does not disclose or express an implied intent that the ordinance shall be exclusive or uniform throughout the State.” (Emphasis added.) Construing HRS § 46-1.5(13), this court in Richardson stated that “a municipal ordinance may be preempted pursuant to HRS § 46-1.5(13) if (1) it covers the same subject matter embraced within a comprehensive state statutory scheme disclosing an express or implied intent to be exclusive and uniform throughout the state or (2) it conflicts with state law.” 76 Hawai'i at 62, 868 P.2d at 1209. See also Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City & County of Honolulu, 102 Hawai'i 465, 481, 78 P.3d 1, 17 (2003) (clarifying that the state districting scheme prevails over city land use ordinances); Gatri v. Blane, 88 Hawai'i 108, 115, 962 P.2d 367, 374 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Pac. Int’l Servs. v. Hurip, 76 Hawai'i 209,
holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that because the development plan had the force and effect of law the proposed development must be consistent with both the general plan and the zoning emphasis in original