2024-03-06 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Claudia Rohr Opposition Testimony (2)

Home

3/6/24, 12:06 PM Unite Here!Local 5 v.City and Cty.of Honolulu,231 P.3d 423-Haw: Supreme Court 2010-Google Scholar judgment in favor of the defendants,and remand this case to the circuit court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. (. BACKGROUND A. Background Information 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 Oahu.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 Tines,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 Herel,120 Hawaii at 459,209 P.3d at 1273. 1. 1985 EIS 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,Punahoolapa 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 Punalou),with projections through the year 2000.Specifically,the 1985 EIS recognized that: 429 [a]ccess to the project site is via Kamehameha Highway.Kamehameha Highway*429 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 Punalou,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 apposing stream of vehicles to slow dawn.Through Haleiwa,left-turn traffic and motorists pulling off to park on the roadside queue traffic in bath 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,Haoula 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/eve/,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 Haoula 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." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4308700817237546533&q=unite+here+local+5&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 2/17