Opinion ID: 6494576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kilakila Successfully Asserts its Right to a Contested Case Hearing

Text: Kilakila began its challenge less than three months after UHIfA filed its CDUA with the DLNR. On May 24, 2010, Kilakila submitted to the DLNR a petition for a contested case hearing. Kilakila ‘O Haleakalā v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 131 Hawai'i 193, 196, 317 P.3d 27, 30 (2013) (hereinafter Kilakila I). This petition was wrongfully rejected by a DLNR staff member and Kilakila re-filed its petition for a contested case hearing. Id. However, the Board took no action on Kilaki-la’s request for a contested case hearing. Id. Rather than institute a contested case hearing on the CDUA, the Board held a public hearing in August 2010, during which Kilaki-la presented evidence in opposition. Id. At its regularly scheduled board meeting on December 1, 2010, the Board granted a permit to UHIfA, CDUP MA-3542, to build the ATST. Id. Immediately following the vote, Kilakila again requested a contested case hearing, followed by a written petition the next day. Id. Kilakila thereafter argued in its appeal to the circuit court that the Board’s vote to grant the CDUP was effectively a denial of Kilakila’s request for a contested case hearing. 2 Id. at 197, 317 P.3d at 31. The circuit court dismissed Kilakila’s complaint. Id. at 198, 317 P.3d at 32. Kilakila appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of its complaint to the ICA and the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. Id. On December 13, 2013, this court vacated the decisions of the ICA and circuit court concluding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Kilakila’s appeal and that Kilakila’s right to a contested case hearing had been violated. Id. at 206, 317 P.3d at 40. Meanwhile, prior to the issuance of the ICA’s decision, the Board reconsidered its denial of a contested case hearing and granted Kilakila’s request. The Board did not address, however, Kilakila’s request that the Board void the already granted permit, CDUP MA-3542, prior to commencing the contested case hearing. This permit, which was formally issued on December 1, 2010, was granted subject to eighteen conditions. In a December 20, 2010 letter to UHIfA, a DLNR staff member set forth the conditions upon which the Board had based its grant of CDUP MA-3542. The letter stated that the Board conditioned the permit upon sixteen conditions. Pursuant to Condition No. 4 of the conditions for CDUP MA-3542, which required UHIfA to inform the DLNR in writing when construction activity is initiated, UHIfA informed the Board on April 10, 2012—during the second hearing officer’s deliberations of the contested case—of its intent to begin construction. 3 After learning of the planned construction, Kilakila filed objections with the Board 4 and also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the circuit court to stay UHIfA’s construction activities. Subsequently, UHIfA informed Kilakila and the Board that it chose not to commence construction on Haleakala “at this time” as UHI-fA sought to avoid the expense of a preliminary injunction hearing.