430 P.3d 425 (Hawai‘i 2018), SCOT-17-0000777, In re Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) HA-3568

Docket Nº:SCOT-17-0000777
Citation:430 P.3d 425, 143 Hawai‘i 327
Party Name:In the MATTER OF Contested Case Hearing Re CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION (CDUA) HA-3568 for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Ka‘Ohe Mauka, Hā mā kua, Hawai‘i, TMK (3)404015:009
Judge Panel:(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, J., and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, with Pollack, J., concurring and dissenting separately, and with Wilson, J., concurring and dissenting separately)
Case Date:November 29, 2018
Court:Supreme Court of Hawai'i
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 425

430 P.3d 425 (Hawai‘i 2018)

143 Hawai‘i 327

In the MATTER OF Contested Case Hearing Re CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION (CDUA) HA-3568 for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Ka‘Ohe Mauka, Hā mā kua, Hawai‘i, TMK (3)404015:009

No. SCOT-17-0000777

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i

November 29, 2018

Editorial Note:

This disposition is referenced in the Pacific Reporter. See Haw. R. App. P. 35.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, (BLNR-CC-16-002 (Agency Appeal) )

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, J., and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, with Pollack, J., concurring and dissenting separately, and with Wilson, J., concurring and dissenting separately)

Page 426

[143 Hawai‘i 328] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration filed on November 19, 2018 by Petitioners-Appellants Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kealoha Pisciotta, Clarence Kukauakahi Ching, Flores-Case ‘Ohana, Deborah J. Ward, Paul K. Neves, and KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance; the declaration in support thereof; the joinders thereto; and the record and files herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted in part to delete footnote 15.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is granted in part to modify footnote 17 to read as follows: The Kihoi Appellants allege in Point of Error B(2) that the BLNR erred by stating that Article XII, Section 7 does not protect contemporary Native Hawaiian cultural practices. The record reflects, however, that the BLNR appropriately took into account contemporary (as well as customary and traditional) Native Hawaiian cultural practices, finding and concluding that none were taking place within the TMT...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP