PD RECOMMENDATION REPORT (PL-SMA-2024-000054)

Home

and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. In considering the significance of potential environmental effects, the Director shall consider the sum of those effects that adversely affect the quality of the environment and shall evaluate the overall and cumulative effects of the action on the Special Management Area. Such adverse effects shall include, but not be limited to, the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each one of which taken in itself might not have a substantial adverse effect and eliminate planning options. The proposed single-family residence, first farm dwelling, garage, and related development is considered a permitted use within the County's zoning agricultural district. Staff notes that the first farm dwelling is an approved use when the subdivision/parcel was created prior to 1976 as was this parcel (Grant 4569). The subject parcel was used for over a century for sugarcane agriculture, and no native vegetation is present as the land has been altered by historic land disturbance for agriculture a minor single-family development which is located adjacent to Old Mamalahoa Highway. No rare species or forest resources would be affected by the proposed project as none were observed. A home on this parcel would have no adverse effect on natural beauty and scenic view planes since it is low profile, and vegetation aids to hide the proposed project from Highway 19 (Hawai`i Belt Road). No historic properties are affected, and there is no existing or historic shoreline/fishing access located on the subject parcel. The southern property boundary is demarcated by the Waipunalei Stream which runs parallel to Jardine Road located mauka of the highway and subject parcel. Staff notes that there were no drainage issues or recommended setbacks because of the stream, however, the applicant has cited the proposed development at least 130-feet from the southern property line where the stream is located. In terms of beach protection, the applicant proposed to exceed the required 40-foot shoreline setback by locating construction to more than 130-feet from the top of pali and as such the proposed development would not affect any coastal resources nor adversely affect public use and recreation in this area. In reviewing the proposed development against the factors that may constitute a substantial adverse effect as listed under Planning Commission Rule 9-10 (H) (1-10), it -3-