## Facts

- A landowner/developer owned two adjoining lots at the intersection of Kuakini Highway and Seaview Circle in Kailua-Kona, within a largely single-family subdivision with some nearby multi-family and commercial uses.
- The parcels were classified Urban under state land use and designated Medium Density Urban in the county general plan; they were zoned commercial, and commercial zoning allowed the proposed use.
- The lots were about one-half acre, on a steep slope, approximately 3,600 feet from the shoreline.
- The County Planning Commission had previously designated the area, including the parcels, as a Special Management Area (SMA) under Hawaiʻi’s Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), intended to protect coastal resources, including scenic ocean viewplanes.
- The landowner applied for an SMA permit to construct two multi-story office buildings and acknowledged the site was at a high-traffic intersection adjacent to a high-traffic highway.
- The Commission denied the SMA permit; the circuit court remanded for formal findings and conclusions.
- While on remand, the landowner petitioned to amend the SMA boundary to exclude the parcels.
- The Commission issued findings and conclusions denying the boundary amendment and denying reconsideration of the SMA permit, citing rapid-growth planning concerns, potential impairment of scenic viewplanes, and adverse roadway impacts (congestion, pedestrian safety, accident risk).
- The circuit court affirmed both denials, and the landowner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission acted within its statutory authority and on substantial evidence in refusing to amend the SMA boundary to exclude the parcels.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings that the proposed office development would adversely affect traffic, pedestrian safety, and scenic viewplanes, justifying denial of the SMA permit.
3. Whether the Commission’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise affected by legal error under the applicable standard of administrative review.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the Commission.
- The court upheld the denial of the petition to remove the parcels from the SMA.
- The court upheld the denial of the SMA permit and the denial of reconsideration.
- The court concluded the Commission’s determinations were within CZMA authority and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record.

## Legal Principles

- Counties may include inland parcels within an SMA when development may affect coastal resources and objectives protected by the CZMA, including scenic coastal viewplanes.
- In judicial review of agency action, factual findings are sustained if supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record; agency decisions are not disturbed absent arbitrariness, caprice, abuse of discretion, or legal error.
- Traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and accident risk are permissible considerations in SMA permitting when supported by the record.
- Commercial zoning permissibility does not control SMA outcomes; SMA review operates as an overlay that independently evaluates coastal and community impacts under CZMA policies.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the Commission’s refusal to remove the property from the SMA and its denial of an SMA permit for multi-story office buildings, holding that the Commission permissibly relied on scenic viewplane protection and roadway safety and congestion impacts, and that its findings were supported by substantial evidence under deferential administrative-review standards.


Topliss v. Planning Comm’n, 9 Haw. App. 377, 842 P.2d 648 (Haw. Ct. App. 1993)