...This case arises out of the (Honolulu) DPP's acceptance of the Final EIS. Hanabusa filed an eighteen-count complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), challenging the legal sufficiency of the Final EIS and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint named as defendants the DES, the DPP, and the City (collectively, the ''City''). Hanabusa and the City both filed motions for summary judgment. The Circuit Court granted the City's motion and denied Hanabusa's motion, and it entered final judgment in favor of the City.
Hanabusa's primary argument on appeal is that the Final EIS was insufficient and not prepared in good faith because the scope of the landfill project described in the Final EIS was different from the scope of the landfill project for which SUP-2 was sought and which the Final EIS was used to justify. In essence, Hanabusa argues that the Final EIS concealed and failed to adequately address the true nature of the project. Specifically, Hanabusa asserts that the Final EIS only addressed the impacts of a 92.5-acre expansion to WGSL, whereas SUP-2 encompassed the use of the entire 200-acre site for landfill operations --the continued use of the existing 107.5 acre WGSL, as well as the use of the area of the proposed 92.5 acre expansion. Hanabusa also asserts that assuming arguendo that the Final EIS can be viewed as covering the project sought by SUP-2, the Circuit Court erred in failing to address each of the allegations in her complaint regarding the insufficiency of the Final EIS.
As explained in greater detail below, we hold that Hanabusa had fair notice that the Final EIS encompassed the entire WGSL site, and not just the area of the proposed expansion; (Translation: She's been faking this all along) that the Circuit Court did not err in denying Hanabusa's challenge to the sufficiency of the Final EIS; and that the Circuit Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the City. We therefore affirm the Circuit Court's Judgment....