1. lsr:'CIRClJITCOURT
','f·., at:
.'.·r· 'rr: 1'[',nl"I,
'I'
ti' .'
,
__ LJ
r:!LE7f'
BICKERTON LEE DANG & SULLIVAN
WILLIAMW. SAUNDERS JR.
3472
NATHAN P. ROEHRIG
8032
745 Fort Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Telephone: (808) 599-3811
Facsimile: (808) 533-2467
201~ JAN -2
AM II: 3t.
CLEWt
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RENO ABELLlRA, MARK CUNNINGHAM,
KEONE DOWNING, JOCK SUTHERLAND,
BILL MARTIN and THE SAVB LANIAKEA COALITION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAf I
RENO ABELLlRA, MARK
CUNNINGHAM, KEONE DOWNING,
JOCK SUTHERLAND, BILL MARTIN
andTHESAVELANIAKEA
COALITION
Plaintiffs,
a0 0 5 - 0 1
CIVIL NO. - - - - - (Declaratory Judgment and Injunction)
G WBe
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; EXHIBITS A & B;
SUMMONS
v.
STATE OF HAWAn DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, and JOHN DOES
1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE BUSINESS
ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10 and
DOE UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS 1-10,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Reno Abellira, Mark Cunningham, Keone Downing, Jock Sutherland, Bill
Martin and the Save Laniakea Coalition (collectively "Plaintiffs"), by and through their

2. attorneys, BICKERTON LEE DANG & SULLWAN, for causes of action against Defendant State of
Hawai'i Department of Transportation, hereby allege and aver as follows:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1.
"Laniakea" is a world-renowned beach and surfing site with unique waves which
has been surfed since ancient times. It is located adjacent to Kamehameha Highway, roughly
halfway between Hale'iwaand Waimea Bay, on the North Shore ofO'ahu. Car and truck
parking to access the beach and surfing site has traditionally been on the South side ofthe
highway in an area that now comprises a portion of the City and County of Honolulu's Laniakea
Support Park (hereinafter the "Park").
2.
Plaintiff Reno Abellira is a tax-paying resident of Wahiawa, City and County of
Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. He is and has been a professional surfer, big wave surfing champion
and surfboard maker who uses and has historically used the Park area for more than 40 years, in
particular to park and access the adjoining shoreline, ocean, surfmg sites and other coastal and
environmental resources adjacent thereto.
3.
Plaintiff Mark Cunningham is a tax-paying resident of Kawela Bay, City and
County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. He is a retired North Shore life guard and a body surfmg
champion who uses and has historically used the Park area for more than 35 years, in particular
to park and access the adjoining shoreline, ocean and other coastal and environmental resources
adjacent thereto.
4.
Plaintiff Jock Sutherland is a tax-paying resident of Hale'iwa, City and County of
Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. He is a surfer and was voted the winner ofthe 1969 Surfer
Magazine Poll as the world's most influential surfer. He and his family have lived on the rocky
point just East of Laniakea since the 1960's and the surfmg site opposite his home -- "Jocko's" --
2

3. is named after him. He uses and has historically used the Park area for more than 40 years to
access the adjoining shoreline, ocean, surfing sites and other coastal and environmental
resources adjacent thereto.
5.
Plaintiff Keone Downing is a tax-paying resident of Honolulu, City and County
of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. He is a surfer and former winner of the Eddie Aikau Surfing
Contest who uses and has historically used the Park area for more than 35 years, in particular to
park and access the adjoining shoreline, ocean, surfing sites and other coastal and environmental
resources adjacent thereto.
6.
Plaintiff Bill Martin is a tax-paying resident of Sunset Beach, City and County of
Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. He is a surfer who is confined to a wheelchair and who uses the
Park, in particular to park and stage his wheelchair and other equipment to access the adjoining
shoreline, ocean, surfmg sites and other coastal and environmental resources adjacent thereto.
Laniakea is one ofthe few places on the North Shore where he can comfortably access the beach
on his special wheelchair and go surfmg.
7.
Plaintiff Save Laniakea Coalition (hereinafter fl Coalition") is an unincorporated
association based on the North Shore ofO'ahu whose members are dedicated to protecting and
preserving access to and parking for its members and the public who use the Laniakea shoreline
area and nearby surfmg sites and the Park, so that the use and enjoyment thereof by both O'ahu's
residents and visitors may be perpetuated. The members of the Coalition are users of the Park
and the ocean area that is the subject of this suit and they intend to continue to use it in the
future.
3

4. 8.
Defendant State ofHawai'i Department of Transportation (hereinafter the
"DOT") is a State agency organized and existing under the laws of the State ofHawai'i as a
political subdivision thereof.
9.
Laniakea Support Park is in the Ahupua'a of Kawailoa on the North Shore of
0' ahu. It is a location historically known for the ready ocean access it provides for ocean users in particular surfers, fishermen and beachgoers. It is unique among oceanfront park properties
along O'ahu's North Shore in that its coastal waters are very close to Kamehameha Highway and
its parking is such that the waters are easily accessible to the public within a few short footsteps.
The Park is predominantly undeveloped and borders Kamehameha Highway that lies to its North
and private ranchland that lies to its South.
10.
The Park is owned by the City and County of Honolulu, includes those certain
Tax Map Keys 61005024, 61009005 and 61010018, and comprises roughly 3 acres of park land.
The Park lies less than 50 feet from the legal shoreline, is within the coastal zone and Special
Management Area ("SMA"), and is protected under the provisions of The Coastal Zone
Management Act, Chapter 205A, and Chapter 25 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu.
11.
Approximately 1 acre of the Park is a clear, level and open parking area that has
been used in excess of forty (40) years by a variety of individual and group park and beach users,
surfers, kayak paddlers, stand-up paddle (SUP) boarders, swimmers, snorkelers, fishermen,
beach-goers, picnickers, tourists, etc. The Park is primarily utilized as a much-needed parking
area and recreational equipment unloading area for said users and is integral to their coastal
access.
12.
Surfing on the North Shore of Hawai'i, in all its forms, is a unique recreational
and cultural activity which dates back to ancient times. Its surfing areas have been recognized as
4

5. an important cultural resource and access thereto is protected by the Hawai'i State Constitution,
the statutory provisions cited herein and the common law of Hawai' i.
13.
As described more fully below, Defendant DOT has recently taken certain actions
within the SMA to place barricades along Kamehameha Highway and prevent public use of the
Park's parking area adjacent thereto.
14.
Plaintiffs' use of the Park and its adjacent resources is adversely affected and
severely restricted, if not outright eliminated, by those actions taken and to be taken by the DOT.
Plaintiffs' harm therefrom is discussed more fully below.
15.
The activities and land uses which may be lawfully permitted at the Park (and
other existing City beach and support parks) are governed by Article XI of the Hawai'i State
Constitution and the provisions of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (hereinafter nH.R.S.") Chapters 205,
205A and 343, Chapter 25 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu ("R.O.H."), the
Comprehensive Zoning Code of the City and County of Honolulu ("CZC n), and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder.
16.
This is an action for relief brought pursuant to H.R.S. Chapter 205A-6 which asks
this Court to adjudicate and declare, inter alia, that the DOT has failed and continues to fail to
perfOlTI1 duties required of it by Chapters 205A and 343 and the other authority cited herein,
including preparing an Environmental Assessment ("EA") and obtaining an SMA permit from
the City and County of Honolulu.
17.
This is also an action for relief brought pursuant to H.R.S. Chapter 205A-6 which
asks this Court to adjudicate and declare, inter alia, that the DOT's actions described herein are
inconsistent with one or more of the objectives, policies and/or guidelines ofH.R.S. Chapter
205A.
5

6. 18.
This is also an action for temporary andlor permanent injunctive relief brought
pursuant to Chapter 205A-6 and R.O.H Sections 25-6.1 and 25-6.2, seeking to enjoin the DOT
from taking the actions described below and requiring them to remove all structures, equipment,
barricades andlor other "development" andlor facilities installed or placed within the SMA until
it has fully complied with all provisions ofH.R.S. Chapter 205A, H.R.S. Chapter 343, ROH
Chapter 25 and other applicable law.
19.
The DOT has also characterized its actions described herein as the
"Demonstration Project" phase of its larger proposed "Kamehameha Highway Realignment"
in the area of the Park which is designed to see if these measures would improve traffic flow.
The DOT made those characterizations in various meetings, and in meeting materials which it
prepared and circulated on or about April 18, 2012. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit A
are excerpts from said meeting materials.
20.
During the period November 20, 2013 to the December 22,2013, the DOT began
actively implementing its "Demonstration Project" to place those barricades by creating a graded
foundation for the barricades and other similar work.
21.
On December 23, 2013, the DOT placed barricades within the SMA along the
shoulder of Kamehameha Highway which effectively block off and close the Park and its
parking area.
22.
The Park is within the SMA covered by the provisions of Chapter 205A. Up until
December 23,2013, the Park had been heavily used by Plaintiffs and the public for park
purposes, ocean use and coastal access, including parking therefor, and the placement ofthe
barriers for an indefinite period by DOT has effectively closed the Park and eliminated any
beneficial use by the public for the above purposes.
6

7. 23.
Placement of the barricades and closure of the Park constitute a "development"
within the SMA as defined under H.R.S. Chapter 205A and R.O.H Chapter 25 and an SMA
permit is required.
24.
The DOT's decision and action to place barricades within the SMA and close the
Park indefInitely is an incremental part of a larger project to realign Kamehameha Highway for
which an Environmental Assessment is required under H.R.S. Chapter 343 before
commencement.
25.
Limitations on the availability of parking and areas for the unloading of ocean
gear (canoes, surfboards, stand-up surfboards, kayaks, paddleboards, beach wheelchairs, etc.) are
signifIcant constraints on public ocean access on Oahu, particularly on the North Shore.
26.
Traffic along Kamehameha Highway between Hale'iwa and Turtle Bay often
exceeds the capacity of the public highway connecting those two regions and traffic moves
slowly, largely because people are slowing down along that stretch of Highway looking for
parking and ocean access.
28.
The DOT's placement of barriers blocking access to and effectively closing the
Park is having a very significant negative cumulative impact on ocean access and parking and on
Kamehameha Highway traffic beyond the immediate Laniakea area.
29.
There are numerous surfmg sites that are regularly accessed via parking at the
Park, including Himalaya's, Slingshots, Laniakea, Holten's and Jocko's. On days when the surf
is good, hundreds of surfers enjoy these surfmg sites and the parking is typically totally utilized.
Laniakea, in particular, is one of only a very small handful of surfmg sites suitable for surfIng
during large North swells which "close out" other reefs.
7

8. 30.
There is very limited roadside parking elsewhere along Kamehameha Highway
for miles in either direction from the Park and there are few side streets where such parking is
permitted.
31.
Closure of the Park has seriously reduced the ability of Plaintiffs and the public to
use the Park, to offload and stage ocean recreational equipment, and to access the adjacent
beach, surfing sites and ocean because it eliminates the largest legal public parking area within
several miles and few, if any, other areas exist which are susceptible to the same use in the same
proximity to the ocean, particularly on weekends and holidays when public use of ocean
resources on the North Shore is very heavy.
32.
The closure ofthe Park has actually increased pedestrian danger by requiring
them to walk in closer proximity to highway traffic than before. It is even more dangerous for
persons such as Plaintiffs who are walking with ocean recreation equipment. The Park closure
has not stopped the public from endeavoring to access the Laniakea beach area. Now, rather
than having a large parking area that is safely off the highway with a predictable area of
pedestrian crossings, beachgoers are forced to park along the narrow highway shoulder before
and after the barriers, and then walk along the narrow highway corridor (made even narrower by
the barricades) and cross randomly at multiple locations. There has also been a marked increase
in illegal parking and its associated pedestrian traffic, including along the very narrow makai
side of Kamehameha Highway.
33.
The Hawai'i Supreme Court has recognized the importance of accurately
assessing the broad environmental and social impacts of proposed North Shore developments.
See Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County ofHonolulu, 123 Hawai'i 150,231 P.3d 423 (2010).
8

9. 34.
The action by the DOT in blocking access to the Park and eliminating parking
within the SMA is having exactly the type of far reaching environmental and social impact that
H.R.S. Chapter 205A and 343 were intended to prevent by requiring that certain procedures be
followed to assure that all impacts and potential harms be identified, considered, weighed and
mitigated before such action is taken.
35.
On or about November 25, 2013, Plaintiff Cunningharil submitted to the DOT,
through its Director, Glenn Okimoto, pursuant to H.R.S. § 607-25, an email letter asking whether
the DOT had applied for, or was going to apply for, an SMA permit prior to the installation of
the barriers and the closure of Park. Said letter also asked whether the DOT had conducted an
Environmental Assessment for the impacts of the barriers and the closure of the Park and
whether it intended to do so.
36.
On November 29,2013, the DOT through its Director, Glenn Okimoto, responded
to Plaintiff Cunningham's inquiry in a letter stating that:
No SMA permit is needed for the short term project. Under Hawai'i Revised
Statues 205A~22, this project is not considered development under SMA because
it falls under Exclusion 2 - Repair or maintenance of roads and highways within
existing rights-of-way. Because the short term project is not a development, no
SMA permit is needed.
In regards to the Laniakea Support Park, while the City and County of Honolulu
has an approved environmental assessment (Laniakea Support Park, Final
Environmental Assessment, Haleiwa North Shore, Island of Oahu, January 2005),
because the support park have not been constructed (sic), there is no resultant
closure.
*
*
*
*
Under Section 11-200-8, Hawai'i Administrative Rules, the HDOT have a list of
actions that are generally exempt from requirements regarding the preparation of
an EA. The exemptions that apply to the short term project from Comprehensive
Exemption List for the State ofHawai 'i Department of Transportation Amended,
November 15,2000 are:
9

10. a. Exemption Class 4.1. Minor ground adjustments which do not require
grading permits for the purpose of eliminating hazards to vehicular traffic
and aircraft operations or to compromise air navigational aids.
b. Exemption Class 6.1. Installation of flare screens, safety barriers,
guard rails, energy attenuators and other appurtenances designed to protect
the motoring public.
A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit B.
37.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the closure of the Park in that it inhibits their
personal access to, use and enjoyment of the ocean, the shoreline and other coastal resources
adj acent thereto.
38.
Plaintiffs have utilized the Park in the past as detailed above and
intend to do so in the future in the same and/or substantially similar ways. Their use of the
Park is special and peculiar to them as compared to members of the general public.
39.
Closing the Park for an indefinite period would cause Plaintiffs to suffer a
peculiar and special injury in that it would inhibit their particular uses of the land as well as their
access to and use of the ocean, the shoreline and other coastal resources adjacent to the Park.
40.
Plaintiffs' special and peculiar injuries confer them with standing to bring this
case and obtain the relief prayed for below.
41.
As evidenced by the DOT's email, Defendant DOT has not applied for and has no
intention of applying for an SMA Permit for the placement of the barriers and closure of the
Park.
42.
As more fully set forth below, Plaintiffs submit that the DOT's aforesaid actions
are not in compliance with the applicable statutes and ordinances.
43.
There is an actual controversy as to the issues raised herein, including but not
limited to whether, in view of the applicable Federal, State and County laws:
10

11. A. Said placement of barricades and closure of the Park by the DOT may remain
without the application for and issuance of an SMA permit,
B. Whether the DOT has:
(1) Complied with one or more of the objectives, policies, and guidelines
provided or authorized by Chapter 205A within the special management
area and the waters from the shoreline to the seaward limit of the State's
jurisdiction; or
(2) Failed to perform any act or duty required to be performed under
H.R.S. Chapter 205A; or
(3) In exercising any duty required to be performed under H.R.S. Chapter
205A, has not complied with the provisions of said chapter, and
C. Whether the DOT was required to prepare and file an Environmental
Assessment before undertaking its "Demonstration Project."
44.
This Court has jurisdiction to enter the relief requested below pursuant to H.RS.
§ 20SA-6 and § 603-21.5 et seq.
COUNT I
45.
Violation orR.R.S. Chapter 20SA - No SMA Permit
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all
prior paragraphs.
46.
H.RS. §205A prohibits anyone and any agency from conducting "development"
within the SMA unless they have first complied with the procedures set forth in H.R.S. §205A
and, on O'abu, RO.H. Chapter 25, including obtaining the required SMA permit.
47.
Although there has been limited expenditure by the City and County of Honolulu
on improvements at the Park, it is under the control of the City Parks Department, it is heavily
utilized by the public and it therefore constitutes a public park, despite the DOT's assertions to
the contrary.
11

12. 48.
The DOT's decision and action to place barricades and close the Park constitutes
"development" within the meaning ofH.RS. § 205A-22 and RO.H. § 25-1.3 in that it:
A.
Constitutes "placement or erection of any solid material" within the SMA,
B.
Has caused a significant "change in the density or intensity of use ofland,
including but not limited to" the Park which is within the SMA, as well as the shoreline and
ocean adjacent thereto, andlor
C.
Has caused a significant "change in the intensity of use of water, ecology
related thereto, or of access thereto" adjacent to the Park which lies within the SMA.
49.
The DOT's actions described above trigger the SMA permit requirements set
forth in H.RS. Chapter 205A and R.O.H. Chapter 25.
50.
The DOT has claimed it is exempt from SMA permit requirements, relying on the
following exemption language appearing at H.RS. § 205A-22: "Repair or maintenance of roads
and highways within existing rights-of-way.'!
51.
This alleged exemption from the SMA process cited by the DOT is not applicable
because, inter alia, this is not a "repair" or "maintenance" project. Instead, as shown in Exhibit A
hereto, this is a "Demonstration Project" which is part of DOT's larger proposed
"Kamehameha Highway Realignment."
52.
This alleged exemption from the SMA process cited by the DOT is not applicable'
because, inter alia, its actions are "part of a larger project, the cumulative impact of which may
have a significant environmental or ecological effect on the special management area, [hence]
that use, activity, or operation shall be dermed as "development" for the purpose of this
chapter." RO.H § 25-1.3.
12

13. 53.
Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under H.R.S. §205A-6
ordering the DOT to cease and desist its aforesaid actions and to remove the barricades and reopen the Park until it has fully complied with all aspects ofH.R.S. §205A and R.O.H. Chapter
25, including acquiring a valid SMA permit.
COUNT IT
54.
Violation ofH.R.S. Chapter 205A - Failure to Independently Consider
and Comply with the Objectives. Policies and Guidelines of the CZMA
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all
prior paragraphs.
55.
H.R.S. § 205A-2, et. seq., requires all agencies of the State to consider the
objectives, policies and guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act, H.R.S. Chapter 205A2, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder and to enforce them before and/or when taking
action within the SMA.
56.
H.R.S. § 205A-4 requires that all agencies, including the DOT, give full
consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, esthetic, recreational, scenic and open space values
before and/or when taking action which impact the SMA.
57.
H.R.S. § 20SA-4 also provides that the objectives and policies ofH.R.S. Chapter
205A and any guidelines enacted by the legislature shall be binding upon actions within the
SMA by all agencies, within the scope of their authority.
58.
H.R.S. § 20SA-6 provides, inter alia, that any person may commence a civil
action alleging that any agency has failed to perfonn any act or duty required to be perfOlmed
under Chapter 205A or, in exercising any duty required to be performed under Chapter 205A,
has not complied with the Chapter's provisions.
13

14. 59.
The DOT has failed to independently consider or assess the effect and impacts of
placement of the barricades or closure of the Park in light of the objectives, policies and
guidelines ofH.R.S. Chapter 205A and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including:
- Consider the importance of public coastal access and the availability of
unique recreational and cultural activities in those area;
- Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public;
- Protect and preserve those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric
resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in
Hawai'ian history and culture;
- Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that
cannot be provided in other areas;
- Require replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational
value including, but not limited to, surfing sites, fishponds, and sand beaches,
when such resources will be unavoidably damaged;
- Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conservation
of natural resources, to and along shorelines with recreational value;
- Providing an adequate supply of shoreline parks and other recreational
facilities suitable for public recreation;
H.RS. 20SA-2, et seq.
60.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an appropriate declaratory ruling that DOT's aforesaid
actions in installing the barricades and closing the Park are illegal and will remain illegal until it
has fully complied with all aspects ofH.RS. §205A and R.O.H. Chapter 25.
61.
,:plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate temporary and/or permanent injunctive relief
under H.RS. §205A-6 ordering the DOT to cease and desist its aforesaid actions, to remove the
barricades and other "development" in the SMA, and to reopen of the Park until such time as it
has fully complied with all aspects ofH.RS. §205A and RO.H. Chapter 25.
COUNT ill Violation of NEPA and H.R.S. Chapter 343 - Lack of an EA or EIS
14

15. 62.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all
prior paragraphs.
63.
H.R.S. Chapter 343, entitled "Environmental Impact Statements," provides under
§343-5 that:
(a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for
actions which:
(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds ...
*
*
*
*
(3) Propose any use within the shoreline area as defined in section 20SA-4;
64.
*
*
*
*
The DOT's aforesaid actions involve the use of state and county lands and uses
within the shoreline area as defined in section 20SA-41, hence, an EA is required.
6S.
DOT has admitted in Exhibit A hereto that the aforesaid placement of barriers and
closure of the Park and its parking constitute an experimental "Demonstration Project," and are
an incremental part of the larger "Kamehameha Highway Realignment" which will use State and
Federal funds, which will require approval of the secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and which will potentially have far reaching social and environmental impacts.
Upon information and belief, the DOT is preparing an EA relating to that larger project and
Plaintiffs believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement will be required under H.R.S.
Chapter 343.
66.
DOT has conceded in Exhibit A hereto that it is required in carrying out this
larger project to abide by the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A")
and H.R.S. Chapter 343 entitled "Environmental Impact Statements."
IS

16. 67.
The DOT's actions constitute a "Multiple or Phased Applicant or Agency Action"
within the meaning of Chapter 11-200 of the Hawai'i Administrative Rules ("HAR") which were
enacted pursuant to H.R.S. Chapter 343 and an EA is required.
68.
DOT is required under NEPA and H.R.S. Chapter 343, at the very least, to
prepare an EA for this incremental portion of that larger project, if not separately for this
particular phase itself.
64.
DOT has conceded in Exhibit A hereto, that under Section 4(f) of the federal
Department of Transportation Act of 1966:
The secretary may approve projects requiring the use of
publicly owned land of a public park, recreation are~ or
wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of
national, state, or local significance (as determined by the
officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation are~
refuge, or site) only if:
- There is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and
- The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
49 USC § 303,23 CFR § 771.135, and Exhibit A.
65.
The DOT has not conducted any sufficient study or analysis to determine the
feasibility and prudence of using other alternatives to this experimental "Demonstration Project,"
including but not limited to the prohibition of tour bus stopping or parking, the installation of
crosswalks (with or without walk signals), the use of crossing guards, and/or other feasible
alternatives which would better solve those problems while still promoting the objectives,
policies and guidelines ofthe NEPA, 49 USC §303, 23 CFR §771.135, H.R.S. Chapter 343,
H.R.S. Chapter 205A, HAR Chapter 11-200 and the rules and regulations issued thereunder,
including the importance of public parks, public coastal access and the availability of unique
recreational and cultural activities in those areas.
16

17. 66.
The alleged exemptions from the EA process cited by the DOT in Exhibit B
hereto are not applicable because its aforesaid actions are not a "minor ground adjustment
project," a "maintenance project" or a "project to protect the motoring public." Instead, as
admitted by the DOT in Exhibit A hereto, it is part of the larger "Kamehameha Highway
Realignment," and constitutes an experimental "Demonstration Project."
67.
The alleged exemptions from the EA process cited by the DOT in Exhibit B
hereto are not applicable because its aforesaid actions have significant incremental and
cumulative impact in combination with the larger "Kamehameha Highway Realignment" and
Chapter 11-200 of the Hawai'i Administrative Rules ("HAR") provides that no EA exemption is
available where "the cumulative impact of planned successive actions in the same place, over
time, is significant."
68.
Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under H.R.S. §205A-6
ordering the DOT to cease and desist its aforesaid actions, to remove the barricades and other
"development" in the SMA, and to reopen of the Park until such time as it has fully complied
with all aspects ofNEPA, H.R.S. §205A, HAR Chapter 11-200, R.O.H. Chapter 25, 49 USC §
303, and 23 CFR 771.135.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a final judgment in their favor, as
well as any appropriate interim orders and/or injunctions, which provide the following relief:
A.
A declaration under H.R.S. §205A that the DOT may not maintain the barricades
and/or other "deVelopment" within the SMA, and/or blockade or close the Park, unless and until
a valid SMA permit has been issued consistent with the provisions ofH.R.S. Chapter 205A and
ROH Chapter 25, and a further declaration that any such actions in the absence of a valid SMA
permit are unlawful.
17

18. B.
A declaration under H.R.S. §205A-6 that the DOT may not maintain the
barricades and/or other "development" within the SMA, and/or blockade or close the Park, until
such time as an EA has been prepared, accepted and processed for further action consistent with
the provisions ofNEPA, H.R.S. §205A, R.O.H. Chapter 25,49 USC § 303, and 23 CFR
771.135. and a declaration that any such actions in the absence of an EA are unlawful.
C.
A declaration that any permits or other approvals issued by any agency allowing
placement of the barricades and/or other "development" within the SMA; and/or blockage and/or
closure of the Park, in the absence of an SMA permit are unlawful, null and void.
D.
Appropriate injunctive orders parallel to and in enforcement of the above-
requested declaratory relief requiring the DOT to fully comply with the law, requiring it to
remove all of the barricades and other "development" within the SMA, requiring it to reopen
access to the Park, and to enjoin it from taking any further actions related to closing the Park in
violation of applicable Federal, State and City statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations.
E.
An award of costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to H.R.S. Section 607-25 and all
other applicable law and custom, including the private attorney general doctrine, and such other
and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i
WILLIAM W. SAUNDERS, JR.
NATHAN P. ROEHRIG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RENO ABELLJRA, MARK CUNNINGHAM,
KEONE DOWNlNG, JOCK SUTHERLAND and
THE SAVE LANIAKEA COALITION
18

19. Ie
a
I
a
m
><
:::I.:
OJ
----i
~
Kamehameha Highway Realignment,
Vicinity of Laniakea Beach Qiahu
Task Force Meeting #2
Department of Transportation
Highways Division

20. tin
a
" Demonstration project discussion
" 15 minutes open for public comments
" Lpproval of meeting #1 summary and Purpose
and Need
" Highway planning 101
" Project constrain s and breakout
"
~omework
and Closing

21. strati
• This is not a final
solution
• Met with stakeholders,
primarily Department of
Parks and Recreation,
Kamehameha Schools,
and divisions within
DOT
• Took preliminary traffic
counts
iii
ec

22. 5
" Constraints identified:
-- Budget (limited)
-- No new pavement
- Cannot trigger grading
permit
~
Bus stops
~
Utility poles
- Agreement with
landowner(s)
ati
~ect

23. ..J.-mI
U
c
1IiI_

24. Vl

25. lie
• 15 minutes
• Please keep focused on
transportation issues
(either demonstration or
long-term)
• Address either HDOT or
Task Force members
t
iii
rl

26. Iii
I
Ianni
• Both State of Hawai'j and Federal money ill
fu d this project@ herefore, both State and
Federal laws must be complied with@
• The laws are numerousu®
~
~~
""" P%
2
[
.~'.r~
4~t
""...
/
OF
1~
~
0

27. atio al Envi onmental Polic Act
(NEPA)
• Declare a NATIONAL POLICY which will encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between ma
and his environment to@@@
. . . . · ·revent or eliminate damage to the environment
---- stimulate the health and welfare of man
~ enrich the understanding of ecological systems and the
natural resources important to the nation
• The State of Hawai'i has its uEIS Law", HRS
Chapter 3 3, which is commonly referred to a
HEPA
~}
$
~
"'
..
J.r",rl 01 ....r-4 "'-}·

28. sse tial Eleme
s of N
a
• Alternatives -- no build, TSM, reasonable build
• Impacts ...... avoid, minimize, and mitigate
• I/ljtigate -- repair, rehabilitate, restore; preserve;
compensate
• Public Involvement -- all stakeholders,
environmental justice
• Interagency Coordination
• Documentation -- EA or EIS, for example
~
if$'
E
.~.
'"'" 'jo,
4r
<1 <!'flFllf'.....
~
..':

29. rei I
National Historic Preservation Act
Clean Air Act
Section 4(f) of USDOT Act (49 USC 303)
Highway Noise Standards
Endangered Species Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Clean Water Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Rivers and Harbors Authorization Act
Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
Comprehensive Environmental Responsejl
Compensation and Liability Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Environmental Justice (EO 12898)
Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act of 1986
farmland Protection Policy Act
AND MORE ...
l
~
.p.OiTIt<I'I~'"
!;>?
..
f.
.~.
.r1'11t OF
'f'-4t-~
~
~

30. iii
I
)
" The secretary may approve projects requiring the use of
publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or
wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of
national, state, or local significance (as determined by the
officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area,
refuge, or site) only if:
ere is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and
- The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
~
,l,;
l
o~
~
?
.~
·'''4;>.(-Ofnp..J{>.t>''

31. st I
n
ana
• Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 required
states to develop a program to protect the coastal
zone
• Special Management Areas (SMA) are designated
and administered by counties
• The SMA permit regulates permissible land uses
that are already allowed by land use policies
including zoning designations, cou ty general
plans, and community development plan

32. iil
revi
f
t
ti
• Review demonstration project desig
• F rther consider long-term project alternatives
• Establish screening criteria to assess the
various alternatives
• Target date: june 2012

33. November 29,2013
Mr. Mark Cunningham
Mrc 123@me.com
Subject:
Laniakea Special Management Area and Environmental Assessment
Kamehameha Highway Realignment, Vicinity of Laniakea Beach
Project No. 83-01-09
Dear Mr. Cunningham:
Thank you for your October 25,2013 e-mail concerning need of a Special Management Area
(SMA) permit and environmental assessment (EA) for the Hawaii Department of Transportation
(HDOT) plans to block parking on the mauka side ofKamehameha Highway at Laniakea.
The HDOT short term project will place barriers that will eliminate parking on the mauka side of
Kamehameha Highway fronting Laniakea Beach for a one month period. By eliminating parking
on the mauka side of the highway, pedestrian safety will be improved by reducing the number of
pedestrian crossing Kamehameha Highway. Pedestrian safety is the primary reason why HDOT
is implementing the short term project. The issues you raised are addressed below.
1. Have HDOT applied for and received a SMA permit for the placement of barriers along
Kamehameha Highway near "Laniakea" and the resultant closure of Laniakea Support
Park.
No SMA permit is needed for the short term project. Under Hawaii Revised Statues
205A-22, this project is not considered development under SMA because it falls under
Exclusion 2 - Repair or maintenance of roads and highways within existing rights-ofway. Because the short term project is not a development, no SMA permit is needed.
In regards to the Laniakea Support Park, while the City and County of Honolulu has an
approved environmental assessment (Laniakea Support Park, Final Environmental
Assessment, Haleiwa North Shore, Island of Oahu, January 2005), because the support
park have not been constructed, there is no resultant closure.
2. Have HDOT conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the impacts of the
proposed placement of barriers and the closure of this Park.
Under Section 11-200-8, Hawaii Administrative Rules, the HDOT have a list of actions
that are generally exempt from requirements regarding the preparation of an EA. The
exemptions that apply to the short term project from Comprehensive Exemption List for
the State ofHawaii Department of Transportation Amended, November 15, 2000 are:
EXHIBIT B

34. a. Exemption Class 4.1. Minor ground adjustments which do not require grading
permits for the purpose of eliminating hazards to vehicular traffic and aircraft
operations or to compromise air navigational aids.
b. Exemption Class 6.1. Installation of flare screens, safety barriers, guard rails, energy
attenuators and other appurtenances designed to protect the motoring pUblic.
Because the short term project falls under the above exemption classes, no EA is needed.
In regards to the Laniakea Support Park, as stated above, because it has not been
constructed, there is no resultant closure.
If you have additional comments or question, please feel free to contact the HOOT project
engineer, Mr. Darell Young at 587-1835.
Glenn Okimoto
Director of Transportation

35. CASE NUMBER
STATE OF HAWAI'I
CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
SUMMONS
TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
RENO ABELLlRA, MARK CUNNINGHAM, KEONE
DOWNING, JOCK SUTHERLAND, BILL MARTIN
and THE SAVE LANIAKEA COALITION
DEFENDANT.
STATE OF HAWAI'I DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE
DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE
BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10 and DOE
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 1-10
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS (NAME, ADDRESS, TEL. NO.)
WILLIAM W. SAUNDERS 3472
NATHAN P. ROEHRIG
8032
Bickerton Lee Dang &Sullivan
745 Fort Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
(808) 599-3811
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S)
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the court and serve upon
Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, 745 Fort Street, Suite 801, Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ,
plaintiff's attorney, whose address is stated above, an answer to the complaint which is herewith
served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the date of
service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded
in the complaint.
THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN
10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ON PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT PERMITS,
IN WRITING ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING
THOSE HOURS.
A FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT IN AN ENTRY
OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING
PERSON OR PARTY.
DATE ISSUED
CLERK
2
I do hereby certify that this is full, true, and correct copy
of the original on file in this office
~
Circuit Court Clerk
~,;;::>'
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other applicable state and federal laws, if you require a reasonable
accommodation for a disability, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the First Circuit Court Administration Office at PHON E NO.
539-4333, FAX 539-4322, or TTY 539-4853, at least ten (10) working days prior to your hearing or appointment date.
Reprographics (07/11)
RevaComm 508 Certified
SUMMONS TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 C-P-787