Public input matters when it comes to the proposed expansion of Turtle Bay, according to the attorney who argued yesterday that the city should have ordered a supplemental environmental impact statement for the project now that the owner is moving ahead with it after 23 years.

But attorneys for the city and landowner Kuilima Resort Co. said the law and planning rules do not require such a study unless the project has changed substantially. The initial environmental impact statement and the unilateral agreement with the city and state are still valid, said Sharon Lovejoy, attorney for Kuilima Resort.

The Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals heard arguments on the case yesterday, which was brought by Keep the North Shore Country and Sierra Club, Hawai'i Chapter.

An immediate decision by the three-judge panel is not expected.

California attorney Rory Wicks of Coast Law Group said the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act calls for a supplemental study when a project has changed, causing likely changes of the impacts to the surrounding area.

Although the physical aspects of the expansion project haven't changed since it was approved more than two decades ago, the environment has, including increased traffic in the area, a proliferation of endangered turtles feeding on the shore there and frequent visits by monk seals, Wicks said.

"The fundamental core purpose of the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act ... that the (state) Legislature intended, that the Supreme Court tells us, is to enhance public participation in the process," he said. "This may be the last chance for public participation."

The property is slated for major resort development, and under a 1986 agreement could see as many as five new hotels with 3,500 rooms and condominium units and four public parks.

In November 2006 a Circuit Court judge ruled that Kuilima Resort Co. did not need a new environmental study.

Yesterday, Lovejoy said the law and the rules are clear. In addition the city still has opportunity to add conditions that would mitigate any environmental concerns, including traffic fixes and endangered species protections.

"All of the issues that the other side brought up have been considered by the city in the permitting process," she said. "Under the plain wording of the law that we have in Hawai'i, a supplemental EIS is not appropriate here because it requires a change in the project and there's been no change in the project."

Any new requirement for a supplemental study would set the project back, although at this point the delay hasn't been significant, Lovejoy said.