Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-2010-Doc15930• • MINUTES PLANNING COMMITTEE April 7, 2010 A meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Councilmember Jay Furfaro, Chair, at the Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 10:04 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Jay Furfaro Honorable Daryl W. Kaneshiro Honorable Lani T. Kawahara Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami Honorable Bill "Kaipo" Asing, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Dickie Chang, Ex-Officio Member There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 10:04 a.m. The Committee reconvened at 11:36 a.m., and proceeded as follows: JAY FURFARO (Committee Chair): Earlier I had called a recess to the Planning Committee Meeting I would like to call the meeting for the Planning Committee back to order. I have some statements about the Committee agenda but first may I start by asking that we read the Minutes... or approve the Minutes, I'm sorry and I'll go ahead and do that, for the February 16th Planning Committee Workshop, as well as the Minutes of the March 10, 2010 Planning Committee Meeting. Minutes of the February 16, 2010 Planning Committee Workshop. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and seconded by Councilmember Kawahara, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the February 16, 2010 Planning Committee Workshop was approved. Minutes of the March 10, 2010 Planning Committee Meeting. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and seconded by Councilmember Kawahara, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the March 10, 2010 Planning Committee Meeting was approved. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you and discussion? All those in favor say "aye". Committee Members: Aye. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. I would also like to go through here, I know the abundance of people are here for two (2) of the items in my Committee and towards the end of the meeting, I will visit Bill No. 2022, 2023, which I hope to receive. I will also visit 2298 which I would hope that we would defer until Bill 2355 comes back for the Planning Commission and I would like to address first and foremost my intent to ask for Bill 2339 to be written, that is the • • bill on the Open Space and then I will go to the Farm Worker Housing. The Committee proceeded on its agenda items, as shown in the following Committee reports which are incorporated herein by reference. Bill No. 2339 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 8 OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE OPEN DISTRICT [This item was deferred.] Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. It is my intent to ask eventually but allow testimony now to defer this for two (2) meetings as I'm waiting for legal questions to be addressed in my Committee but for the time being I would like to look to suspend the rules and look to the audience, is there anyone here that would like to speak on Bill two, three, three, nine (2339), this is the Standards in the Open Space District? There being no objections the rules were suspended. Mr. Furfaro: Okay. I'm going to call the meeting back to order for my colleagues, you've heard my request for two (2) meetings is there any comments on this? Go ahead Mr. Bynum. TIM BYNUM (Committee Member): This bill regards density in the Open Zoned, it's a bill that's been anticipated at least since the year 2000 when the General Plan recommended that this change be made. This bill came from the Planning Department with the application to the Planning Department on July 28th of 09 so last July this bill started its process went through Public Hearing, came to the Council in October and had its first reading in November and for reasons that I understand the bill has been deferred since then. But the history of this is that you know this is an action that requested by our community more than ten (10) years ago and I am hopeful that we can sort out and move on this bill in a month from now. Mr. Furfaro: I would just .like to confirm Mr. Bynum that it hasn't been in my Committee for ten (10) years... Mr. Bynum: Yeah. Mr. Furfaro: It has been in it since November so... Mr. Bynum: Absolutely. Correct. And I understand that we're waiting for feedback back from the County Attorney's Office. You know about some questions but when that comes I will have one (1) simple amendment that was discussed previously and then I am hopeful that we can move on the bill at that time. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for your understanding Mr. Bynum. Councilmember Kawahara. LANI T. KAWAHARA (Committee Member): Thank you. I do understand the reason for the deferral was for legal reasons to find out more stuff. But it makes me... I'm a little uneasy because like this is one of those things that 2 • happened on the books in the General Plan since 2000 and yes it hasn't been in your Committee for ten (10) years, thank goodness. I hoping it won't be, I am just concerned that this is an important bill and it is in relation to large plots of land so it affects large landowners, I am just worried and wonder if it's taking this long because there's such interest for landowners to be able to make their money and get their business in order and have a profit, but that we are definitely going to be addressing it as requested in the General Plan and by so many of our constituents because in this specific bill is the one that addresses the problems that we're having in Open Zoned areas and Agricultural Developments that aren't really Agricultural Developments, so I am positive and confident that this is going to be coming back and I just wanted to voice my support for this bill and also recognize that there are issues and large landowners that are pushing to do their jobs for their companies but that the Government and us, we need to do our jobs to be sure that we're meeting the requirements and actions that were requested of us, thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. And perhaps what I'll do is, I'll answer your questions as it relates to some of my earlier statements about receiving Bill two, zero, two, two (2022) and Bill two, zero, two, three (2023), the fact- of the matter if you recalled when this came forward, I wanted to have a workshop on those two (2) bills. I thought we had a very successful workshop we were able to get some of the understanding from the previous Planning Director on some of the things that he thought was important on Ag land such as you know clustering concepts for Ag Districts. We also in that workshop discussed that importance of the primary objective of Agriculture being that of first trying to preserve land for Agricultural activities. Along with the fact that we are about ready to discussed... it's great to have the Ag land but we need to be able to house the workforce for farming which is coming up on the agenda too. Also in there I wanted to say, I closed the workshop by saying "it clearly also was an issues that we needed to address as we have the upcoming update to the CZO in November which if you recall, I pushed for our calendar, we were going to try get that done this year as well as the fact that we finally have an Important Ag land group working on those land designations and so forth to earmark our prime lands so may I just say I hope you trust my leadership here based on that task and also remind you that in the General Plan, there were a multiple group of activities that we needed to address including exiting from ADU's on Ag land, so we're accomplishing those rather methodically but it does take time so I hope I answered your question and I am looking for a deferral on this bill since we asked for public comment and there is none. May I ask... Yes? Go ahead. DARYL W. KANESHIRO (Committee Member): Thank you Mr. Chair. I think we have to look at the whole process itself. I was here ten (10) years ago and I'm certain some of you were here but when we passed the General Plan, the General Plan talked about redoing the CZO, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. We appropriated money previously to the General Plan and we put it on feeling that the General Plan would address some of that and we kicked started it and you know for me, we know the process took a long time but at the same time with Council that appropriated money for the CZO to address these needs, so it wasn't like we weren't moving, doing anything. We had money that was spent to address these issues, unfortunately for us it took longer, there's a process that Mr. Furfaro stated (inaudible) we had to work on, including ADU's and all other aspects and you know I applaud the Chair for bringing this on rather than waiting for the CZO to be updated. I'm quite certain that if the CZO was updated earlier, this would have been addressed so appropriating the funds to do that shows that all Councilmembers that were here ten (10) years ago even twelve (12) years ago had 3 • the desire to look at this Open Ag and try to make some corrections to this so you know now we're at this point so I'm hoping that after we have the deferrals, as requested by the Chair and have some clarifications by our Attorneys, we can start moving on this bill. Mr. Furfaro: And thank you Councilmember Kaneshiro regarding the actual funding of the CZO update had to happen first. Mr. Chair? BILL "KAIPO" ASING (Ex-Officio Member): Yes. I'd like to make some comments I am not a member of the Committee. You know when I hear ten (10) years ago, let me clarify that... TWENTY (20) years ago! This bill in my opinion is motherhood and apple pie. Simple, easy, should have been done twenty (20) years ago, yeah? Because the problems was there twenty (20) years ago. But I do believe that there is other work to be done and it should not... we should not rush to it and I applaud you for taking the time and looking at everything. As a matter of fact you know the concern I have also is that we funded the CZO update, the CZO update is going to come to us shortly as I understand that... shortly may mean November, I don't know for sure. But when that comes to us it may be different from what we pass now and it's like what are we doing? We fund the CZO process, we go through that process, it comes to us it's different from what we did today? It's like, what are we doing? Why don't we let the experts do it first and then when it comes to us, it will be probably be in the right form or if we disagree at that time, then we do the change so I'm a little concern about those things but I applaud you for taking the time and making sure that we've taken care of all the concerns. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Mr. Chair. So I am looking for a motion to defer this for two meetings. Mr. Kaneshiro: So moved. DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI (Committee Member): Seconded. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. All those in favor? Committee Members: Aye. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Okay I'm going to ask that we now... Do we have a reader there? Oh we have a reader there, there we go. I'm going to ask that we go ahead and read Bill No. two, three, one, eight (2318) which is the farm worker housing. Bill No. 2318 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE (Farm Worker Housing) [This item was deferred.] Mr. Furfaro: First and foremost I would like to say that we had circulated proposed amendment by Mr. Tim Bynum by request at our last meeting so that people had some time to get digest of what will be formally introduced today as an amendment. I also want to share that there has been some changes in that amendment that deal with the actual permitting section eight, seven dash nine (87-9) and the definition section as it's been moved around a little 4 • • bit from the previous draft but I do want to share you know one of the reasons that I co-signed on to this bill from the previous Council along with at that time Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura is that we meaning the County of Kauai have revised the bill in part upon the farm worker and farm bureau's in the County as well as we worked with those groups and kind of like an ADHOC Committee with the Planning Department and Mr. Morimoto and I wanted to recognized them first and foremost all that have worked on this. The amendment actually creates a new section and a set of standards and I want to make that clear, a set of standards for farm worker housing permits and it actually defines the term as commercial farms. And farm workers and the farm worker housing is not being anything in the way of adding density but apparent to the fact that it is an amenity to supporting a farm. This is also certainly important as it relates to the Important Ag lands that the State will mandate we farm and we chart out farming maps and so forth but that States bill already says farm housing would be allowed. So the main benefit of this bill in my opinion is that it will give us an opportunity to preempt a definition and a guidance from the County of Kauai to the Department of Agriculture as it deal with the Important Ag land bills. It also will set up a guideline for the Planning Commission... and we need a break for the tape change? Okay and let me just say we're going to take a five (5) minute recess and also let you know that the bill anticipates another bill from Real Property to define taxation and we're on a recess. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:55 a.m. The Committee reconvened at 12:10 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Kaneshiro will be with us shortly. This Committee is back from recess and again anticipation of the Important Ag land study, we really hope to get the guidance and input to the Department of Agriculture, as we see it right now because I do want to make note that currently under the CZO and Agricultural zoning areas you can apply for farm worker housing and you can apply for temporary farm worker housing so this intent is to give some guidelines and the anticipation is also based on the fact that these are some parameters when the applicant comes in to the Planning Commissioners, the Commissioners have some parameters. I would .also like to say after discussions with the Real Property Tax Division, we will be looking at a taxation bill for this separate because we cannot cross over the purposes, the multi-purposes in one (1) ordinance therefore this bill is addressing section eight (8) Chapter eight (8) and the tax section is in Chapter five (5) but we do have items that will come in a subsequent bill that has the review of the Tax Department, the Tax Department Division as it relates to Legislative rules to deal with the assessment of this farm worker housing and any related exemptions, we don't want to find a situation where a farm work who currently has a dwelling on their property which is their primary residence, we don't want them to find (inaudible) a second farm worker housing unit on there, they lose their exemption. So we've had that discussion with the Tax Department but realized that we need to address that in a subsequent bill. On that note I would like to ask that the memb.ers... someone... Mr. Ka`aina on the Planning Department if you could come up be with us, I'm going to suspend the rules and first I want to thank Ka`aina on his efforts in working with me on the issues as it relates to how these parallels might need to be queried or answered appropriately with the Planning Commission who will ultimately have the final say on the permits for workforce housing. 5 • • Kaaina, how are you? KA`AINA HULL (Planner): Good morning Council. Mr. Furfaro: Could you... you had a time to review these amendments as they were circulated and I would certainly like to hear any comments from the Planning Department as it relates to how we've addressed definitions in this new section and the actual permitting process. The floor is yours if you could brief my colleagues. Mr. Hull: Before I get into the floor amendment I'd just like to state that the Planning Department's official recommendation was the one that was submitted to approve by the Commission and subsequently sent up to the Council. I said that though in reviewing this version of the bill I think that we can say... the Department would say that it does support this version because in essence what this... what the farmers do it will reinstate much of what the Planning Department originally recommended in its report to Council via the Commission as well as it expands on concerns that the report brought up in particular the reinstating of the gross sales clause is something that we definitely support. When agriculture lands as you all know much abuse occurs on them, outright abuse and defacto abuse and any additional land use entitlements can serve as an invitation for further abuse and farm worker housing being one of them so one of the key concerns or issues that we brought up was ability to discern the bonafide farmer from the gentleman farmer and more particularly to discern those bonafide farmers that are in need of farm worker housing and what we ultimately came up with in modeling after other county ordinances is a dollar value. And that thirty-five thousand dollar ($35,000) gross sales is a way to establish not only a bonafide use of the agriculture property for farming but indeed a demonstration of a clear need for the housing for farm workers. So in reinstating that we definitely are in favor and the second requirement... Mr. Furfaro: Ka`aina could you double check that your mic. is fully on? Mr. Hull: The button is on but... 1VIr. Asing: Pull it close to you. Mr. Hull: There? Okay. Um and the other requirement to have the property dedicated to... in agriculture dedication pursuant to the rules of Chapter five (5), the Department and the Commission did not address that but I think we can say that we are also in favor of that because it adds an additional requirement that can help us to discern the real farm from the faux- farmer. But I would also like to add it's not only through the Ag dedication it is the combination of the Ag dedication with the gross sales or the gross sales of the farm itself and other than that... And the other, the other amendments such as inclusion of the definition of commercial farm does help us to further clarify what a farm or more particularly the farm that needs farm worker housing does help us clarify that but essentially the linchpin of the bill was that gross sales clause and the combination of that clause with the Ag dedication does help us discern the faux- farmer from the real farmer. Mr. Furfaro: Ka`aina, I know there is some discussion and we may be seeing another amendment later this afternoon but those three (3) 6 • • pieces, the thirty-five thousand (35,000) gross sales, the farm dedication, the farm plan might also be expanded with the submission of kind of a staffing outline is being considered by other Councilmembers based on the fact that perhaps we need a little bit more discussion about start up farms and at what point do they reach the thirty-five thousand (35,000) threshold, I just wanted to share that... there has been some dialog on that as well. Currently, it is a true statement with a Special Use Permit and in the definition of Ag, you can currently apply for farm worker housing under the current CZO and yet this bill will then give some parameters to what we're looking for in that application and it also is clear to me with the Important Ag land State efforts, they also imply that farm working... farm worker housing will be permitted. I'm just going to ask you in your opinion the intent of this bill to set up some parameters (inaudible) in advance of that, I think at the Councilman it's a very good idea because currently there are no parameters, am I correct? Mr. Hull: issuance for a use permit. Mr. Furfaro: there are no parameters. Mr. Hull: Mr. Furfaro: That's right there are no parameters for the (inaudible) allowed by Special Permit but It's allowed by actually Use Permit. Use Permit, yes, I'm sorry. Mr. Hull: But... there are not parameters in, I think we stated that in our report while it is allowed in, bringing up those additional parameters or specifying them gives us further clarification and guidance or approval or denial in such applications. Mr. Furfaro: Well I guess we're not talking in terms of the Use Permit this will provide some guidance for those Commissioners that rotate every three (3) years, at least there would be some continuity. Mr. Hull: Definitely. Mr. Furfaro: Let me ask my colleagues if they have any questions of you. Go ahead. DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI (Committee Member): Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we're saying there are no parameters but what are some of the conditions that one would be conditioned to under a Use Permit? Mr. Hull: Right now it really go case by case given the situation and aside from meeting other agencies requirements and standard conditions such as lighting, noise, that it really would be case by case situation. Mr. Kawakami: Okay, okay. That's fair enough. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you Ka`aina for being here and thank you for all the work that the group has put into this, it's definitely easier to look at • • it than to create it. I notice here that the farm plan would be submitted to the Planning Department and I was curious about the thought that it would go to the NCRS Rex Riggle that actually does farm plans also in the Federal, I think. Mr. Hull: I'm not aware of that. Ms. Kawahara: There wasn't any discussion about making that person that generally approve farm plans do it instead of the Planning Department? Mr. Hull: No. no. There was no discussion and I don't have enough background on that really to comment. Ah I know that as... in the event that we get an application, the application as a whole would also be forwarded on to the Department of Agriculture and they have the ability to comment whether or not they want to. Ms. Kawahara: them and they check off... Mr. Hull: Ms. Kawahara: Okay so you'll be taking comments from Yeah it's standard procedure. That would be part of a checklist? Mr. Hull: It's standard procedure to submit to other agencies and on an application like this it would be submitted to the Department of Agriculture. Ms. Kawahara: Okay great, thank you very much. Mr. Furfaro: That was a very good question Councilwoman and as the Planning Department said it would be still circulated but one of the existing issues is, you can't currently look not necessarily at the Federal level and even at the State Ag Department to get this kind of parameters (inaudible) they don't really exist. Ms. Kawahara: That's great that they're going to have them on the checklist. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum did you have some questions here? So we're still working off this circulated piece and when you finish I think it would probably be appropriate for us to actually come back to order to introduce the amendment and then take public testimony again. Is there anything else you would like to add? Mr. Hull: Not right now I mean if you have any other questions? Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Mr. Hull: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for all of your work with the 8 • • ADHOK Committee. Mr. Asing: Jay? Mr. Furfaro: Oh you had a question? I'm sorry, go ahead Mr. Chair. Mr. Asing: Yeah are we talking about the amendment from him now? Mr. Furfaro: Ah, we're going to introduce them right now. Mr. Asing: Yeah but... Mr. Furfaro: The ones that were circulated, we can talk about those, yes. Mr. Asing: Yeah can I ask him a question? Mr. Furfaro: Absolutely go right ahead. Mr. Asing: I'm looking at page four (4) item three (3) at the very top. The owner or lessee of the subject property upon which the farm Planning Department that demonstrates the feasibility of the respective farm's commercial agricultural production. Who in your Department is qualified to address this? You don't have anybody there, in my opinion, who is professional that can address this problem, so how would you do that? Mr. Hull: Ah. Mr. Asing: You put something in the ordinance that you're not able as a Department to answer. Mr. Hull: In reviewing that portion, we would look at one... one among other things the hours of labor, the type of production and whatnot but above and beyond that as in addressing Councilmember Kawahara's... Mr. Asing: But you... Mr. Hull: In addressing Councilmember Kawahara's question, it would be forwarded onto the Department of Agriculture for which we would be looking for comments from them on that farm plan specifically. Mr. Asing: Oh okay, I just have some concerns. I do not believe that you have the expertise in that Department to make the determination using this criteria on whether it is in fact feasible or not feasible. So that's just my comment. Mr. Furfaro: I thank you for that question and you know it is part of our dilemma right now because the State Ag Department doesn't have the parameters defining the farm either in the sense that the kind of detail we're looking for but as a follow up we're circulating this plan to the Department for their comments is how we're going to approach addressing the question. Did you want to 9 • • add anything to that? Anymore questions? Okay I'm going to let you sit in the audience again, I'm going to call the meeting back to order so that we can introduce the actual amendments and then we'll open to public dialog again. And I think the amendments were circulated as... Mr. Bynum: Is the bill on the floor? We have to introduce the bill... Mr. Furfaro: I'm almost sure the bill is on the floor. Okay you want to introduce the bill, thank you. Mr. Bynum: Move to approve. Ms. Kawahara: Seconded. Mr. Furfaro: Is there any opportunity for discussion on the bill itself? Mr. Bynum: And I'll move to... move to amend as circulated. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Mr. Bynum. May I have a . seconded on that? t° Ms. Kawahara: Seconded. Mr. Furfaro: Seconded by Councilwoman Kawahara. And so we now have the bill on the table and we have the amendments that were circulated with some housekeeping from last week. I'm now going to suspend the rules... (inaudible) how's the clock? Mr. Bynum: 12:25. Mr. Furfaro: 12:25, we're going. to start testimony but we _ will continue after lunch. Mr. Mickens, I'll call you forward and you may be the only speaker to lunch time. GLENN MICKENS: Thank you Jay for the record Glenn Mickens. Just have a question on page thre e (3), am I addressing you Jay or I see Tim introduced this... but is this. Mr. Furfaro: You should always address the Chairperson. Mr. Mickens: You're the Chair. Mr. Furfaro: And... Yes I'm the Chair of this Committee. Mr. Mickens: Thanks Jay. Mr. Furfaro: And I will direct it to the appropriate person if necessary. io • • Mr. Mickens: Okay on page three (3) where it says under (a) the core function of the commercial farm shall be: (1) the commercial cultivation s : or why is that? Why are you excluding timber and t Mr. Furfaro: First of all there is a separate ordinance that addresses energy as it relates to potential of timber and so forth. And also quite frankly if someone would like to expend on that we find ourselves approving, approving agriculture subdivisions in the county that primaries agricultural work was to introduce turf farms. Mr. Mickens: Yes. Mr. Furfaro: And they are not actually farming the turf. I hope that answers your question. Mr. Mickens: Well in Southern California I know they have huge turf farms and it's a huge farming operation, huge mega bucks in the thing, that's why I wondered why it was excluding turf farms here. Somebody wanted to do you know plant turf to put in lawns and stuff, I would feel that it would be a farming operation. Mr. Furfaro: And my response to that was hopefully they're also growing palm trees, birds of paradise, tropical flowers and other things that can create revenues up to thirty-five thousand (35,000) a year. Mr. Mickens: Ah okay. Mr. Furfaro: But specifically you know many golf courses find areas that they can grow their own turf. Mr. Mickens: Sure. Mr. Furfaro: But in the nursery business we would encourage that they would... that they are growing other activities other than just turf. Mr. Mickens: However if they can show that their income is going to be that thirty-five thousand (35,000) amount of money. Mr. Furfaro: (inaudible) apply for a variance in front the Planning Commissioners of which we have set the parameters but we do have agricultural subdivisions on this island whose primary crop is turf. Mr. Mickens: That they grow... Mr. Furfaro: That it's a residential area. Mr. Mickens: Oh. I see but they don't do... they don't do it as a commercial business though? Is that what you're saying? Mr. Furfaro: I'm saying it's a possibility that their association of CPR apartment owners may do that for the purposes of the 11 • • application but it is not under the umbrella of a individual farm or his family or not it might be part of his... how do I want to say it? His condominium association's protective confidence that they grow turf. Mr. Mickens: a variance so if they do decide... Mr. Furfaro: they're nursery... Mr. Mickens: Mr. Furfaro: turf. Mr. Mickens: Mr: Furfaro: Mr. Mickens: Okay. I understand. So they can't apply for We would hope if they're coming in and Yeah. They have all other things and then some Sure okay. Thank you, Jay. I hope I answered your question. Yes you did. Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to ask that we actually break for lunch. It is 12:30 I apologize that those others that came around 11:00 but we had to time some of the Planning Department's personnel to be here and this Committee is~'going to go on recess until 1:30 for lunch, thank you. There being objections, the Committee recessed at 12:30 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 1:45 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Furfaro: Are we okay now? Thank you very much everyone. Okay we have now returned from our lunch recess. We have suspended our rules to take testimony from the public. Do we have a list of anyone who wishes to testify? No? Do we have any written correspondence on the bill? No? Is there anyone in the audience who that wishes to speak? Keone please come right on up. KEONE KEALOHA: Aloha Committee Chair and members of the Committee and members of the Council. For the record my name is Keone Kealoha. I wanted to try to lay out some numbers that might give some context to the people that would be potentially affected by this proposed ordinance. What we're talking about is farm worker housing for folks that are initially on agricultural zoned parcels of some nature and that number according to the tax assessor's office as of today four thousand two hundred seventy-seven (4,277) parcels. Of those there are the CPR's that are currently on Ag land are two thousand five hundred and one (2,501), eight hundred... Mr. Asing: You have a copy... do you have a copy of what you're reading from? Mr. Kealoha: I just got the numbers but I could provide them to the Council, for sure I can do that. 12 • • Mr. Furfaro: That would be appreciated. Mr. Kealoha: The vacant CPR lots are eight hundred and thirty-seven (837) in number. There are also some zero density CPRs which have been estimated by some folks unofficially in the Planning Department at around twenty (20) which are comprised in areas in Moloa`a and potentially in the Wailua Homestead areas. So but that number... I don't have an exact number on that at this time. Mr. Furfaro: Could you give us your estimate again. Mr. Kealoha: It was roughly twenty (20) and that's a... Mr. Furfaro: Two (2), zero (0)? Mr. Kealoha: Two (2), zero (0). For zero density CPRs. So given that criteria, those are the... that's really what we're talking about who would be affected by this proposed ordinance. Mr. Furfaro: They would be potentially. Mr. Kealoha: Potentially, potentially. And so within that we have a further of sunset of folks and that comes with the Ag dedication so the current numbers as of today for Ag dedication would originally in 2000 and 2001 when that process first happened, there were twelve hundred (1,200) Ag dedications that were applied for, they are now at the ten (10) year mark which is the first renewal period for those. The tax Assessors office sent out five hundred (500) for renewal and they have another two hundred (200) pending, so what we're looking at potentially is seven hundred folks in Ag dedication potentially. So of those... of that larger set now we're (inaudible) it down to only seven hundred (700) folks who would be even applicable within the guidelines of the proposed ordinance. So further to look at who would be affected we're looking at further criteria which are defined within this ordinance, so we're talking about defining the farm, talk about defining farm worker and the elements of that... Mr. Asing: Why don't you give her a copy so that you know we can all get the same information as you... Mr. Kealoha: I just wrote this numbers down off a phone call so I thought that it was relevant information but I can... Mr. Asing: No it's relevant to me and I'd like to have that information but you know you're just reading off numbers and I'm... Mr. Kealoha: Right. Mr. Asing: I'm here, I'm trying to write down these numbers I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Mr. Kealoha: Okay. Mr. Asing: So it's just difficult. Mr. Kealoha: Okay. Well I'll try to summarize it I guess 13 • • and make it more clear that there's about forty-two hundred (4,200) parcels that are in Ag land and those... and of those within the terms of this proposed ordinance, only seven hundred (700) of those would be able to even apply for the farm worker housing, eligible. Mr. Asing: Well it's just that you know it's a lot of statistics and they're good, they're relevant and I'd like to know where you got them from, verification... Mr. Kealoha: Mr. Asing: reading numbers and... Mr. Kealoha: Mr. Asing: Sure I'd be happy to... And factual, you know other than that you're Okay. I did get these numbers... What is it? Mr. Kealoha: I got these numbers from Kim Hester who's the Head of the Tax Assessor's Office by phone within the last hour. So these are current number run from her computer on a request... Mr. Asing: Well if... you know... - Mr. Kealoha: So I will get you a copy. Mr. Asing: Well if are going to rely on these numbers, I'd like to know where you got them from and the validity of those numbers. Mr. Kealoha: Assessor. Mr. Furfaro: the staff call Kim Hester... Mr. Kealoha: Yeah I'd be happy to work with the Tax Keone that won't be necessary. I will have Okay. Mr. Furfaro: Because I've been in touch with the Tax Office but I was working with Mr. Steve Hunt. Mr. Kealoha: Sure. Mr. Furfaro: And I'll try to get her something that reflects what you're reporting to us. Mr. Kealoha: Okay. Mr. Furfaro: If one of the staff members could call Kim Hester and ask her to summarize in a email over to the Council these categories of CPRs, Ag parcels, those that have zero density and those that may and I think the number was seven hundred (700) may be renewing their Ag dedication. Let's do that right now. Mr. Kealoha: I apologize for not having these written down 14 • • in a form that I could submit to the Council at this time. The reason why I think it's important to know what these numbers are is because we are looking at who we could be potentially helping with this legislation, with this ordinance and who... who could be potentially be abusing this proposed ordinance. So of those seven hundred (700) folks with the Ag dedication you further go down into that and there's definitions and criterias that need to be met, not only in the Ag dedication process which pretty extensive to define that you're doing actual agriculture but also within the terms of the proposed ordinance so some things that are not included in the Ag dedication process that I think are highly relevant are the two years of thirty-five thousand dollar ($35,000) gross sales, the nineteen (19) hours a week for the farm workers to prove that they are actually farm workers. And then there's... there's other addition criteria in there but just to say that we're really just trying to make this very restrictive so that we don't see the abuse, we want to help but we don't want to see the abuse portion happen. So I suppose what I'm speaking to here is that we're really looking at a smaller pool of folks that could potentially abuse this ordinance as it's written and one other item that I wanted to speak to as it relates to Ag dedication is this currently the way that it's written is that it's restricted to people that have the Ag dedication (inaudible) enactment of this ordinance shouldn't be enacted. I think that the Ag dedication in the criteria that are within this specific ordinance are restricted enough that they constitute people that have real farms, that are doing real farming that need housing for their farmers, if we feel that we can clearly define the parameters of what a farm is and what a farm worker is, then we should be okay with allowing future applications for Ag dedication, the reason I say this is that that will allow for new farmers to come into the picture and will also allow potentially for some people who may have previously abused the idea of having density on Ag land, the ability to maybe jump into and become bonafide farmers. So those are... and I know I'm past my three (3) minutes here so I'll just wrap it up... but I just wanted to give some context to who it is we're trying to assist and who it is potentially the numbers of people that maybe abusing this, I'll leave it there. Mahalo for your time. Mr. Furfaro: Keone, we're going to follow up on the information we got from Kim Hester but I do want to say that you know this is the first step and it sounds from your testimony that you think the threshold of thirty- five thousand (35,000) is too high? Is that what I'm getting from your testimony? Mr. Kealoha: Well in speaking with farmers there are... Mr. Furfaro: I have spoken to farmers too but I want to know about your testimony. Mr. Kealoha: Right. Mr. Furfaro: Is the thirty-five thousand (35,000) in your opinion too high? Mr. Kealoha: In my opinion the thirty-five thousand (35,000) helps some farmers and is a threshold for other farmers that at this time may not be able to be met. That actually is the one question that I have that I am unable to get an answer for and my question is how many farmers on Kauai have filed a tax return claiming thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) of gross sales in the last two (2) years. That number would allow us to then further constrict the Ag parcels, the Ag dedications and then find out who actually does this apply to. 15 • • Mr. Furfaro: I just want to make sure I understand your position because the thirty-five thousand (35,000) is something that the Planning Department along with the Council concur is similar to the Maui criteria and it is a place to start. Mr. Kealoha: That's right. Mr. Furfaro: Now you threw a lot of numbers out to us and you know until we have good, clear data in how many people react to wanting (excuse me), to qualify for this, you know it's difficult to make clear assumptions on where we're going with the bill and you're right the thirty-five thousand (35,000) gross sales, the farm dedication, and having a farm plan are the three (3) key components to addressing the farming issues. On the flip side I have to say with all of the expenses related to farming that I heard from farming, from farmers and I did attend the earlier meetings on the North Shore but mostly all of the meetings whether they're were with John McClure Group at his garage or at the Kapa`a Neighborhood Center, it's really hard to comprehend from a business standpoint with expenses for water, farm equipment, fertilizers if they're are not an organic farmer and so forth, that that thirty-five thousand (35,000) is set too high. It seems to me that you know the tradeoff here we all have to realize is the key to this is to be able to say for (x) amount of dollars you will be given the privilege to have accessory dwellings on your property. We're not talking about giving away density we're talking about giving away the use of farm dwellings to support your farm and there are many farmers that I've talked to with whether it was related to the Koolau Organic Farmers after the Kaloko failure and them not having irrigation to the many groups in Moloa`a and the Farm Bureau and everybody felt for a starting point the thirty-five thousand (35,000) was something that was attainable to qualify. Remember what we're saying now, to qualify for up to eighteen hundred (1,800) square feet of additional shelter for the work of farmers. I think the numbers you got are pretty clear of the lots and CPRs and those are the vacant and those are the vacant that have no density they are similar to the discussions that we had with Steve Hunt so I'm sure that we're going to be able to confirm that. But you also have to realize in some of these areas a second subdivision was allowed in these agricultural properties that ended up with an understanding that people might live elsewhere and still have a parcel to farm. Now I do know in our discussion we are concern and I think we. have ..some other amendments coming that might include and because I can't introduce amendments as the Chair, it might include the possibility of revisiting a startup farm that over a period of time they might get some staffing that allows them to get to this plateau in this consideration but we haven't got to that amendment yet. I want to personally thank you for your work on this but I don't think this bill can be everything to everybody right out of the shoot, I think it comes out as a start. Mr. Kealoha: Right. Mr. Furfaro: And you bring up some very good points. And we will try to reconcile the numbers that you read to us about the particular Tax Department's inventories on lots. I just want to share that with you. Now let me ask if there are other questions Mr. Bynum? Mr. Bynum: Keone thank you for your testimony. I pretty sure I understand it but just so I'm certain the... you are really addressing the words "as of the effective date of this ordinance" that are on page four (4) "the owner of a condominium property regime or unit in a condominium property regime may 16 not apply for farm worker housing unless, as of the effective date of this ordinance" so you're suggesting is that that would be removed from the bill? Mr. Kealoha: No. I'm actually not. Mr. Bynum: And the rationale is that the other controls the thirty-five thousand (35,000), nineteen (19) hours, the farm plan are sufficient to address the concern about possible abuse. Mr. Kealoha: No ah... Mr. Bynum: Have I got your testimony right? Mr. Kealoha: Let me just add some clarity to that then. The zero (0) density CPRs and CPRs in general, I don't... I believe that as of the enactment of this ordinance is the proper terminology to utilize and the reason I say that is because we don't want to see a run on zero (0) density CPRs startup so if it's... as of the date of the ordinance being enacted, then that would be... then hopefully call that run on creating new CPRs which was an issue that actually stalls us maybe eight (8) months ago or six (6) months to actually say "how do we resolve that issue?" what I had made mention to as far as potentially looking at the removal of some wording that spoke to as of the enactment of this ordinance had to do with the relation to the Ag dedication and the reason why I had mention that is a potential area to revisit as far as saying "as of the enactment of this ordinance only folks that have Ag dedication this would be applicable to" the reason why I think it would be worth considering revising that is that it would allow for new farmers to actually be included and if the thresholds are established by the Ag dedication framework by those regulations of what needs to be met are adequate, then it shouldn't matter if they have done it now or if they have done it in the future, in fact some folks that may have... maybe currently abusing the privilege of having dwellings on Ag land may actually decide to come into compliance with being a real farming operation. So I see it as being potentially as being helping the situation that already exist. Mr. Bynum: And thank you for that clarification and please continue to be patient with me because what I think I just heard you say is, if we say as of the enactment of this ordinance no new parcels, CPR parcels with zero density could be included? Mr. Kealoha: That was... well I agreed with and I would have to look where in the bill it stated it but... Mr. Bynum: I don't think it states that now but. Mr. Kealoha: I think it does. It's... Mr. Bynum: But the situation that you're concerned about would be if someone tomorrow buys a CPR they start actively farming because we know there are plenty of CPRs out there that aren't being used for farming, right on Ag land and so they start farming, they demonstrate for two (2) years of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000), they meet all the other criteria but because they hadn't applied when the ordinance, (inaudible-too soft) and those circumstances you want that individual to be able to get it? Okay. l~ Mr. Kealoha: What um... i Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, I want to clarify so we all know, there is possibly another amendment that is being worked on that addresses this particular key piece but you know I want to touch on this Mr. Bynum, you know my concern is where I'm hearing words like "it potentially could be" and "we forecasted to be" and you know, this is a very generous bill to begin with and we need a starting point, we don't need to approach it from a standpoint that you know feeling that we have all this very good data, asking what's going to happen and who might do what and so forth, we need to have controls in place. That point that Mr. Keone Kealoha, I think has been discussed with the Committee and Keone you may be seeing another amendment to that effect. Mr. Bynum: And so I'll just close with this that even though I introduce these amendments by request, I support these amendments and the strengthening of these provisions because of those concerns and the only area I had a question outstanding is this issue, so I'm going to be patient and wait to see what other amendments might come up but I appreciate the testimony. Mr. Kealoha: Sure and I think it's on page four (4) here the owner of a condominium property regime and then if you look at item one (1) it says the idea is that if they're the owner of that property regime or unit in the CPR that they may not apply for the farm worker housing unless as of the effective date of this ordinance that the property regime has received a final public report meaning ~' that it had been created prior to, so the idea is that I personally do not support the ' idea of people going out and creating CPRs in order to get density because of this ordinance and that so... there's plenty of CPRs and there's lots of land and there's lots of farmers but we're talking about is getting housing for them or utilizing the ' existing property pool to supply that. Mr. Bynum: And the only clarification I would say is that I appreciate the Planning Chair clarifying that this bill is allowing a certain particular use, it is not (inaudible) density so I think that is a important clarification so thank you. Mr. Furfaro: You have a question? DARYL W. KANESHIRO: Yeah I have a question for Keone. So did I hear right that what you're saying is that any future CPRs then should not be granted this type of housing for farming? Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Kealoha: That... I think I... that is what you're hearing. And I say that is because we're looking for a starting point. We're looking for a place... Mr. Kaneshiro: But. Mr. Kealoha: our current farmers. In time that we can assist with housing for Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay let me ask you this, aren't we all on the same boat that we all want to promote farming in agriculture? Mr. Kealoha: Correct. 18 Mr. Kaneshiro: Then if you use what you stated, we are actually putting some clamps to farms and create more farming in agriculture whether if it's CPR or farming by using that process, isn't that right? Mr. Kealoha: It... the reason I put that out is because there's such a large concern from folks out in the public about a run on CPRs occurring that for me I'm willing to say "hey let this be a starting point for us and if we want to revisit it in the future then we can" but it helps to ease some of the concern that is coming from a great deal of folks that have seen the abuse of CPRs in the past. Mr. Kaneshiro: I... okay. I disagree with you. Mr. Kealoha: Okay. Mr. Kaneshiro: Because what you're trying to do is to use this to control CPR and I think what we're trying do here is that we're trying to promote Ag, we're here trying to promote farming so if we have a hundred CPRs created and all hundred are dedicated farmers and legitimately farming on the island, you know I'm not certain why we need to have them apply for this issue when there is a need. I mean so... I see your point. Mr. Kealoha: And I see yours as well. Mr. Kaneshiro: You know for me, I can't support a bill trying to use this to control CPR. Mr. Kealoha: Well... Mr. Kaneshiro: I think that's the mechanism, we need to address that by other bills, this bill should... we're talking about farmers, how do we encourage farmers to farm, how do we keep people to farm, how do we get people to stay in Ag, and I think that's the important impact of this bill. Mr. Kealoha: Yeah and I don't think that this bill is speaking to putting in restrictions on CPRing there can be... CPRing can continue obviously it's a State function but this is just limiting any of the potential application for this housing to existing CPRs and I do understand your point if the restrictions on... if the definitions of what constitutes a real farm and a real farmer are correct, then it shouldn't matter if there's more CPRs or less CPRs of anything which was the same justification they used for lifting the ceiling on the Ag dedication I'm taking that up so I understand your point. I think the reason why I agree with it at this time is because I hear enough concern from people in the community that are telling me that I'm saying "okay at this time I'll agree with that". Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Keone before I release you I want to let you know I had Jade our analyst who I assigned to contact Kim Hester to translate the information you shared with us and put it in a email and we now have total Ag zoned parcels that are taxable four thousand two hundred seventy-seven (4,277) that's island wide: In addition there are seven hundred and twelve (712) non 19 taxable Ag's on parcel, most of which are government owned. The total CPRs to date are two thousand five hundred and one (2,501) of which eight hundred thirty- seven (837) are currently vacant. The guestimate of current dedication parcels under Ag dedication program are one thousand five hundred four (1,504) where two hundred (200) are subject to expire. So this fifteen hundred (1,500) that are in Ag dedication, this is a summary of what I gave to Keone, however I erroneously told him that there were just under five hundred (500) that actually reregistered. I meant five hundred (500) have already been renewed. So I hope this clarifies it and we all have it in front of us now. So thank you for sharing that and getting that... but Mr. Hunt was working with us on this information and again the intent of the future look at another amendment might be addressing you know those eight hundred and thirty-seven (837) that might want to activate some kind of farming program so thank you very much. Mr. Kealoha: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: I'm sorry. Anymore questions for Keone? No. Thank you very much. Could I have the next speaker please? JoAnn please come up. JOANN YUKIMURA: Good afternoon Chair... Planning Chair Furfaro, Chair Asing, members of the Council. JoAnn Yukimura for the record. This bill has come a long way and I'm feeling as though we're getting very close and I appreciate all the work that's been done on it including your work Council... Planning Chair Furfaro and Ka`aina and the Planning Department and the Farm Bureau and the members of the ADHO Committee. Mr. Furfaro: And Peter Morimoto. Ms. Yukimura: And Peter Morimoto, thank Actually the drafting has vastly improved the bill. I just have three that I want to raise up. And I guess the first is one that's been a conversation already with Keone's testimony and that is on page four think it actually needs a (c) or something the paragraph... the second which savs the owner of a condo proiect regime or unit in a condo grope. you yes. 3) concerns subject of (4) and I paragraph is vim uv... ~~... ~.,....~~ ~.,,.,.,~.,., ,...~------- been dedicated, I agree with the... number one (1) which basically says what our provision which came out of our group said that this .law would not apply to new, newly created condos that is any condos created after the passage of this law would not be illegible for applying for farm worker housing and the reason for this is the fear that they'll be an incentive to create this empty condos, you know this condominiums with no density and then try to get density through farm worker housing and that applications could flood the County's office at a point where they couldn't handle it and then would have to be approved automatically, it's kind of a nightmare scenario that could come true. So the whole idea is that we would start slowly and apply it only to the existing condos now, not create any incentive for... em... the creation of new empty condos and would give us the time to address the whole issue of condominiums which Ag condos which as you recall was one of the three (3) bills that Mayor Baptiste introduced that hasn't yet been addressed. But as you know condos have been an unexpected overlay over our regular Ag subdivision laws and have created many problems and until we address that we shouldn't try to add farm worker housing to new condos that come up and that's 20 • why I agree with that number one (1) should remain there. Mr. Furfaro: JoAnn, I just want to confirm you're correct that came from our farm meetings that this piece would be applicable in the bill. Ms. Yukimura: And I think it's a very creative and good way to address the problem which was the biggest bar to passage of this bill because this whole scenario of multiple empty condos and then people coming in to try to get density and we not having experience yet with the criteria, we're trying to be as careful as possible but giving us some time to see how that works. Now that I have a question about the second requirement that the unit has to be dedicated any condo unit has to be dedicated to Ag at the point of passage of this bill, to me that's an arbitrary bar to new farmers or farmers... say there's a farmer right now who makes twenty thousand (20,000) a year gross and with additional hard work he achieves thirty-five thousand (35,000) in two (2) more years you know, but he's not going to be able to apply for farm worker housing even though he's an existing condo, lie's an existing farm but just because of this arbitrary time deadline, we're not allowing him to apply for farm worker housing and we really would be discouraging up and coming farmers from being eligible or at least applying for farm worker housing. My other concern is below on that same page what is right now (c) (3) but I think might become (d) (3) if you put a (c) on that section that we just talked about but anyway the section that says no use permit for farm worker housing shall be approved unless and then number three (3) the subiect property's maximum residential densities have been permitted and constructed. But the Planning Commission may waive the requirement of this provision this section is saying that if you have a condo, Ag condo that's part of a larger condo and other condos haven't yet built out their density that the condo where the farm is maybe, will be prohibited from applying for farm worker housing, or from getting farm worker housing. Mr. Furfaro: Unless it applies for a variance... Ms. Yukimura: Unless. Unless the Planning Commission waives this requirement, my concern is there's no criteria for when they waive it and when they do not. Mr. Furfaro: It's a very good point JoAnn but the reality is in the Committee and with the Councilmembers and with some of the, people at Planning and so forth, the feeling was they're are going to be very... there are going to be some cases that are very subjective and not necessarily as simple objective rules and we would rather the Planning Commissioners hear the validity of the (inaudible) of that. Ms. Yukimura: Well... Mr. Furfaro: And I know what you're saying because I just carefully used subjective and objective. Ms. Yukimura: That's right because if they don't have clear criteria it's going to be really subjective, they may know the family, they may have relationships and they don't to someone else and that's the reason why you have rules you know so I just raised that as a concern. And my last point is that coming back to page three (3) where farm workers defined it says that, oh I had one (1) other point... a commercial farm worker may qualify as a farm worker only when he 21 • can demonstrate the effective lot has been subjected to a CPR and he does not have any more allowable residential density, another criteria that the Tax Department suggested to us was that he not have a primary residence somewhere else. You know that they have a primary residence on the mainland or something and then he's coming into say "I want a residence on this farm" so that's just up for your consideration and my final point on page four (4) is the requirement for a commercial farm plan, I don't know what that means or how that's different from what is now looked at as a farm plan by the Tax Office and I would so... commercial farm plan has to be identified and I thought Chair Asing's point about the Planning Department determining the feasibility... whether the plan shows feasibility of respect farms, commercials, agricultural production... that bothers me too and somehow something about a competent commercial farm plan or a competent farm plan where you're not having to prove feasibility but you just show that you've thought through all the things that are necessary in developing a farm because sometimes you don't know commercial feasibility until you tried certain things... but anyway it's a wording change and it's just a suggestion because I think the present wording could create some problems. And that's all. Mr. Furfaro: And JoAnn, you may not have been here earlier but I do want to say that there's been some discussion with the Tax Department but since we cannot mix the intent of this ordinance and make it multitask with the financial aspects of taxation, we have the Tax Department working on another bill that will address some of those questions as we put it forward and the biggest question being... maybe framed a little differently than the way you just stated it but currently we don't want farmers to lose their primary exemption because that's their main home. And once you add a dwelling they could lose that so there's been some dialog about that and obviously if someone from the mainland doesn't use that home has their main home, they're going to get... they're not going to be allowed to use any exemptions. The second piece is when we talk about the farm plan itself, I think farming is a business. As you talk with Leeland, Roy, I mean it is a business. Ms. Yukimura: It is. Mr. Furfaro: And successful farmers actually have farm business plans whether you selling fruit, eggs, cheese, whatever it is, you. -have a business plan and that business plan could really be used to provide an understanding with the Planning Department of what their business is all about, it's (inaudible), it's financial ability, it's ability to borrow money for equipment you know it's there but the idea is their plan would then be circulated for comments to the State Ag Department because we don't necessarily have experts as the Chair pointed out in the Planning Department. Ms. Yukimura: Well I think it's excellent that you're working with the Tax Department to make sure that the tax laws regarding Ag condos and Ag lots are aligned with this bill, synchronized. Mr. Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: But in different laws and that's what I'm talking about here because we're not talking about a farm plan that necessarily meets the tax... the Real Property Tax requirements but we don't want farmers to have to do two (2) or three (3) different types of farm plans either. 22 • Mr. Furfaro: Sure I understand that. Ms. Yukimura: And so we just want to be clear what kinds of farm plans we're talking about and you know you're right that there is business plans for commercial products and then there's farm plans that are about layouts and so forth and so we just need to be clear what that is and hopefully not require a complexity of farm plans, we just need to require what we need to require for the purposes of this bill. Mr. Furfaro: Right and you know the other options and I don't want to do that is to wait for... to review this bill when we get something from the Tax Department. Ms. Yukimura: No, no. Mr. Furfaro. I don't necessarily want to do that. Ms. Yukimura: Oh and I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that. Mr. Furfaro: I wasn't implying what your suggesting was, I was more stating what my position was, I don't want to hold this up. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I agree with that. I agree with that. All I'm asking is that maybe there'd be some clarification about what a commercial farm plan is and it... and whether the main purpose of that plan is to show and to be evaluated on demonstrating the feasibility of commercial Ag production or what it is really we need from a farm plan, for the purpose of... Mr. Furfaro: I appreciate your comments. We even went as far as asking the Farm Bureau about potentially identifying for us a farm plan and what crops would be in that mix too but that got a little... that got a little difficult to handle when you come up with a whole definition of crops and so forth but your point is well taken. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Let me see if there's any other questions for JoAnn, yes Councilmember Kawakami. Mr. Kawakami: Just to clarify you... when we're talking about the farm plan, you want to see something that's a little more simple to be presented or? Ms. Yukimura: Well I want to know.. I think we need to know what is the purpose... Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Ms. Yukimura: Of requiring a farm plan. Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Ms. Yukimura: And that it should be kept to... whatever 23 • farm plan we're requiring should be kept to meeting that purpose... Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Ms: Yukimura: And I... the terminology commercial farm plan that demonstrates the feasibility of the respected farm's commercial Ag production, if that is really what we need and we have competent people to evaluate that fairly then we're in good shape and I'm just raising the question maybe somebody has perfect answers. Mr. Kawakami: I don't have a perfect answer but I have my answer and for me I would like to see a plan that that comes under some scrutiny because if they're coming for housing and part of our bill is saying that you cease to exist as a farm you now need to take it down, how do you enforce in my opinion the unenforceable? How do you go to someone now and say realistically "you're not farming anymore, I'm sorry you have two (2) kids, I'm sorry you have a family but now take your house down because it's in the law" so how do you enforce the unenforceable? I would like to see a plan, if they're coming for housing that comes under extreme scrutiny because we don't want them to fail, because we don't want to put ourselves in the situation to now go and approach this person and tell them "hey your house comes down" and so for me to see a good business plan is necessary. Ms. Yukimura: I think that's very good, I think the question of how do you enforce is you first take a look at how we're enforcing the Ag ` dedication because that's also the requirement of looking at whether it's a real farm and part of it is to look at the land to see where the crops are growing for one (1), whether there's an operational farm ongoing, so that kind of thing is going to be ' part of it. I think your point about a meaningful farm plan is correct, I don't know if demonstrating the feasibility of commercial of Ag production is the way to speak it or what the difference is... I mean what is a commercial farm plan? Mr. Kawakami: I would think that in all due respect that you would have to demonstrate the feasibility, if you can't demonstrate that it's feasible, then it's unfeasible... Ms. Yukimura: So. Mr. Kawakami: And it doesn't work. Ms. Yukimura: So you mean you want us... Mr. Kawakami: So why would we grant the housing? Ms. Yukimura: So you want to see all the economic? Mr. Kawakami: I would like to. Ms. Yukimura: And you feel that that's something... Mr. Kawakami: Absolutely. Ms. Yukimura: That our Planning Department are qualified... 24 • • Mr. Kawakami: Let me draw reference to... let me draw reference to the General Plan because they kind of address some of it and I you know... here's what they are saying about it Kauai like the other neighbor island counties has found it impossible to enforce the State reauirement that only farm dwellings and farm worker housing are allowed within the State agricultural land a person properLV iaiis ana gives up farming ana insteaa goes to worK at a hotel by definition his house is no longer a farm dwelling but is now a single family residence. What practical remedy is available to enforce the farm dwelling provision? It would be unreasonable and infeasible for the county t~ f~rCe the former farmer to sell his home and find a new house outside of the State agricultural district. That's what I mean when I say how do you enforce what is... in our own General Plan the unenforceable? Ms. Yukimura: Well. Mr. Kawakami: And so for me that's one (1) of my concerns as to, you know what I mean... like hey let's take a look at this. Ms. Yukimura: Well. Mr. Kawakami: As much as I would like to just grant the housing. Ms. Yukimura: So? May I answer? Mr. Kawakami: Sure. Ms. Yukimura: First of all that actual provision is talking about a lot... density that comes with the lot. We're not... it's not talking about a pertinent structure, we're talking about here farm worker housing, that's number one (1). Now we're still going to have that question with IAL lands because every, most IAL lots will be entitled already to some density and that's the question but farm worker housing is of a different character, it's temporary and it's additional. And so you're not necessarily going to throw somebody off the land, except in the areas where there's no density at all and I think those were, how many? I don't know. Mr. Kawakami: But with all due respect, let's call a spade a spade but if they got to comply with building code... Ms. Yukimura: Right. Mr. Kawakami: That's not so temporary. If they need to comply with our building codes, I don't think it's that temporary. Ms. Yukimura: And we want it... Mr. Kawakami: (inaudible) do we allow tofu blocks anymore where you they could just put a post on a brick of concrete? Ms. Yukimura: Well the reason why that is, is because it's not a slab construction is because post and pier is more temporary but to answer your basic question we want... we want this farm dwelling... farm worker housing 25 • • to be permanent and that the farm will be successful and will continue for many years, okay? Mr. Furfaro: And on that note, and on that note rather than to get into that discussion further, I do want to point out going back to the original piece here that perhaps as we talk about the farm plan, the business plan, the whole point there is for them as the applicant to be in front of the Planning Commissioners to say "here is the maximum I could have, no one dwelling more than twelve hundred (1,200) square feet, total no more than eighteen hundred (1,800) and my staffing guide that proves what I need for housing is in the business plan." So maybe the simple word that's missing there is the fact that the business plan must include the staffing guides because without understanding your business plan, and how many workers you need, it's going to be impossible for the Commissions to determine what is your criteria for your workforce housing need? Ms. Yukimura: So I hear and answer from you Planning Chair that the plan is primarily to judge the number... Mr. Furfaro: To judge... Ms. Yukimura: Whether there's farming that legitimate farming going on and what the relationship is to the request for farm worker housing and that makes a lot of sense to me and I think it's different than this whole feasibility plan although I do understand what Councilmember Kawakami is saying. We want to make sure that farm succeed but I don't know that it's in the application for farm worker housing that you're going to have this huge evaluation and discussion about farm feasibility and business plans and economics and all I'm asking is that there be some clarification in this particular provision. Mr. Furfaro: Well I just want to say on that note and that's why this discussion needs to occur in front of the Planning Commissioners so they understand the nature of the type of the business for example if you get eighteen hundred (1,800) square feet and your farm is an organic farm, your farm is labor intense and therefore your application might ,say you know I need three (3) workers and therefore I need three (3) bungalows of six hundred (600) square feet, no more than eighteen hundred (1,800) because you know I'm an organic farmer, I may also have a type of crop that needs high attention and is labor intense because it's acceptable as some fruit might be and so forth, that's kind of discussed in the plan and that's why we even thought about the Ag Department... the Farm Bureau giving us a list of those types of crops but we kind of scratched that hoping that the farm applicant would tell them that in their business plan. Ms. Yukimura: As long as both the Planning Department that's evaluating the application and the Planning Commission keep that focus what is the relationship to the request for farm worker housing I think that would be fine, I'm just concerned that it could far beyond that. Mr. Furfaro: Yes I understand that and that was one of the key reasons that as the Committee evolved, I wanted to make sure we had Ka`aina involved with this ADHOC Committee to make sure that there was someone in Planning that clearly understood the intent and why that (inaudible) I think Councilmember Kawakami brings up some excellent ideas I mean it is a question without a good business plan you know both of him and I are we're in the business world, we understand that you know you're going to have to borrow money 26 • • even to fund the building of this farm worker dwelling unit so... therefore the bank and people (inaudible) your credit are going to be very critical of what you're going to build there and it's going to be even more difficult for them when the bank or the credit people review this and say "and it's not poured foundation" because you know when they read in the bill and it is not subdivided able that if you fail, I have to sell that asset. It's going to actually... the bill actually makes it very difficult for them to look to borrow money without a solid business plan and that's what the Planning Commission is going to look at. And I want to leave it that for right now if I can. Do you have another question? Mr. Kawakami: Oh no. Absolutely not. Mr. Furfaro: So I mean all of those things we looked at and it's not subdivide able and (inaudible) you need a business plan because you might have to borrow to promote your farm plan. But JoAnn, I do want to let you know that we'll come back and revisit this other question as it relates... in regards to objectivity and subjectivity for that criteria and maybe by adding the plan needs to show staffing (inaudible) is the right way to go. Ms. Yukimura: Right and Chair Furfaro, you mentioned subdivision that it can't be subdivided and that's (e) on page five (5) but I think and maybe I'm missing it it's somewhere else but it also cannot be condominiumized, that needs to be added in there... Mr. Furfaro: I agree that was part of our decision... Ms. Yukimura: I don't see that there and that would be the more logical thing that people would do because you can't resubdivide Ag land. Mr. Furfaro: I think if you take subdivision as truly a definition of the Real Estate market, it was intended subdivide (inaudible) CPRs but I think the way we put it there we're talking about dividing another fraction of another fraction so it should have incumbent both of them. Ms. Yukimura: Yeah the language won't be sufficient. Mr. Furfaro: We can put that in there. Peter could you please so make a note. I might ask you to come up. I might ask you to come up but please make a note. Ms. Yukimura: Okay as long as you... yeah you know that to look at. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Again I gave you the two (2) definitions and... Ms. Yukimura: Right. Mr. Furfaro: We did have some advice on that. Ms. Yukimura: Okay thank you very much. Mr. Furfaro: You're quite welcome and thank you JoAnn for all of your work on this, thank you. Could I ask the next speaker to come up if 27 • • there are any? If not, I'm going to call... (wait, wait, wait...) Mr. Furfaro: Wait, wait... oh here we go. I'm sorry I didn't you raise your hand. LOUISA WOOTEN: Well I... last time I said I wasn't coming back... oh gosh. Ms. Kawahara: I'm glad to see you back. Ms. Wooten: I just want to add to some of the things previously said in this amendment and I think gosh all the work, it's like a baby you know even we've been doing this baby for so long and it's getting ready to walk and I understand the reason for the more stiff wording and I look forward to that amendment that might alleviate the effective date of this ordinance to somehow make it so that future agricultural use can you know a CPR that's already there, it isn't now being farmed can take some benefit from this, not any new created ones but ones that were already CPRs on the effective date but that were not dedicated yet and I understand, I totally have been listening all this and I understand the reasoning and it's some really good reasoning are going on here. I also really agree on farming as a business and this is what we're shooting here for and having done some farm plans myself having applied for a grants etc., you got to have all your docks in line and what you were just talking about there I hadn't really thought of them though but you know it might be hard to get a loan to build some of these units because of the temporary nature of them but I believe also that we did discuss that and I don't see it in the bill but I know that we did discussed that if the farm cease stop operate the dwelling would cease to be but not necessarily having to move the building, is that correct or am I? Mr. Furfaro: It would be a notice procedure about actually moving (soft-inaudible) Ms. Wooten: Okay but what if the building could be converted to some other use? Mr. Furfaro: I would think that's between the applicant and the Planning Department because I couldn't address... (m1C) Mr. Furfaro: You're not picking me up? I couldn't address blanketly what... Ms. Wooten: What the process. Mr. Furfaro: But they would have to comply with existing CZO whatever that is. Ms. Wooten: And the only other thing that I and I think JoAnn brought this up on page four (4) the item (c) three (3) and I understand too why it's there, I understand all that but the wording there, the Planning Commission may waive the requirements of this provision and I understand the 28 • objectivity, subjectivity, my own self I would like to see it shell but that's my own wording there and other than that I just think we got some really good guards in here, I think the thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) is fine, I just I think this is a thing that would really help farmers I know it would help a lot of the people in the ADHOC Committee that we've been working close on three (3) years now so I just appreciate everyone's comments, feedbacks, supports, visits to the farm you know it just been... it's been an awesome community thing and I look forward to actually being closer to (inaudible). Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Any questions? And thank you for coming down. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify? If not, I'm going to call... oh Mr. Oyama. ROY OYAMA: Thank you Council Chair... I mean Committee Chair, and also Councilmembers, Ididn't want to say much but I just wanted to recognize that Councilmember Kawakami has to good point you know and Councilman Kaneshiro has brought up some point to us personally and Mr. Councilman Bynum and I wanted to go back and kind of reevaluate the rest of what they have said. First of all Councilman Kawakami, you have a very strong point. From the very beginning Farm Bureau has mentioned about agricultural abuse, I know it's a very tough word for our farmers but we have to recognize this as our strong point because if we miss, drop the bill and passes and there are some weak points, it's going to be utilized for profit making and that's very dangerous because of the years that I've gone through farming, that's what happen. So we always got further back and further back. And rules had to be tighten up more and more and I see this and I have to agree with Council Chair what he's saying "this is going to be very tough". So brace yourself farmers in the back of me, I not saying we're not working for this, we're going to work for this but we have to be very careful that we are not working a trap that's going to bounce back on agriculture once more. You have to understand now, like I understand Councilman Bynum has a lot CPR, why he bought it because that lot is cheaper than a present house lot. Now you look at the whole scope of the island, that's what's going on. And it was agriculture, okay? So how many words we talk, we have so much thousand of CPRs, what percentage that going to be used for farming? How many farmers we got in the world today? In the United States, in Hawaii? Hawaii and Kauai barely one percent (1%) so the CPR land, how much going to fill up with active farming, I mean I'm throwing this out not against us. But for this be understood that it cannot be in the area of violating the farmers again, again and again. Tax structure you know their property tax, I hope they are not getting away with murder you know with the property tax because they put up with a small amount agricultural project and they're exempt and I don't believe that's right. Now going to Mr. Kaneshiro's opinion and we do respect that because we know that the bill cannot address every segment of what we want? It has to be a beginning point but strong enough to permit the real farmers today to have density but temporary density I understand that and that's alright because at least they can be on a farm and produce, okay? And to further that now as I mentioned about Kaneshiro, Councilman Kaneshiro yes we are not putting in and we know Farm Bureau understands that you know horses... and I didn't say horse okay? Horses can be agricultural entity. You can have a boarding horse farm which eventually and I think in our regular Ag plan it does protect that but not a horse, okay? So in all with that I also want to thank all of the you know core group that has worked on this. We've work very hard you know. I couldn't go every meeting because I tell you there's too much things to do but I appreciate all of that plus you people work Peter, I mean Peter did a lot for us at least brought us to this level and the Planning Department has done a lot to and 29 • • I've been in contact many times with Ian and Ian has kind of helped us along so I will close .with that and leave it at that and I hope... but I want to be assured, I want to be assured that we do something for the real farmers that's all I ask, okay Council Chair? Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Ah Roy before you leave I do want to go back to the very beginning. Mr. Oyama: Sure. Mr. Furfaro: This is a proactive bill in my opinion. I do not want to find us in a position that the State has blanket covered or laid a template over on the Important Ag Lands and says and declares this is what it is because at the same stroke the State will say they are allowed farm worker housing, we need to set the parameters thinking that that bill is going to come to us as a matter of fact and what kind of parameters can we set now. Mr. Oyama: You're right Chairman. As you know the Department of Ag has been cut to almost half. Mr. Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Oyama: And you know they don't have money to do a lot of work. We got to help that and if we don't be active, we will not have an active county in agriculture, okay? Mr. Furfaro: I'm glad you recognize my point. Mr. Oyama: Yes. I do and we know that and we are faced with that. We're trying to get out Ag Chair to understand that but it doesn't, it didn't plan out the way we wanted so I just wanted to let you know. We are very... we are working very hard with the Governor's Office as well as the Department of Ag to restore whatever is needed you know. I mean I go back to the coqui frog, how did they come? There was no Superferry? How did it come? Too much lax in inspection. Thank you. • Mr. Furfaro: Roy, I want to thank the Farm Bureau for all their work and Melissa too, thank you very much. I think up to this point it's been a very collaborative effort... Mr. Asing: Jay? Mr. Furfaro: Hold on just a second Roy. Chairman Asing. Mr. Asing: Roy, I want to make a comment on your comment and you know when you mentioned Mr. Bynum buying a Ag parcel and I'm not going to refer to Councilmember Bynum but I'm going to refer to people who have done that and what I'm trying to say is that what you saying earlier which is "we couldn't even do that and handle that and then we're taking this next step" and that's the problem I have. You know it's that .farm dwelling was supposed to be built for a farm related activity. Mr. Oyama: Right. 30 • Mr. Asing: we're taking this next step. Mr. Oyama: Mr. Asing: C~ So that in itself was not even handled and I agree. How do you... how do you reconcile that? Mr. Oyama: Well first of all, CPR has not been a county responsibility so we had no control, now if we can have more control over Ag situation of Ag land I think we can have some control for the Ag area but we're not... we have no control so that's what I'm trying to say. Not trying to find excuses but I think we as a county need to take responsibility on the CPR issue if we can make a stand and help that from getting misled for being a profit making only on land issue. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you and on that note, I'm going to call the meeting back to order... I'm sorry you would like a second time Mr. Kealoha? Mr. Kealoha: For the record again my name is Keone Kealoha. I just wanted to add one bit more information that I acquired that is relevant to the farm plan, that because this is limited to folks that have Ag dedication when you go through that process you're required to file what constitutes a farm plan and the elements that make that up include a plot plan, a planting schedule, a marketing plan which speaks to the economics, you have to have a GE license and you also have to have... so given that there was a concern about a commercial farm plan being submitted to the Planning Department because you need to meet those requirements in order to meet the Ag dedication, those things would already exist and theirs is a body within the Tax Assessor's Office that can... that is qualified to review those materials so I wanted to share that with you. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Keone while you were out I just wanted to let you know we also talked about the critical foundation of you know farming as a business, they also require credit for the farm and they'll have some status with a financial institution. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you Keone for tracking that down so quickly. Mr. Furfaro: Those particular pieces are identified in the criteria of the bill but what I'd like to do is I'd like to call the meeting back to order and take a ten (10) minute recess because I think we might be entertaining another amendment. Mr. Kaneshiro: I have it ready. Mr. Furfaro: You have it ready? Okay. So we don't need to take a recess, if you would like to introduce that Mr. Kaneshiro, I will give you the floor. Mr. Kaneshiro: Before I introduce... many of the discussions were already at or have taken place of what my amendments are and one of the key points of the amendments is to clarify the part about the farm plan and which in fact in my amendment it will state the staffing needs have to be... 31 • Mr. Furfaro: u Oh the staffing needs. Mr. Kaneshiro: So I do have that.. And I do have some other amendments here and if I can at this time would like to circulate the amendments, Peter can we circulate the amendments to the members? And for clarification purposes as amendments are being circulated, when you look at the bill on page three (3), sections eight, seven, nine (879) and I would say when you look at paragraph two (2) where it says excluding the husbandry of horses for recreational or hobby purposes I clarified that, I would like to, I haven't put it in the amendment as of yet but I want that clarified that unless governed by SRP two, three (a) one (23A1), of the Ag dedication program rules. I think the way it's written right now it specifically states that any husbandry of horses for recreational or hobby purposes would not qualify under this bill and to me that's a problem because if you board horses for that purposes that also you know would include not qualifying for this bill so my purpose was to clarify it. To clarify it, to make it consistent with the Ag rules, the Ag dedication programs. The Ag dedication programs allows you to board horses whether it's for recreation, whether it's for hobby purposes, as long as you board horses for income and establish you know if that's an agriculture use, you're allowed to. So for clarification purposes we... I would like to you know at least clear that part off on the amendment. I don't have it on my amendment right now but that's one (1) section that I had concern about. Mr. Furfaro: But even though it's allowed under the agricultural activity... Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct. Mr. Furfaro: This husbandry still going to require generating thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000)? Mr. Kaneshiro: Absolutely. It will still require meeting the agriculture dedication rules which calls you know and you can board a hundred (100) horses whether it's for hobby, whether it's for recreation but if you are the farmer boarding those horses there are specific rules that you need to meet under the agriculture dedication rules which is specifically under SRP-2-3A1 Section of the rules. And there (inaudible) Mr. Furfaro: needs to show the receipts. Mr. Kaneshiro: Mr. Furfaro: any staff housing. Mr. Kaneshiro: Mr. Furfaro: But your husbandry activity of animals still Absolutely. Of thirty-five thousand (35,000) to qualify for Absolutely. And it's clear in there. Okay. Mr. Kaneshiro: But if the bill goes as such, what this bill really specifically says that even if you board for income, even if you make a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) boarding horses whether for hobby or for recreational purposes for other uses, this does not allow you to qualify for housing. 32 • So I want to make it consistent to the Ag dedication. There are two (2) more other amendments that I have here and it's up for discussion. I thought that I would put this in for discussion purposes and wherever the vote goes and how the vote goes, it's fine. Basically I still had a problem of how do we address a start up farmer? So how do we address that? And what I proposed on my amendment that you will see here now is that what I did is that first make the applicant meet at least two (2) of the three (3) criterias that were listed. They have three (3) criterias, the thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) gross, dedication of the property and an Ag plan. So if you have a start up farmer, first let them at least two (2) of the following criteria and my amendment further goes on to say that if the use permit is granted to an applicant for start up or new farming operation, then the use permit shall expire thirty-six 36) months after it is granted unless the applicant provides State general excise tax forms and Internal Revenue Service Schedule F forms to the Planning under the use permit. So this would allow a farm to at least get started if he needs to build something, he takes the risk, he comes in meets two (2) of the three (3) requirements that is outlined here and get what we call a use permit and after thirty-six (36) months they put on a review and show us that he meets the thirty- five thousand dollar ($35,000) qualifications, so at least you know you would give those farmers a push to really farm legitimately and to move ahead and get something done at least within three (3) years. And if they don't, they don't qualify, they're off. That's my proposal that I have on the current floor amendment. The... one (1) more proposal but it's not a really difficult proposal but because I've heard the comments going through, through various speakers is that you know I could agree on the part where the CPR unit would apply to farm worker housing is off the effective date of this ordinance, after I heard some discussion you know for a start up (inaudible) I can agree with that but I... I don't think the unit has been dedicated to agriculture use pursuant to 55(a)9 of the County Code needs to be applied to that. I mean if we had CPR units today that are already had their defective you know public report from the from the Real Estate Commission and perhaps haven't really got an Ag dedication plan but wants to do it now, then go ahead and give them the opportunity to do this so at least we're opening a little bit more room for that person to go in and do a legitimate agriculture on this parcel that's already been granted the final public reports. And I heard that from one of the speakers today also having some of that concern where you keep the Ag dedication you know on the time of this effective date of ordinance. It's up for discussion but I haven't thrown that two (2) parts out yet that I want to do but I... it all came about through the discussion and through the public hearing that we had this afternoon. Mr. Furfaro: I am going to ask if we can take a ten (10) minute recess... caption break now (inaudible) items and when we come back we can (inaudible-too soft) Mr. Kaneshiro: Would the Chair... approve of me going ahead and putting those two (2) more that I came up with after I already read this? After I already done this amendments that I heard from speakers, because I did this amendments when the speakers came up and maybe apply some of the other... Mr. Furfaro: Certainly any members of the Committee may introduce. Mr. Kaneshiro: Two (2) before we come back. 33 Mr. Furfaro: (Inaudible) Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay. Mr. Furfaro: We're going to right now take a ten (10) minute recess and the Committee is in recess. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:59 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 3:19 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Furfaro: Okay we have now returned from a caption break and we are going to now engage again in this Planning Committee meeting. I want to say that I think for the purposes of you know coming afar, we've come afar and long way on this bill and it may not hurt us to take some time to individually look at Councilman Kaneshiro's amendments and we might do that in a Committee meeting in two (2) weeks because what I would actually like to do for the purpose of the staff is actually call for the vote on the original amendments submitted by request from Mr. Bynum so that we could actually have a new draft of the bill since I think there is some common agreement there as well as the fact that I don't want to commingle the amendments and if Mr. Kaneshiro and I think I have its concurrence will show us those four (4) amendments separately, we can vote on them individually in Committee two (2) weeks from now. I would also like to say I think Councilmember Kawakami brought up some very, very good points about criteria and I think I would like to take some time to look at that over the next two (2) weeks. Especially as it relates to the business plan that shows your workforce housing is driven by staffing as Mr. Kaneshiro has already pointed out. 50 on that note we have a motion and a second on the first amendment introduce by request by Mr. Bynum and if we can move and vote on that, we will end up with a new draft one (1), clean of all the previous pieces and we can start two (2) weeks from now from there so I'm going to ask if there's any discussion at this point? Mr. Kawakami? Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Vice Chair. I'm going to begin by saying that there's a lot of issues _in_.life that's right or wrong, black and white and this bill is not one of those types of issues. The intent behind this I believe it comes from the heart, it's to help the farmers but I don't think there's a right and wrong. I think I'm looking at this maybe from a different angle than many of my colleagues are so I will not be supporting this and what I'd like to do is I'm going to provide some potatoes, yeah? I'm going to go over some of my concerns and I'm going to cross reference it with a couple of documents and give you the meat behind my concerns so I'm going to be cross referencing our General Plan which is our county's strategic plan, KEDB's sets report which is the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy plan and for me, my opinion is that you cannot look at one (1) plan without looking at the other. Because they work... they work together. You cannot address planning without addressing economic development. So my first concern is... what does it do to the cost of Ag land? Yeah, how will this bill affect future farmers? Will it drive up the value of Ag land and put it in further out of reach for future farmers in terms of affordability? Now let me cross reference that statement and that question of concern with our General Plan. In five point two point one (5.2.1) yeah? The primary intent of the agricultural designation is to conserve land and water resources in order to insure an excellent resource base for existing and potential agricultural uses and number two (2) assure a sufficient 34 • supply of land available for sale or lease at a cost that is economical feasible for agricultural enterprise. For me, I'm not convinced that this bill meets that primary intent, to keep it affordable. I fear that this kind of bill may actually drive up the value of these types of Ag lands but it also addresses yeah on the flip side it addresses that the secondary intent of the agricultural designation is to provide an opportunity for Kauai citizens to reside in an agricultural community and so on and so forth. So there's a secondary intent. But it says the primary intent of the Ag designation shall take precedence over the secondary intent and the primary intent yeah, is to keep the cost of Ag land as economically feasible as possible, my first concern. Second concern and I need to thank Keone for doing the homework because it addresses part of my concern is what is our current inventory of farm dwellings and what is the potential after this bill is enacted? And I personally would like to see something tangible, if we're talking that we're allowing one (1) dwelling yeah, and now potentially adding or up to three (3) units, I want to know what this is going to look like? I want to know how this is going to affect our landscape, we all learn in different ways. Some people learn by hearing things, I can pick up things visually, you give me a bar graph or a pie chart and I can read it, so I would like to see what... I would like to see something tangible, I haven't seen it. I don't think we really know what the impact is going to be. Number three (3), third concern, does this address the problem that we have with Ag today? And we should really identify the problem yeah? Before we start coming up with solutions and for me you know I sit on the food and Ag Committee for KBB and I hear the challenges and so let me start cross referencing some of my documents here. Some of the challenges yeah, besides farm worker housing which it addresses is the cost of freight has doubled in price, cost of materials have increased, people don't know where to go and buy local products, people are not educated on the value of buying locals, customers want to buy the cheapest products available which in most cases are not locally produced. Physical infrastructure for agriculture in particularly irrigation systems and roads are in need for repair and maintenance. Farmers need training in business and marketing. The marketing side, you take a look at some of these example, Maui is taking strawberries and turning into Kula Strawberries, they taking onions and turned a regular onion into a Maui Onion. Goat cheese, Kunana Dairy took goat cheese and now it's branded. Kauai fresh farms the Kilauea rain gardens, Hanalei poi, marketing the business aspect of it is a huge challenge so these are all to me in my opinion challenges that we should be over coming before we look at this housing. The high cost of freight is a barrier for exporting many food products, the industry yeah, has a shortage of farmers. Can somebody tell me that I'm wrong in that statement, that the industry has a shortage of farmers that kids don't want to farm that to me is the underlying issue. Okay? Now I admit that housing is a part of the solution but on a broader scope affordable housing in general is what we need to address, affordable housing in general. But to me the shortage of farmers is the underlying problem, students are not interested in farming as a career. Section four (4) well my point number four (4) and I touched upon it... was how do you enforce the enforceable and I know there's was some reference that it's different that the examples that I was talking about was different that this is a farm dwelling, what we're talking about is farm worker housing, well it's not different a home is a home. And if we're tying into a provision saying that if you cease to exist as a farm you need to take down that home, in my opinion and if I'm wrong if there's a black and white on this, somebody can try to convince me that I'm 35 • • wrong. I truly believe that eh let's call a spade and spade, we're not going to be telling people "eh you not farming anymore your house goes down" I really don't believe that you know it's going to be a temporary structure, if it's complying with Building Code yeah, and dust because it's post and pier doesn't mean that it's temporary because there's standards that I mean the reality of it, it's not temporary. If people are investing money and going for a loan to build a house to live in, if they stop farming, are we really going to be required to take it down, I don't believe so. Here are some of the opportunities that present itself one of them is Aloha Air Cargo, who provides thirty-five percent (35%) interisland discount to farmers to play in its field, so maybe we should be looking for a freight consolidator. We still need a meat packing facility, we need a commercial kitchen so to me the housing part, farm worker housing can be a part of the solution but there are many holes in the bucket that I think we should be addressing first. And the reason is underlying it all I'm not convince that the unintended consequences yeah, outweigh the benefit. I think the underlying problem that I have with it is that the underlying consequences are to me is unknown at this point. So respectively, I'm not saying that this bill is wrong because it's not so black and white, I'm saying that I'm unconvinced that this is the solution to the problems and the challenges that the Ag sector is facing. Now before people start to painting me anti-Ag and I don't know anything about Ag, my family, my `ohana has been farming so I know a little bit about farming you know. I know a little bit about the business aspect, I know a little bit about the challenges that they faced because we've been working with local farmers and I feel that we've been fair with local farmers. But these are things that I'm unconvinced about so I cannot support this bill at this time but I respect the intent behind it I know it comes from a good place but I'm unconvinced that the net worth is going to outweigh the consequences in the future. Okay thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for your comments Mr. Kawakami and as you know I've been to many of those meetings with you with KEDB and farm and Ag activities and I must concur that all of the points that you mentioned are real so thank you very much and I respect your opinion on that. Any other comments before I call for the vote? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Yeah I guess I was to start by saying how much I appreciate the testimony from Councilmember Kawakami today. It's very thoughtful, on point you know the way you just integrated the various. plans and (inaudible-too soft) you are expressing a lot of concerns that I have about this bill. And going back to the business plan before (inaudible too-soft) I think this has been a very healthy discussion today and certainly would help guide my (inaudible) as we move forward. When this bill first came out and the Planning Department laid out its criterias, the key to me was thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) in gross sales, and I thought it was generous if they would have said seventy (70) I would have been okay with that because basically, fundamentally if you're not generating... this isn't profit thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) of profit, it's thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) gross sales right, if you're not generating thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) sales, you don't have a very viable business, how could you afford a worker? Much less housing for that worker. And so to me the thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) is absolute key criteria and I can't see it going any lower or having anyway around that criteria because of the concerns that Council Chair and Councilmember Kawakami have much more eloquently than I could state this needs to be in a criteria that isn't easy that people really show a commitment and a dedication to follow prior to allowing this privilege so I'm convinced that we can't address that in this bill, I very much appreciate the Planning Chair's leadership over the last few weeks, paying attention to all of the community discussions you 36 • know laying out a great starting point with the amendment that we're about to vote on and I know that we're not done, Councilmember Kaneshiro has input, I certainly want to listen to my colleagues and the people in the community and you know I came in here today hoping that we would pass this out of Committee but it's clear to me that we need work more on this and it's also clear to me that the strategy of doing that and passing that out and getting a clean draft one (1) from which to do further work is a good strategy so I will be voting for this today with the understanding that that would give us a draft one (1) but I haven't made up my mind on the final bill yet, there's a few issues because I don't know what further amendments might weaken the criteria and if anything we should be looking to strengthen it in my opinion. So my mind remains open and that's my comments for today, thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Mr. Bynum. Councilwoman Kawahara the floor is yours. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you. Thank you Committee Chair Furfaro. As we sit here and go over the detailed and drilling down to each of the sections, I thought it might be important to go back to the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill and the findings of the Council is that agriculture from small farms and Ag or business is an essential industry activity in the county. It is the key to the survival and wellbeing of the people of the Kauai County. It is also an economic driver for the County and the State. It means to diversify the economy a desired lifestyle for some and is a way to preserve open space and rural character that perpetuate Kauai natural beauty and attractiveness as a visitor destination and a place to live. All of this as has been mentioned is affirmed in the Kauai General Plan, the Council also finds that farm labor though, the purpose of this bill is essential component to farming, without farm workers crops cannot be planted, tended, harvested, processed or transported to markets. Without farm workers, agriculture is not viable. So again the purpose of the bill is to perpetuate and to strengthen an agricultural industry that we need. One of those main components is farmers, to have farmers you need farm worker housing. Granted there are many issues that we face based on land use especially with agriculture and many problems, this is one of the problems that we can address here and the time and effort that have been put into crafting this bill carefully about speculation and people that are not really farming has been immense and very consecrated and very, very focused on being sure that the most people that need to benefit it will benefit from it and the people that abuse it have very few ways of doing it so I hear all of my Councilmembers and Committee members talk about it but I just wanted to bring it back up to the overall issue is that this is a farm worker housing bill because the County Council and the community have identified that we have found that farm labor is a essential component of farming. Without farm workers, crops cannot by planted, so again there's all kinds of issues that need to be dealt with but overall what we are addressing is farm worker housing because we have a commitment as a County to say that this is something that we can support and we should follow through on and commit to figuring out a way to use the farm land that we have, cultivate the farmers that we are already are using the land and this is the bill that addresses it so again thank you for that time to go back to an overview after we've drilled down to these individual issues. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. I'm going to recognize Committee member Kawakami again. Mr. Kawakami: That's a great point. That's a great point that 37 • it comes down to farm workers. Because I totally agree with that and I stated that there's a lack of farm workers but where I'm getting confused is... are we saying that now that this bill here if we create this opportunity for farm worker housing that we're going to have rows of people now interested in farming? I'm unconvinced with that. From my standpoint and from my experience, the pay is going to attract people to farm. I mean people there are some people that are be noble enough to go and farm the land and produce the food and produce agricultural products, man I commend them because those guys; they are tying us to our culture. But the new crop coming up, they want to get paid money is the driver. And if we don't get the pay... I don't see this bill as being the motivator for people wanting to farm, moving forward. I do agree that the overall intent is how do we get farm workers to farm the land, to transport the goods. I agree. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Before I call for the vote I just... did you want to say something Councilwoman Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara: (inaudible-mic not on) BC: (mic?) Ms. Kawahara: But it addresses a lot of the concerns that Mr. Kawakami has and a lot of us have and again it is in the purpose of the bill and I just for the record at this point in time to have it again be brought to the forefront as the purpose. Despite numerous... is that okay? Mr. Furfaro: Go right ahead. Ms. Kawahara: It's just the last two (2) paragraphs. Mr. Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Kawahara: Despite the numerous benefits bestowed on the community by the agriculture industry however, agricultural work is strenuous and historically no paying. People who want to work in agricultural must often choose between the satisfaction of working the land and being paid low wages or working a less satisfying job often with wages that enable them to make a decent living for themselves and their family and again that is something that we are all aware of and definitely that something that Councilmember Kawakami is concerned with. Finding and keeping labor is one of the biggest challenges for the agriculture businesses this can make a difference between survival and failure, struggle and success in an agricultural enterprise. An important incentive to attracting and retaining farm workers is free or discounted farm worker housing. And the point of the bill is that the State allows employee housing on lands in agriculture district but existing ordinances in Kauai County does not address this issue which is what the purpose of this bill is. And this safe guards will be included to ensure that housing is used for the purpose of housing farm workers and that housing is properly integrated into the community and meets the for the health and sanitation. The current CZO would be to allow farm worker... bill amends the current CZO to allow farm worker dwellings through whichever way we decide to go to with this bill. Thank you for allowing me to put the entire purpose back. Mr. Furfaro: Okay. Ms. Kawahara: In front at this time. Thank you. 38 Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kawakami. Mr. Kawakami: Thank you. Well I think we should thank you. Vice Chair, we should clarify that there already is a mechanism that allows farm worker housing, we are allowed farm dwellings. This is to address the situation where land was CPR'd and sold off with no density for a cheap price and now we need to put density back in but there is a mechanism so for us to say that eh we're not allowing farmers to live on their land, it's not entirely true. There is a mechanism that addresses that farm dwelling. Mr. Furfaro: Since I'm Chairman of the Committee, I'll recognize Mr. Kaneshiro. Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you Mr. Chair and I appreciate you giving us the extra two (2) weeks so we can work on some amendments to clarify the farm dwelling bill but for me... for a old farmer like me who's lived on a farm for sixty-one (61) years my back is sore, I'm getting old and something like this could benefit me so it's not only about the young farmer, you know we need to still consider that there's a lot of old farmers too that this would help so I think as we move forward let's all work together see how we can come up with a good bill to address some old timers like us because we're getting there. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Kaneshiro: But you know I really appreciate the good discussion, I think we've come a long way as I looked back on all the amendments, we had amendments floating around from July of last year and we had in fact six (6) or seven (7) amendments all floating out at one time so you know for you to give us the opportunity for a couple more weeks to tweak this to make it better I think at the end results you know the purpose again is to keep farmers going, keep the present farmers that are farming to help them in some way to be able to bring in farmers to do the job and at the same time promote agriculture. Mr. Furfaro: ~ Thank you Mr. Kaneshiro. I am going to... We're going to have a opportunity in two (2) weeks again so I would like to reserve my comments~before I call for the vote on the amendments. I appreciate and I think we had some very good dialog here but you know I want to go back to my four (4) original comments and one that is very important on why I signed on for this task okay I believe we need to anticipate the outcome of the Important Ag Land bill because that will in fact say to us that certain types of workforce housing will be allowed on those lands. We've also heard from Roy Oyama that the State Department in the Agriculture is going through some large staff reductions and unless we set up some parameters that give guideline to the Planning Department this bill is going to be upon us almost like flying a seven, forty-seven (747) on automatic pilot and nobody's watching the fuel gage, it's going to be upon us and we won't have the parameters. And so what I'd like to do is call for the vote on the approval of these amendments and then from going forward note this as farm worker housing draft one (1) so on that note I would like to call for the vote on the amendments introduced. All those in favor of the amendments please say "aye". Committee members (Bynum, Kaneshiro, Kawahara): Aye. Mr. Kawakami: No. 39 • The motion to amend Bill No. 2318 was then put, and carried by a vote of 4:1 (Councilmember Kawakami voting no.) Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. The farm worker housing amendments as we have up until this point have passed in Committee and going forward this will be known as farm worker housing bill draft one (1). I believe we're going to take a break right now just to change tapes and then we're going to go in recess in Planning because the Chairman has something. Mr. Asing: Mr. Furfaro: Can I say something? Sure. Mr. Asing: Okay just for the record I want to say that I will not be supporting the bill. I have extremely, extremely high reservations I believe that the intent behind the bill is good. They have good intentions, but I do not believe that the good intentions outweigh the effects that is going to happen down the line. I know in my heart what's going to happen, it's happen today we have it today, we have people on Ag lands that are not in fact using it for Ag purposes and there is a mechanism to get your Ag land if you're going to use it for other purposes to move it into non-Ag lands on designated lands so there is a mechanism but it's not used, it is bypass and circumvented and so in fact what do we have? We have Ag lands designated as Ag used for other purposes, today we have that problem. What do you think is going to happen down the line with this one? Even worst. We're making problems, we're not solving problems. There is a mechanism, use that mechanism that is there. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for those comments Mr. Chair. I need to ask you for a motion now to defer the bill. Mr. Bynum: Move to defer. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much and now we're going to... Ms. Kawahara: And seconded. Mr. Furfaro: Second? All those in favor? Committee Members: Aye. Mr. Furfaro: I'm sorry the Camara man is waiving and saying there's no more tape. All those in favor please say "aye". Committee Members: Aye. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, and seconded by Councilmember Kawahara, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2318 was deferred. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. We are now taking a recess in Planning. 40 There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:46 p.m. The Committee,reconvened at 4:00 p.m., and proceeded as follows: CR-PL 2010-07: on Bill No. 2022 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE [Received for the record.] CR-PL 2010-08: on Bill No. 2023 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS [Received for the record.] Mr. Furfaro: The last item on my Committee agenda is the Ordinance two, two, nine, eight (2298). Bill No. 2298 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SINGLE-FAMILY TRANSIENT VACATION RENTALS [This item was deferred.] Mr. Furfaro: This is the ordinance that deals with single- family transient vacation rentals I do not want to do anything more than to defer this bill until we get the summary back from the Planning Commission on the new bill which is Bill No. two, three, five, five (2355) so I would like to defer this until such time that two, three, five, five (2355) returns to the Committee from the Planning Department. Mr. Bynum: Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kaneshiro: Mr. Furfaro: Committee Members: So moved. There's a second? Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, and seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2298 was deferred. 41 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m. Re pectfully submitted, 0~~ Darrellyne . Simao Council Services Assistant I APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on May 5, 2010: ai anm ittee 42