Opinion ID: 6494319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: BLNR’s February 25, 2011 decision was a determination on the merits

Text: BLNR and UHH argue that the February 25, 2011 vote was merely preliminary and tentative pending a contested case hearing and repeat vote by BLNR. To be clear, BLNR’s approval of the permit—“preliminary” or not—before the contested case hearing was held violated Hawaii’s constitutional guarantee of due process. Regardless, the record indicates that BLNR issued a permit on that day that was operative and determined UHH’s rights and responsibilities, although with some aspects stayed pending further action. BLNR’s letter to UHH on March 3, 2011 stated that “on February 25, 2011, the Board of Land and Natural Resources approved Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) HA-3668 for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,” subject to conditions. The permit contained 26 conditions for TMT, and Condition 10 contained 18 bullet points of apparent sub-conditions. As noted below, many of the conditions denominated the permit as “the” permit, and not merely a “preliminary” permit. Specifically, conditions stated: that representations in the environmental impact statement and CDUA “are incorporated as conditions of the permit[,]” (Condition 6); mitigation measures and management actions contained in other plans submitted with the CDUA “are incorporated as conditions of this permit[,]” (Condition 7); the TMT Management Plan, which was submitted with the CDUA, “is approved,” and it and related plans “are incorporated as conditions of this permit[,]” (Condition 9); UHH understood and agreed that “this permit” did not convey vested rights[,] (Condition 15); “[i]n issuing this permit,” DLNR and BLNR relied upon the CDUA, and “[i]f, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information and data prove to be false, incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may be modified....[,]” (Condition 16); and failure to comply with “any of these conditions shall render this Conservation District Use Permit null and void[,]” (Condition 26). Thus, “the permit” was effective as of February 25, 2011, and contained conditions that detailed when and how the permit holder could act. Quite simply, “the permit” was issued as of that date. BLNR and UHH argue that despite the 2011 permit’s repeated statement that it is “the permit,” the 2011 permit was only preliminary because construction was stayed pursuant to the condition that, “If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed[,]” (Condition 21). However, construction was stayed due to a number of conditions, not only Condition 21. Specifically, various conditions explained that construction could not begin immediately because: UHH was required to submit construction and grading plans and specifications for approval and consistency with the “conditions of the permit and the declarations set forth in the permit application[,]” (Condition 5); UHH needed to submit for review and approval plans for handling recreational parking during construction and monitoring archaeological sites[,] (Condition 10); and UHH was required to “demonstrate!! ] compliance with all pre-construction conditions and mitigation measures outlined in this report. Once this condition has been satisfied, the Department will issue notice to proceed with construction[,]” (Condition 20). Indeed, these conditions preventing immediate construction in 2011 were repeated in the document that UHH and BLNR characterize as the operable permit—BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O in 2013. Thus, a stay on construction beginning immediately did not render the 2011 permit anything less than an operative permit that was issued on the merits of the CDUA. Further, at least one condition—the annual funding for a community benefits package, (Condition 10)—was to “commence with construction.” That this condition would commence with construction also suggests that even without construction, the application had been approved and a permit had been issued. If there was no operative permit until construction could begin, then it would not be reasonable or necessary to explain that funding the community benefits package need not begin until construction begins, meanwhile authorizing other aspects to commence immediately. 11 Indeed, the February 2011 permit authorized at least some aspects of TMT to commence immediately. For example, one condition stated: “The following additional conditions shall be implemented by OMKM [the Office of Mauna Kea Management] and TMT: ... Working with OMKM to develop and implement a habitat restoration study; ... Partnering with other institutions to implement a Workforce Pipeline Program, headed by at least one full-time position through the Community Outreach office, to prepare local residents for jobs in science, engineering, and technical fields[,]” (Condition 10). The permit did not stay these conditions, which are unrelated to construction. That the permit authorized aspects of TMT to commence immediately underscores that the effect and apparent intention of issuing the permit was a determination on the merits of the CDUA. The circuit court erred in concluding that the 2011 permit “did not have such a legal consequence” that a contested case was required to have preceded it. Despite the above, BLNR and UHH also contend that the 2011 permit was only preliminary because a few minutes after BLNR issued the permit, BLNR decided to hold a contested ease hearing. But, simply stated, sequence matters. Here, BLNR issued the permit despite pending requests for a contested case hearing and a right to such a hearing under the applicable rules and the Hawai'i Constitution, and only then decided to hold the hearing. This sequence plainly gives rise to the appearance of prejudgment and did not provide Appellants with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Further, the conditions enunciated in BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O in 2013 are virtually the same as those in the 2011 permit. This similarity is significant because BLNR appears to suggest that in 2011, BLNR anticipated serious consideration of evidence presented during the contested case hearing. But the similarity between the 2011 permit and the 2013 decision gives the appearance that less than full consideration was given to the voluminous legal and factual arguments and materials presented in the contested case hearing. Such similarity “give[s] the appearance that [BLNR] ha[d] already prejudged the case and that the ultimate determination of the merits [had] move[d] in predestined grooves.” Cinderella, 425 F.2d at 590. In sum, the 2011 permit was a determination on the merits, even though Appellants were entitled to a contested case hearing. This gives rise to an appearance of prejudgment.