Kuilima's predecessor in interest, Kuilima Development Company (KDC), owned a resort on the North Shore of the [i]sland of O'ahu. The resort consisted of a 487-room hotel and an 18-hole golf course. KDC proposed the Kuilima Resort Expansion ([p]roject), which would involve expansion of the existing hotel and new construction of three hotels for total of 1,450 + new units; renovation of the existing 18-hole golf course; and new construction of 2,060 + condominium units, a 70,000 + sq. ft. commercial complex, an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse, a tennis center, and an equestrian center. The [p]roject also called for infrastructure and public improvements, including a new wastewater treatment plant, a production water well, a standby well, a new reservoir, new water distribution lines, improvements to the portion of Kamehameha Highway fronting the resort, two private and two public beach parks, a wildlife preserve that included virtually all of Punahoolapa Marsh, and public rights-of-way to the shoreline. Unite Here!, 120 Hawai`i at 459, 209 P.3d at 1273.
On August 5, 1985 and in accordance with HEPA, a Draft EIS was prepared and filed with the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) and, thereafter, published in the OEQC bulletin on August 8, 1985. Public comment contributed to the preparation of a revised EIS, which was submitted to the DLU on October 7, 1985. The revised EIS was accepted on October 30, 1985 [hereinafter, the EIS or 1985 EIS]. According to the EIS, the proposed project was to be developed in three phases: (1) phase I starting in 1986; (2) phase II in 1988-89; and (3) phase III between 1993 and 1996. The 1985 EIS also indicated that, [a]t full development, the expanded facilities of the resort would introduce a new visitor population averaging about 4,783 persons on any given day. With regard to evaluation of the environmental setting of the project area and the probable impact of the proposed project on the environment, the 1985 EIS looked to topography and drainage, soils, water resources and usage, tsunami/flood hazards, coastal water quality, vegetation, sand dunes, threatened or endangered endemic species of birds, Punaho`olapa marsh, historical and archaelogical resources, agriculture, and air quality, as well as traffic and road conditions. In its analysis of the coastal waters, specifically Kawela Bay, which borders the project, the 1985 EIS referenced the potential impact of desilting on green sea turtles, a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). More specifically, it noted that the desilting operation would be located across the area where the abundant growths of algae that are known to be important diet items of [green sea turtles] are found. There was no reference to any anticipated impact upon the Hawaiian monk seal, an endangered species under the ESA. The EIS also analyzed the adverse and unavoidable impacts of the project's development. These identified impacts included drainage, traffic, dust generation, water consumption, marsh drainage input, loss of agricultural uses, construction noise, air quality, and solid waste disposal. In addressing the adverse and unavoidable traffic impacts of the project, the 1985 EIS relied upon a traffic study that examined the traffic conditions caused by an increase in visitors to the North Shore region on O'ahu (between Haleiwa and Punalu`u), with projections through the year 2000. Specifically, the 1985 EIS recognized that: [a]ccess to the project site is via Kamehameha Highway. Kamehameha Highway is the only arterial highway serving the North Shore and Windward O'ahu. It is a two-lane, two-way, undivided State highway generally following the coastline, except for the Kahuku area where it turns inland. The roadway width of Kamehameha Highway varies between 20 and 24 feet, with generally unpaved shoulders. The highway varies from flat straightaways with few driveway connections to a curvilinear alignment with many driveway connections. Between Kahuku and Haleiwa, there are no provisions for left-turn lanes or bus turnouts (except at Waimea Bay). In most of the communities between Haleiwa and Punalu'u, the great majority of residents live within a few blocks of Kamehameha Highway. The highway is each community's link with the rest of O'ahu and a sense of increasing congestion is a major source of concern of area residents. Field investigations of traffic conditions on weekends and holidays show that traffic congestion occurs because of bottleneck locations rather than a breakdown of the overall highway facility. This indicates that the highway's capacity restraint is not the number of lanes on the roadway but rather highway geometries and increased roadside activity. Haleiwa and Waimea Bay are the primary capacity restraints along the North Shore. The narrow Anahulu Bridge located near Haleiwa Beach Park requires opposing stream of vehicles to slow down. Through Haleiwa, left-turn traffic and motorists pulling off to park on the roadside queue traffic in both directions. Similarly, at Waimea Bay, motorists parking on the roadside and turning left into Waimea Beach Park or into Waimea Valley Road queue traffic in both directions. The curvilinear highway alignment along Waimea Bay causes a further slowdown. Finally, the vehicles parked on the roadside impose additional restraints on capacity and operating speeds. Similar frictional effects occur at other beach parks such as at Pupukea, Sunset, Hau'ula and Swanzy Beach Parks when large gatherings occur (a surf meet or a community picnic). Furthermore, periodic slowdowns occur behind [city] buses stopping in the highway to pick up or drop off passengers. On the Windward side, between Kuilima to Laie, there are no restraints on capacity other than the highway itself. The 1985 EIS reported that, [o]n the regional level, previous studies have recognized the highway alignment problems at Waimea Bay and the need for upgrade of the existing Kamehameha Highway. (Emphasis added.) Relying on a 1985 traffic study analyzing the existing regional traffic impacts in the Kahuku, Kawailoa, and Hau'ula areas, the 1985 EIS projectedto the year 2000the traffic impacts to the aforementioned areas (1) without the resort expansion and (2) with the resort expansion. In comparing the with and without resort expansion impacts, the 1985 EIS indicates that the construction of the resort expansion would increase traffic impacts by an average of 37.4% in Kahuku, 14.3% in Kawailoa, and 6.4% in Hau`ula. The EIS observed that, in order to mitigate the impact of entry into the project fromand exiting the project ontoKamehameha Highway, at full development, the traffic study recommended: (1) the construction of a left-turn lane on Kamehameha Highway at the existing Kuilima Drive (the main access road to the resort); (2) the construction of fully channelized intersections on Kamehameha Highway with turning lanes at the proposed West Kuilima Drive (also known as the project's Alpha Road) and at the existing Kahuku Airport Road; (3) the installation of traffic signals on Kamehameha Highway where it intersects with Kuilima Drive, Kahuku Airport Road, and the proposed West Kuilima Drive; and (4) minimization of visitors' use of automobiles by instituting, for example, an airport shuttle service. Despite the suggested improvements, the EISquoting the traffic study also observed that, [w]hile the increased traffic generated by the proposed resort expansion is significant when compared to the projected background conditions, it is not beyond the carrying capacity of an upgraded, high quality two-lane arterial.
As observed by the ICA: The [1985] EIS listed additional governmental approvals KDC needed to obtain in order to complete development of the [p]roject, including rezoning approval from the DLU, grading and building permits, a shoreline certification, a Special Management Area Use Permit [(SMP)], and subdivision approval. On March 27, 1986, the Land Use Commission approved the reclassification of 236 acres of the property from [a]griculture. . . to [u]rban [d]istrict for resort and golf course uses. On May 23, 1986, the DLU accepted KDC's application for a [SMP] and [s]horeline [s]etback [v]ariance. KDC sought to expand its resort by developing a master-planned resort community that would include hotels, dwellings, commercial areas, golf courses, parks, roadways; to replace two drainage culverts with open channels; and to conduct a desilting operation at Kawela Bay. On June 25, 1986, a bill for an ordinance to rezone certain portions of the property to be developed under the [p]roject was introduced before the [City Council]. The bill incorporated the Unilateral Agreement and Declaration for Conditional Zoning ([u]nilateral [a]greement), in which KDC agreed that the zoning change would be subject to conditions requiring, among other things, construction of a wastewater treatment plant, construction of low-to-moderate-income housing, improvements and modifications to roadways, the implementation of a shuttle service, and the establishment of a child care center, parks, public easements to and along the shoreline, and public parking. Like the [1985] EIS, the [u]nilateral [a]greement anticipated development to proceed in three phases, the last phase to be completed before 2000. The [u]nilateral [a]greement noted that development may deviate from the phased development schedule due to the occurrence of changed economic conditions, lawsuits, strikes or other unforeseen circumstances. The City Council passed the rezoning bill on August 14, 1986 and approved KDC's application for the [SMP] and [s]horeline [s]etback [v]ariance by resolution adopted on October 1, 1986 (the March 27, 1986; August 14, 1986; and October 1, 1986 approvals are collectively referred to as the [p]roject [e]ntitlements). Over the next twenty years, only certain aspects of the [p]roject were completed. KDC constructed a wastewater treatment plant and water main between January 1989 and March 1990, the Opana Wells between February 1989 and March 1991, and the Palmer Golf Course between March 1989 and March 1991. Construction of improvements to Punahoolapa Marsh began in approximately March 1990. From 1990 through 1991, KDC obtained subdivision approvals for various parcels to be used for parks, roads, hotels, a golf course, and a golf clubhouse. In March 1999, Kuilima purchased the property underlying the [p]roject from KDC[,] and KDC assigned its interest in the [p]roject to Kuilima. In May 1999, the DPP drafted the Ko`olau Loa Sustainable Communities Plan to help guide public policy, investment, and decision-making through the 2020 planning horizon in order to maintain and enhance the region's ability to sustain its unique character, current population, growing [sic], families, lifestyle, and economic livelihood. The plan recognized and supported the [p]roject. The City Council adopted the plan on December 16, 1999. Kuilima renovated the existing Fazio Golf Course between 2000 and 2002. In 2003, Kuilima obtained approval to renovate and expand existing portions of the Turtle Bay Resort. Between 2003 and 2005, Kuilima invested about $100 million in completing these renovations, which included the addition of nine resort condominium units. As of November 2005, construction on the major components of the [p]roject, including the hotel rooms and the [remaining] condominium units, had not begun. 120 Hawai`i at 460-61, 209 P.3d at 1274-75 (emphasis added).
After 1985, Kuilima solicited two additional traffic impact analysis reportsin 1991 and 2005. [2] Because the 1985 EIS considered projected traffic impacts through the year 2000, the 2005 updated traffic impact analysis [hereinafter, the 2005 report] and three addendums thereto, prepared in 2006, are particularly relevant. The 2005 traffic report focused on local traffic impacts, that is, impacts on the roadway fronting the property, including the internal roadways of the resort itself. Generally, the 2005 traffic report indicated that, even with the construction of certain traffic improvements (many of which overlap with the yet incomplete improvements suggested by the 1985 EIS), the expansion project, when completed, would result in increased local traffic impacts. As previously stated, the 2005 report was updated three times in 2006, focusing again on only local traffic impacts. Addendum No. 1, dated February 15, 2006, evaluated the initial design of the intersection of Kamehameha Highway and the project's Alpha Road (also known as the proposed West Kuilima Drive), including turning lanes and the recommended improvements to facilitate the traffic needs of that immediate area, projected out through 2008. The addendum concluded that, [a]s Turtle Bay Resort continues to expand beyond the Year 2008, the peak hour traffic operations at the intersection of Kamehameha Highway and Alpha Road are expected to deteriorate below satisfactory levels of service [(LOS)]. Additional improvements at the study intersection, such as traffic signalization and lane modifications, may be required to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from further development of the Turtle Bay Resort. (Emphasis added.) Addendum No. 2, dated February 23, 2006, evaluated the design of two-lane Alpha Road to determine when it should be widened to a four-lane roadway. It concluded that Alpha Road will be constructed as a private roadway and is expected to remain so in the foreseeable future. Traffic operations of the two-lane section of Alpha Road at peak hour volumes over 800 [vehicles per hour] would result in a [below satisfactory LOS]. In general, intersection operations are more critical than the operation of a continuous two-lane roadway. The proposed 108-foot right of way will provide adequate width as to construct turning lanes on the initial two-lane divided roadway at internal resort intersections, as needed. Widening sections of Alpha Road. . . would maintain [satisfactory] conditions or better as major [l]ots in the Turtle Bay Resort are developed. The remaining two-lane section of Alpha Road . . . is expected to operate at a satisfactory [LOS] at full build out and occupancy of the Turtle Bay Resort Master Plan. Addendum No. 3, dated August 25, 2006, analyzed the second phase of improvements on Kamehameha Highway, including traffic signalization at the Kamehameha Highway/Alpha Road intersection, improvements at the intersection of Kamehameha Highway and Kuilima Drive, and traffic signalization of the Kamehameha Highway/Kuilima Drive intersection, projected through 2011. The addendum concluded that [t]he Kamehameha Highway intersections at Alpha Road and Kuilima Drive are expected to require traffic signalization to accommodate the anticipated expansion of Turtle Bay Resort up to the Year 2011, when a total of 1,970 hotel rooms will be constructed. Lane modification at the study intersections, the extension of Alpha Road from Kuilima Drive to Marconi Road, and the improvement of Marconi Road and its intersection with Kamehameha Highway will be required to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the full-build out and occupancy of Turtle Bay Resort Master Plan[.]
As the ICA further summarized: On November 8, 2005, Kuilima submitted a Site Development Division Master Application Form ([s]ubdivision [a]pplication) to the DPP, seeking subdivision approval for approximately 744 acres of its 808-acre property. In response to the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication, the DPP received two letters in January 2006, asking that the DPP require the preparation of a [SEIS] before approving the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication. In a January 5, 2006 letter, Eric Gill, the treasurer of UNITE HERE! Local 5, asserted that a[] SEIS was required because twenty years had passed since the [1985] EIS and changes had occurred in the traffic, water availability, hotel and housing needs, endangered species habitat needs, and the like. North Shore resident Ben Shafer submitted a January 6, 2006 letter, stating that [m]uch had changed since the approval of the [1985] EIS some twenty years ago and a[] SEIS needed to be prepared to allow for some community input and to address new concerns regarding [t]ransportation, sewage, housing, water, cultural [issues], [and] the Master Plan for the Ko`olauloa region. The DPP responded to the Shafer and Gill letters that[,] because no specific time limit had been imposed on the [p]roject at the time of the [p]roject's initial approval, the DPP felt it could not require a[] SEIS to address changes in the conditions surrounding the [p]roject caused by the passage of time. Although DPP planner James Peirson (Peirson) drafted the January 19, 2006 reply letter to Shafer, the letter was signed by Eng. The DPP's letter to Shafer stated: No time frame for development was either implied or imposed by the City Council as part of its approval. Accordingly, the developer is entitled to proceed with the project as approved. By not imposing any time limits at the time, the City Council indicated that the project could be developed at its own pace. Further, as a matter of law, the [County] cannot retroactively impose time limits or unilaterally rescind an entitlement like an approved discretionary permit. . . . . The DPP's reply letter to Gill, dated January 31, 2006, was prepared by DPP planner Mario Siu-Li (Siu-Li) and signed by Eng. The letter explained that a[] SEIS was not required because[,] as long as Kuilima was following the appropriate subdivision rules and regulations, the [County] was obligated to continue to process the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication. The DPP provided Gill a copy of its letter to Shafer. [DPP Planner] Peirson explained . . . that[,] when determining whether to require a[] SEIS, DPP looked to see if there had been any substantive changes to a project. [Planner] Siu-Li similarly stated that the reason why the DPP did not require a[] SEIS for the [p]roject was because the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication was not changing the existing condition of the properties. On March 8, 2006, the [Environmental Council] heard testimony from members of the North Shore community regarding the SEIS issue. On March 22, 2006, the Environmental Council wrote to the DPP requesting clarification as to why the [p]roject did not require a[] SEIS considering the changes in timing since 1985, especially with respect to cumulative impacts and mitigative measures articulated in the original accepted [1985 EIS]. In an April 4, 2006 letter, the Department of Corporation Counsel for [the County] responded that the DPP would not comment on the Environmental Council's concerns because the issue of requiring a[] SEIS had become the subject of litigation. The Environmental Council sent a follow-up letter to the DPP dated June 14, 2006, expressing the [C]ouncil's concern that the DPP was placing the burden on others to prove a[] SEIS was required instead of making its own independent determination: The Council is concerned that DPP has not made an independent determination of whether a[] SEIS is required. Rather, it appears as though DPP believes that it should not require a[] SEIS unless some third party proves to DPP that it is required. This does not appear to be correct. The Environmental Council also stated that[,] based on the information available to it regarding changing environmental conditions in the [p]roject over the last twenty years and changes in the [p]roject's timing and scope, it believed the DPP should require Kuilima to prepare a[] SEIS for the [p]roject. As part of its subdivision review process, the DPP circulated Kuilima's [s]ubdivision [a]pplication to various interested departments and agencies of [the County] and the State of Hawai`i for review, comment, and approval. The State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation (DOT) was among the departments and agencies that reviewed the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication. The DOT accepted Kuilima's [r]oadway [i]mprovements [i]mplementation and [p]hasing [p]lan after Kuilima agreed to revise its [t]raffic [i]mpact [a]nalysis report to address the DOT's concerns. On September 29, 2006, without requiring a[] SEIS, the DPP tentatively approved the [s]ubdivision [a]pplication. Unite Here!, 120 Hawai`i at 461-62, 209 P.3d at 1275-76 (underscored emphasis in original) (original ellipses omitted) (some brackets in original).
Two civil lawsuits were originally filed in connection with DPP's decision not to require a SEIS for the project: (1) Civ. No. 06-1-0265, filed on February 15, 2006, by Unite Here!, a labor organization representing 350 Kuilima employees, against Kuilima and the County, seeking to require Kuilima to prepare a SEIS and to enjoin DPP from processing approvals and permits for the project; and (2) Civ. No. 06-1-0867, filed on May 19, 2006 and amended on June 7, 2006, by KNSC, a Hawai`i non-profit corporation comprised of North Shore residents and/or property owners, and the Hawai`i branch of Sierra Club, a California non-profit organization, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Eventually, both actions were consolidated on July 17, 2006. On August 10, 2006, the parties stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims and all parties in Civ. No. 06-1-0265 (the original suit brought by Unite Here!), pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 41(a)(1)(B) (2006). Thus, the only remaining claims and parties are those brought under Civ. No. 06-1-0867, KNSC, et al. v. City & County of Honolulu, et al. [hereinafter, the KNSC/Sierra Club action or the instant action]. In the KNSC/Sierra Club action, the plaintiffs sought (1) an injunction requiring Kuilima to prepare a SEIS pursuant to HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27 and (2) to enjoin construction relating to the project until the SEIS was completed. Relying on the description in the 1985 EIS with respect to the timing of the project, [3] the plaintiffs essentially argued that the [p]roject has changed `substantively in timing, among other things,' and that this change in timing has had a significant effect such that a SEIS is warranted. On June 16, and June 19, 2006, Kuilima and the County, respectively, filed an answer to the plaintiffs' complaint, generally denying the plaintiffs' allegations. On October 11, 2006, Kuilima filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and three motions for summary judgment. The County joined in Kuilima's motions, except for Kuilima's second motion for summary judgment. [4] See Unite Here!, 120 Hawai`i at 462, 209 P.3d at 1276. Additionally, in response to the defendants' third motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. [5] In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, the defendants argued, inter alia, that HAR § 11-200-26, et. seq. exceed[s] the statutory authority of HEPA and/or that requiring Kuilima to prepare a[] SEIS for the Turtle Bay expansion project would violate the plain and express language of HRS § 343-5(g) [(Supp. 2005)], which mandates in unequivocal terms that [a] statement that is accepted with respect to a particular action shall satisfy the requirements of this chapter and no other statement for that proposed action shall be required[.] In their first motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitation set forth in HRS § 343-7 (1993), quoted infra. In the second motion, Kuilima argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on the entirety of the plaintiffs' complaint because the subdivision application was (1) exempt from the environmental review process[] and (2) non-discretionary in nature and[, thus, could] not trigger a SEIS. Finally, the defendants argued in their third motion for summary judgment that they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because, based on the undisputed facts before the circuit court: 1. [The p]laintiffs have no evidence to show a substantive change in the [p]roject as required by HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27; 2. [The p]laintiffs have no evidence to show significant effects on the environment likely resulting from their alleged change in the [p]roject (timing) as required by HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27; 3. [The p]laintiffs have no evidence to show that any of the alleged environmental impacts of the [p]roject that they allege resulted from a change in timing of the [p]roject were not originally disclosed or previously dealt with, as required by HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27; and 4. Applying the rule of reason to DPP's decision, and considering the agency's extensive record regarding the planning and permitting process for the region in general, and for this [p]roject in particular, the DPP's decision not to require a[] SEIS for the [p]roject cannot be deemed either arbitrary or capricious. The plaintiffs argued in their cross-motion for summary judgment that: (1) enforceable HEPA rules required a SEIS either when there are substantive project changes or new circumstances and evidence (emphases added); (2) the substantive change in the timing of the project caused, and new circumstances and evidence brought to light, increased environmental impacts to traffic and species not previously dealt with in the 1985 EIS; (3) Kuilima's subdivision application triggered HEPA's supplemental review; and (4) DPP did not take a hard look at the new circumstances and evidence and, thus, violated HEPA when it decided that Kuilima was not required to prepare a SEIS. With respect to timing, the plaintiffs specifically argued that the passage of time, especially when it is more than twenty years, is relevant and must be considered in light of the very low threshold for requiring a[] SEIS under Hawai`i law. On November 3, 2006, the defendants each filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.
In support of the third motion for summary judgment, the defendants, pursuant to HRCP 56(e) (2006), [6] attached parts of the 1985 EIS and the KDC unilateral agreement. With respect to the 1985 EIS, the defendants pointed to the following specific language contained therein, which stated: D. PHASING AND TIMING OF THE ACTION Figure 9 shows the approximate phasing of development for the resort (phasing is dependent on receiving the necessary governmental approvals). Note that Phase I designation generally indicates a 1986 start of construction date, Phase II, commencement between 1988 to 1989, and Phase III, [c]ommencement between 1993 to 1996. With respect to the unilateral agreement, the defendants pointed to a provision therein, which stated in relevant part: 3. Development of the project shall generally be based on the submitted schedule [(which is the same as the one referenced in the 1985 EIS).] Development may deviate from this schedule due to the occurrence of changed economic conditions, lawsuits, strikes or other unforseen [sic] circumstances.
The following relevant evidence was submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, pursuant to HRCP 56(e):
Relying on the same provision from the 1985 EIS cited by the defendants, i.e., D. PHASING AND TIMING OF THE ACTION,  quoted above, the plaintiffs argued that the timing condition was inherent within the 1985 EIS itself. Additionally, the plaintiffs maintained that the entirety of the 1985 EIS was based on evidence available in 1985over twenty years ago.
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.)

The plaintiffs enlisted the services of Tom Brohard, a professional engineer, and submitted his declaration, as well as his October 2006 review of traffic studies for the Turtle Bay resort expansion project on the North Shore of O'ahu. In his review, Brohard asserted that [a]n appropriate traffic impact analysis of the [project] has not been conducted as of this date. Acknowledging the existence of various documented traffic studies for the project areaincluding those prepared in 1985, 1991, and 2005, discussed supra, Brohard opined that such reports do not match the EIS project description and contain fundamental errors in methodology. He stated that [t]he 1985 Report is outdated[,] and there are numerous errors, conflicts, and omissions throughout the 1991 Report and the 2005 Report[.] Brohard explained: The traffic analyses for the [project] have used a lessening annual background growth rate from 4% in 1985 to 3.5% in 1991 to 2.7% in 2005. Reducing the background growth rate is contrary to a number of factors including the significant increase in the number of vehicle registrations on O'ahu and increased visitor trips to the North Shore created by factors such as the increasing popularity of observing basking sea turtles and the proliferation of surfing schools catering to tourists. Each of these has contributed to the increase in traffic at Turtle Bay, with half of the overnight Waikiki visitors in 2005 traveling to the North Shore during their O'ahu stay. None of the traffic analyses have quantified vehicle trips generated by pipeline development in the study area. Certainly, a number of projects have been approved but not yet constructed or fully occupied. There are also others that are reasonably foreseeable in the next 15 to 25 years. Trips to and from pipeline development must be included in the base traffic volumes before trips for the [project] are added and analyzed. The flawed approach used in each traffic study significantly underestimates future base volumes. The revised evaluation must include vehicle trips from pipeline development that come on line as the major phases of the [project] are occupied. All planned and funded road improvements assumed to be in place at each project phase must also be identified. Failing to identify the proper baseline traffic volumes could certainly result in the failure to disclose significant traffic impacts when project traffic is added to the [project]. The future baseline traffic forecasts must be corrected and each of the resulting significant project traffic impacts must be identified, analyzed[,] and mitigated.
The plaintiffs submitted a July 5, 2006 report prepared by marine biologist Jason Baker on behalf of the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center pursuant to the plaintiffs' June 2006 Freedom of Information Act request. Baker's report summarize[d] all documented sightings of Hawaiian monk seals in the area of Turtle Bay resort, between Kawela Bay and Kahuku Point, as well as all monk seal births at or near the project site. Since the early 1980s, monk seal sightings at and around the project area were sporadic. Sightings were reported in 1984 and 1991. The record indicates no sightings between 1985 and 1989 nor between 1997 and 1999. In 2001, monk seal sightings at or around the project area began to increase, with three sightings in 2001 and 2002, six in 2003, nine in 2004, twenty-one in 2005 and fifty four in 2006. According to Baker's report, [sixty-nine] of [the] 101 [documented] seal sightings [since 1984] are attributable to [eleven] known individual[ seals], [f]ive of [which] are adult females who are documented to have given birth and nursed their pups on remote beaches on Kaua`i, Moloka`i, Hawai`i, Ni`ihau, Rabbit Island, and O'ahu. As of this report: [a] single birth has been recorded in [the project] area. A pup was born on Kaihalulu Beach, on the Kahuku side of the resort, on June 1, 2006, and the mother and nursing pup are currently in the area as of July 3, 2006, along the beach or in nearshore waters. The nursing period generally lasts [five to seven] weeks. Although not in the immediate area of interest, a second birth was documented at nearby Waiale'e Beach Park on March 15, 1991. The plaintiffs also referenced three water quality reports administered by Kuilima in 1989 that summarized observations of green sea turtles over periods of five days during daylight hours only. These reports indicated that, in July 1989, no more than three turtles were observed simultaneously in one time interval. The October 1989 report estimated a maximum of nine turtles in the bay during morning hours. In December 1989, there was an average of about ten turtles in the bay during early morning hours and three or four turtles in the bay during the mid-day and afternoon hours.
In opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, the defendants pointed to, inter alia, other portions of Challacombe's deposition testimony regarding the DPP's SEIS procedures, both in general and specifically as to Kuilima's project: Q. [By the plaintiffs' counsel] When[,]. . . based on your understanding, would a [SEIS] be required for a project that involves a[] SMP [7] or a unilateral agreement? A. [By Challacombe] When the scope of the project has changed, the size has changed, density. Whenever there's a significant as per the [HEPA] rules, whenever there's a significant change in the development. Q. How about the timing of the development? A. That's a component, but it's not necessarily the only thing. [I]t's everything. Again, size, scope, you know, it could be the timing, but it's not necessarily. Nowhere Q. It could be any one of those, though, right? A. It could be, yes. Q. That would trigger a [SEIS]? A. It could be. Again, the key wording is significant impact. [A] significant impact would result from the change in the scope, timing, so forth. Q. So is that your understanding of the DPP's view of this, is that a [SEIS] is not necessary for a project that has a[] SM[P] or a unilateral agreement unless there will be a significant impact . . . in some area? A. Yes. Q. And it's not may, it's will? A. May. No, it's may. Q. It's may? A. Yes. It specifically says that in the rules. . . . . Q. So it's not necessarily somebody coming in saying that this will have an impact, it's somebody looking at it to say may this have an impact or not, correct? A. That's correct. (Emphases added.)
In further support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted evidence in their November 8, 2006 reply memorandum, regarding new information about monk seals in the project area that was not previously available. Specifically, the plaintiffs deposed Charles Littnan, Ph.D. (Dr. Littnan), a marine mammal ecologist who has studied the habitat requirements, diet, and feeding behavior of the Hawaiian monk seal for over ten years. According to Dr. Littnan, both the beach and near shore areas of the project are now known to be a foraging habitat to the monk seal population, the beach has been identified as an important hauling out habitat, [8] and the first recorded pupping of Hawaiian monk seals in the project area occurred on June 1, 2006. Dr. Littnan stated that the numerous recently reported sightings of monk seals in the area suggest that the beaches and near shore areas of the [p]roject are critical to the regeneration of the monk seal population because there are numerous beaches on [O'ahu] which have had no reported sightings of monk seals on them, indicating that some beaches are not attractive to monk seals. Several seal species have been shown to have preference for particular beach characteristics ( e.g. [,] slope, exposure to swells, substrate [sand or rock], proximity to feeding areas), so it is reasonable to believe monk seals have similar criteria in their choice of beach. Further, the fact that multiple seals have used this area indicates that there is something that is causing them to select it specifically. As a result, Dr. Littnan stated that he expect[s] that the number of pups born in the main Hawaiian [i]slands will continue to increase each year for the foreseeable future, and[,] assuming there are no changes in the conditions of the [r]esort [a]rea, it is very likely that the monk seals will continue to use the . . . [a]rea as a habitat for pupping. Dr. Littnan further testified that, although the project area is not currently designated as a critical habitat, the last critical habitat assessment for Hawaiian monk seals was performed prior to the increased presence of monk seals in the [m]ain Hawaiian [i]slands, [and] it cannot be assumed that the [p]roject area will not be so designated in the future.
On November 13, 2006, a hearing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment was held. After considering the arguments made and the evidence submitted by the parties, the circuit court entered an order on December 5, 2006, granting Kuilima's third motion for summary judgment and the County's joinder and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The circuit court essentially agreed with the defendants' interpretation of HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27 that a SEIS is required only when there is a substantive project change and determined that, as a matter of law, the timing of the project had not substantively changed. As previously noted, the circuit court, based upon its grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruled that the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and the other two motions for summary judgment were moot. Also, on December 5, 2006, the circuit court entered the following relevant findings of fact (FOFs) and conclusions of law (COLs): [FOFs] 1. [HRS] § 343-5(g) [(Supp.2005)] provides that an [EIS] that is accepted with respect to a particular action shall satisfy the requirements of the chapter and no other statement for that proposed action shall be required. 2. [HEPA] allows the Environmental Council to draft rules and regulations to implement HEPA[.] 3. An EIS is supposed to be prepared, and environmental consequences of an action are supposed to be reviewed, at the earliest possible time. See HRS § 343-5(b). The [c]ourt finds that this was done with respect to the [project] in 1985. The EIS for the [p]roject was accepted in October 1985, and is a matter of public record. 4. Although there has been some delay in the [p]roject from the community's perspective, there have been ongoing activities and actions with respect to the [p]roject throughout the past [twenty] years. In addition, the [p]roject was adopted as part of the Ko'olauloa Sustainable Communities Plan in May of 1999; the public had an opportunity to participate with respect to the adoption of that [p]lan. 5. The [DPP], as the accepting authority, is responsible for determining whether a [SEIS] is required for the [p]roject. See HAR § [] XX-XXX-XX. 6. At the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006, certain North Shore neighborhood boards . . . and other individuals asked the DPP whether the timing of the [p]roject would require a [SEIS]. The [p]laintiffs did not write any of those letters. The DPP responded, indicating that it had determined that a [SEIS] was not required for the [p]roject. Although it does not appear that specific reasons were given, the DPP determined that the timing of the action has not changed so as to require a [SEIS]. 7. The . . . 1985 EIS contained only general statements in terms of phasing of the [p]roject, but those statements did not impose a time limit on the [p]roject based on that proposed phasing time frame. The. . . 1985 EIS does not obligate Kuilima to follow that phasing time frame. 8. The law provides that when you have a project that is to be constructed in phases, the original EIS covers everything, and the project is the action under consideration. In this case, the [p]roject is the action. There has been no change to the action that would essentially make it a new action under consideration. [COLs] 1. The law provides that courts are supposed to give deference to the expertise of agencies that deal with administrative issues. The [circuit c]ourt is not to substitute its judgment for the judgment of an agency. If the decision of the agency meets the rule of reason and the decision is not arbitrary or capricious, the [circuit c]ourt shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. 2. The DPP's decision that a [SEIS] is not required for the [p]roject meets the rule of reason standard[] and was not arbitrary or capricious. The timing of the [p]roject has not substantively, or essentially, changed. In the alternative, even if the timing had substantively changed, which the [circuit c]ourt finds that it has not, such change is not likely to have a significant effect. 3. [The p]laintiffs' concerns that form the basis of their claims in this litigation were basically expressed for the first time in the filings before this [c]ourt. However, even if the [circuit c]ourt were to review those concerns, the [circuit c]ourt would not find that there is a substantive change likely to result in a significant effect not originally considered or previously dealt with that would require a[] SEIS. (Emphases added.) On June 4, 2007, the circuit court entered its amended final judgment [9] in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs on all of the plaintiffs' claims set forth in their first amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on June 19, 2007.
On direct appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the circuit court erred in (1) granting the defendants' third motion for summary judgment and (2) denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued, as they did before the circuit court, that a SEIS is required in this case because the timing of the project has substantially changed. Specifically, they argued that the 1985 EIS and 1985 [t]raffic [r]eport [we]re `outdated' and `[could not] be relied upon to properly disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant local and regional . . . impacts of the [project]. More specifically, the plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because HEPA applie[d] to [Kuilima]'s application for a preliminary subdivision, and, thus, DPP had an obligation, implied in HEPA and express in [HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27] to make an `independent determination' whether new circumstances and evidence require[d] a SEIS. The plaintiffs additionally contended that, inasmuch as the DPP did not take a hard look at whether new circumstances or evidence have brought to light different or likely increased environmental impacts [from the project] not previously dealt with, its decision was not in accordance with the rule of reason, i.e., it was arbitrary and capricious. [10] In response, the defendants argued that a SEIS was not required for the project because [the] plaintiffs misinterpret[ed] and misapplied] the SEIS rules[] and have not met their burden of showing a substantive change in the project itself. Additionally, Kuilima argued that, in any event: (1) [the] plaintiffs' claims [were] time-barred under HRS § 343-7, quoted infra; (2) the Environmental Council exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27 and, accordingly[,] no cause of action exist[ed] to require Kuilima to prepare a[] SEIS; (3) Kuilima's subdivision application was not an `action' under HEPA and, thus, did not trigger [DPP's] obligation to determine if a[] SEIS should be required. [11] Finally, the defendants contended that DPP did, in fact, take a hard look at the project and, thus, its decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
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.
The dissent agreed with the plaintiffs' interpretation of HEPA and HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27, [13] concluding that a SEIS is required when significant changes to the anticipated environmental impacts of a proposed action become apparent such that an essentially different action is being proposed. Significant changes to the anticipated environmental impacts of a development project can arise from changes to the design of the project itself, changes to conditions surrounding the project, or the discovery of new information. In my view, [HEPA and its rules] do not restrict the responsible agency by only permitting it to consider changes to a project's anticipated environmental impacts when the design of a project itself has changed. Rather, in determining whether a[] SEIS is warranted,. . . the agency is authorized to consider not only the potential effects of design changes to the project, but whether changes to the conditions surrounding the project and newly discovered information may significantly affect the project's anticipated environmental impacts. Id. at 468, 209 P.3d at 1282 (Nakamura, J., dissenting). The dissent considered the overriding purpose of HEPA i.e., to ensure that an agency is provided with relevant information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project so that the agency can make informed decisions about the project, id. at 471, 209 P.3d at 1285 (citing HRS § 343-1 (1993))and concluded that [a] proposed project can become `an essentially different action' in terms of its environmental impacts due to changed circumstances surrounding the project or the discovery of new information, even if the project's design has not changed. Id. The dissent additionally reasoned, as discussed infra, that absurd results would stem from the majority's interpretation of HEPA and HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27. Id. at 472, 209 P.3d at 1286. Thus, the dissent concluded that, [b]ecause of its erroneous view of the law, the DPP failed to consider appropriate factors and follow correct procedures in deciding not to require a[] SEIS. Id. at 474, 209 P.3d at 1288. The ICA filed its judgment on appeal on June 12, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a timely application for a writ of certiorari on September 8, 2009. [14] Thereafter, this court accepted the plaintiffs' application on October 13, 2009 and heard oral argument on December 17, 2009. [15]