1998 Hawai`i Legislation and Case Law Update. 21 UH L. Rev. 317.

Grant of permit overturned because findings required by paragraph (2) not made. 65 H. 506, 654 P.2d 874; 68 H. 135, 705 P.2d 1042.

Where Kihei-Makena community plan was part of Maui general plan and county planning director determined that developer’s proposed action was inconsistent with community plan, special management area permit application properly denied by director pursuant to paragraph (2)(C). 88 H. 108, 962 P.2d 367.

Not violated where requisite findings were contained in committee report recommending approval of development. 6 H. App. 540, 735 P.2d 950.

Absent a finding that impact on public facilities would result in a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, or render the development inconsistent with objectives, policies, and guidelines of Coastal Zone Management Act, planning commission’s finding that the development would have significant adverse effects and impact on existing highway system in area of the development did not provide a sufficient basis for denying permit petition. 9 H. App. 377, 842 P.2d 648.

Even if the development was shown to have a substantial adverse effect in accordance with the statute, planning commission was required under paragraph (2)(A) to determine whether that effect could be practicably minimized and, when minimized, whether the effect was clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interests. 9 H. App. 377, 842 P.2d 648.

Paragraph (3)(D) mandated planning commission to protect and preserve more than just the view of the shoreline; the statute, by its very language, is intended to protect the view toward the sea even though the "shoreline" cannot be seen either because of intervening development or natural growth. 9 H. App. 377, 842 P.2d 648.