Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2013 Public Hearing Transcript re: Bill#2460 PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 17, 2013 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by Ross Kagawa, Chair, Public Works / Parks & Recreation Committee, on Thursday, January 17, 2013, at 1:58 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Room 201, Historic County Building, Lihu`e, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Mel Rapozo, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio Member The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: BILL NO. 2460 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "BUILDING CODE, which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kaua`i on December 19, 2012, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on December 26, 2012. JOHNNY GORDINES: Good afternoon, Chair and Councilmembers. My name is Johnny Gordines, and I am here to testify on behalf of the Bill. I am a commercial flower grower and shipper on the island of Kauai, and the President of Hawai`i Tropical Flowers and Foliage Association for our Kaua`i Chapter. I am also the Kaua`i Director for the Hawai`i Floral Culture and Nursery Association, which is comprised of approximately three hundred and sixty-five (365) growers and shippers of flowers and foliage, Statewide. It is our umbrella organization. I am here today to encourage you folks to adopt the Bill. We are so happy that you support agriculture and self-sustainability on the island of Kaua`i. We need that because Kauai is an agricultural island. I have no major objections to the Bill, except for one portion of the Bill which is in Section 2, item 20, which is in regard to the size of the area that will be exempt from the Building Codes. The County Ordinance says, "...on two or more contiguous acres in one area or one or more contiguous acres and areas located on a non-residential agricultural or aquaculture park." The reason that I am asking you to reconsider the size of the acreages is because a lot of our nursery and floriculture people do not operate full-time businesses, or do operate a full-time business on less than two (2) acres. For example, you have hydroponics and other nursery growers. People can make a full-time living out of two-thousand square foot (2,0002 ft) greenhouses. That goes for even vegetables like tomatoes and that sort of thing. I am asking if you can reconsider the size of the area of operation and the commodity grown in order to qualify for the exemptions regarding this Bill. I feel that you can scale it back, depending on what the person is growing, as long as they are a bonafide, certified, commercial full-time grower or shipper of flowers and foliage. BILL NO. 2460 2 January 17, 2013 Mr. Kagawa: Thank you for your testimony, Johnny. Mr. Gordines: Thank you for your time. Ms. Yukimura: Johnny, excuse me. What Section was that? Mr. Gordines: That was on Section 2, JoAnn. It says "20." Section 2, right underneath that, the bottom paragraph. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Next registered speaker. LOUISA WOOTON: Hi, my name is Louisa Wooton. I am part of a family farm on the North Shore. I have been following Act 114 once the Farm Bureau notified us about it. I read the Amendments that were proposed here. There is a couple that I would like to speak on. My understanding and intent of this Bill was to help farmers with what can be sometimes, overly burdensome permitting processes. In the section that I have here, page two (2), regarding the monetary stipulation that has been proposed. It is somewhat confusing to me. I know that by some of the wording here, not only for the forty thousand dollar ($40,000.00) figure, but also to have a Certification of Compliance that must be signed for metal buildings. My husband recently designed a five (5) station parking equipment barn on our own farm, and just to have the architect stamp it costs us over nine hundred dollars ($900.00). I would hope that that can be looked at, as well as this forty thousand dollar ($40,000.00) figure because it is confusing to me. At what part are we going to value this? Are we going to value it when we go and build it? Are we going to value it as we go along? Are we going to value it when we turn in our final completion to the County? Then they will go, "Oops, this is forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00)." I am not real sure...I need to understand how that is going to happen and where these figures came from, basically because is it forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00)...who is going to value it? It is the County tax assessor who is going to value it? At what point will the forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) and thirty-five dollars ($35,000.00) come into play? For instance, if my farm was (inaudible) this parking barn now, and the materials costs us twenty thousand (20,000), are we going to consider "Sweat Equity?" Sweat Equity is a big value for farmers. My husband can build a wonderful building for forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00). This is a big question for me, and I do not think it follows the intent of the original Act 114, which was to make it less burdensome for all of us to do this because the cost of farming, as you know, is very, very high. This is a wonderful Act to encourage farming to help us. I just hope that we can cut the red tape a little bit here and stick more with Act 114 as written, and also go along with what Johnny said about the size of the farms. On one acre, a greenhouse can be built that will generate a pretty big amount of commerce and income. Let us put it that way, income not commerce. Those are the things that I look at in the Amendments. I have a big question mark on the dollar amount. That is my question. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you very much. You have great questions and hopefully next week at our Committee Meeting, we can get some direct answers from the Administration regarding those questions. Ms. Wooton: Alright. Thank you. BILL NO. 2460 3 January 17, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Louisa, are you saying that we should delete the Certification of Compliance by a licensed professional Engineer or Architect? Ms. Wooton: Well, it says here...it is my understanding...this is how I read it. If it is forty thousand (40,000) or greater, and any structure that is built with concrete or reinforced steel that is riveted and bolted, then you need this Certificate of Compliance. That is the way I read it here. Ms. Yukimura: Or, any two (2) story building. Ms. Wooton: Or two (2) story building, thirty-five thousand (35,000) or greater. I am really wondering about that. Ms. Yukimura: In terms of valuation? Ms. Wooton: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I think your questions of valuation...we need to ask the Building Division. They do have a process, and I am presuming that it applies here. Whatever the value may be that is the threshold...are you suggesting we should delete the Certification? Ms. Wooton: Actually, I am suggesting leaving the valuation even more so than the Certification, or both. I think both of them...I think it is an unnecessary encumbrance on the intent of what Act 114 was written under. Ms. Yukimura: I know that you and your husband are very familiar with building, but I am thinking the writers of this kept it in there in terms of safety, making sure that the building is structurally sound. Ms. Wooton: Well, a fourteen thousand dollar ($14,000.00) barn can fall on your head just as hard as a forty thousand dollar ($40,000.00) one. Ms. Yukimura: That is true. In fact, the fourteen thousand (14,000.00) might fall sooner. You think we can...we will not have to address the issues of safety, and we can be safe in removing that Certification? Ms. Wooton: I think so. For instance, especially on the thing where you are talking about riveted, bolted, or welded connections on a steel building; basically, most of those steel buildings, but not all. I understand that someone might get out there with their own equipment and start building and welding, but most of the metal buildings you are going to have a pre-engineer. It does speak to that in Section (a). They already pre-engineered a metal building, anyway. I just do not know the value and placing this monetary...to me it is arbitrary, I guess. It could be forty thousand (40,000), it could be fourteen (14), but Act 114 does not have any monetary stipulations on what the value of the building would be. Also, how is that value going to be derived? It is just materials? It is the g g just building? At what stage is that going to take place? After you built it, you might say, "I spent forty-one thousand (41,000). I thought I was going to spend forty (40). Too late now." That is why I know construction can happen. There are costs over runs all the time. BILL NO. 2460 4 January 17, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: I think your points about valuation are well taken. I just wanted to understand your point about the Certification, and I think I have it now. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: To my wise friend, across from me. Mr. Hooser: Chair, I want a clarification of the Rules. I also have questions, and I am not sure the Rules allow us to ask questions or engage in dialogue with the...because it is frustrating to have them come here, and not being able to ask questions. Mr. Kagawa: Chair Furfaro summarized it for us for today, at least, that if we have questions pertinent to their testimony, go ahead. Mr. Hooser: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Louisa, I am going to give this to the Farm Bureau today. The question you posed as where did this come from, and so forth, here is the Governor's message on the Bill about waving. This is where it came from. Ms. Wooton: Which part? Chair Furfaro: There are several parts. I would suggest rather than get a lot of dialogue before this goes into Committee that the Farm Bureau review this... Ms. Wooton: This was the Governor's answer to 114 that you folks were given? Chair Furfaro: Yes. That gave us the authority. Here is the feedback dealing with waving building permits regarding agricultural activities, and so forth. Ms. Wooton: Okay. Chair Furfaro: I will give this to the Farm Bureau today. Ms. Wooton: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. We will take a tape change break. There being no objections, the public hearing was recessed at 2:08 p.m. There being no objections, the public hearing was called back to order at 2:19 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa: We are resuming our public hearing for Bill No. 2460. Chair Furfaro: Rule 12, as it relates to conducting public hearings, 12(e)(1): "Public hearings are held for the purpose of receiving testimony from the public and Councilmembers should reserve their opinions and arguments for the appropriate Council or Committee meeting," which is scheduled for the 23rd. This BILL NO. 2460 5 January 17, 2013 correspondence, Committee Chair, before we give it to them, I will have given copies to all of the members...the memorandum from the Governor. Mr. Kagawa: Mahalo. Okay, we have another registered speaker, go ahead. MELISSA MCFERRIN: Aloha and mahalo. My name is Melissa McFerrin. I am with the Kaua`i County Farm Bureau. I appreciate you giving the opportunity to give testimony today and realizing this maybe more at the start of the process, but for the State Farm Bureau; the State Farm Bureau has been working on this Bill at the State level for a few years now. We just wanted to share a few comments at this time. I apologize. Jerry Ornellas would like to be here as our President, but he is still at the Capitol today. The Hawai`i Farm Bureau Federation work closely with Legislatures on the passage of Act 114, on which this Act is based. As you so stated in the introduction, it is based on removing some of the constraints to encourage production agriculture. It is based on the belief that the current County Building requirements permit requirements across the State were designed more for commercial and residential buildings in urban areas, not so much for farm structures like greenhouses, storage sheds, and fish tanks. The compliance with the requirements as (inaudible) to the time and costs needs, even to build the simplest of structures. We find ourselves at a place where we are working very hard to encourage agricultural production, but what can we do to decrease the burden of time and costs on the farmers to get their work done? We were looking at the lists in the County Bill, and for the most part, the lists of structures that were passed down; it looks very close to what the State Law has. We just had a question on the paragraph before paragraph (a) on part 2, where it talks about the costs ceiling of forty thousand (40,000) or greater, or to any two (2) story building or structure with an estimated cost of thirty-five thousand (35,000) or greater. You might want to look at the balance between the intended purpose and the implementation on the local level, and get some feedback on the costs of some of the structures on the list. Some might work with that limit and some may not. For instance, in discussion with Roy Yamakawa this morning, the average cost of a greenhouse, if it is three dollars ($3.00) a square foot and you are allowing not to exceed up to twenty thousand square feet (20,0002 ft). It is not quite in alignment, so we were looking at how is that implemented? With those questions that Louisa had, at what point is it valued? Also, if there is a ceiling added at the County level, what is an appropriate ceiling? Some figures have been discussed. I am sure there will be more as this discussion goes on. For instance, if it was at eighty thousand (80,000), would it allow more structures to be built within the intended purpose? That is where we are at. We encourage this discussion and we really appreciate your support of sustainability and agriculture, and implementing a responsible policy. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Melissa. Ms. Yukimura: Hi, Melissa. Are you concerned about the Certification by a licensed professional Architect or Engineer? Or is that something that is appropriate? Ms. McFerrin: That discussion has not come up as much, but there was a discussion this morning that if you have a prefabricated structure, a lot of times, those structures that have a manufacturer's stamp can resist winds up to a hundred (100) miles an hour or something like that. Is it adding additional steps which are not needed? There was also a question about concrete because that was referenced. It says reinforced concrete is part of the structure and steel appears to • BILL NO. 2460 6 January 17, 2013 avoid the exemption. Would a concrete slab trigger that the exemption does not apply? If that was the case, it would limit things like value added machinery or other types of equipment that typically is stored on concrete. Then for instance, if you are putting up a greenhouse, if that is typically secured and concrete. I think looking at it a little bit more closely to see what is on the list, but also what the addition of a cost ceiling that was not in the State Law would do to change the effectiveness of the Bill and the implementation. Ms. Yukimura: When you refer to the "list," are you referring to the list in the exemption paragraph? Ms. McFerrin: Items (e) through (i). Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Ms. McFerrin: I believe that was the list that was passed on for the Counties to review and comment on. Ms. Yukimura: You are saying that there may need to be Certification, but there should be more clarity and rationality about when it is needed and when it is not? Ms. McFerrin: Perhaps. We have discussed more about the cost ceiling at this point. Ms. Yukimura: The Certification is an additional step and cost that the farmers need to do, so the question...if you can go back to your group that has been considering it and give us some guidance from the Farm Bureau, that would be helpful. Ms. McFerrin: Sure. I think that question is important because that is part of that first paragraph on page two (2), in front of item (a). That is the item that is different from the State Law. We did not know why. What Jay had suggested about the Communication from the Governor might shed some light on that. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. The other items are part of State Law— excuse me for not knowing, but they are already mentioned in State Law. Ms. McFerrin: Right, items (a) through (i). The State Law, as we understand it, does not include a cost ceiling on the agricultural structure to be built. That was not in Act 114. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Next register speaker, please. CAREN DIAMOND: Aloha. Caren Diamond. I just have a few comments I wanted to make on this. In reading this through, I thought that it would be helpful if there was a different designation for industrial agriculture. I realize the intent of this was for diversified agriculture, and to help agricultural self-sufficiency. When you start getting into some of the large industrial agriculture that is happening here, it may not be in our best interest to actually wave everything. In going through the Committee Meetings, I would ask you to maybe BILL NO. 2460 7 January 17, 2013 separate industrial Ag., define it, and make different regulations for that; especially when I look at page two (2) (d), where it allows the fertilizer or crop protection chemical supplies within agricultural. That is for ponds, piping systems underground, and things like that. In a lot of times, agricultural land is in close proximity to neighborhoods, even if it is agriculture land. I would ask you to look at that. Also, maybe have some threshold for what farming is because in the North Shore, they have a lot of agricultural land but it has not been used for agricultural purposes. A lot of times the barns and things that have now gone up are vacation rentals. There might need to some distinction, as well as considering coastal protection and the proximity to our shorelines for some of this agriculture land including lowering fences that are ten (10) feet high. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Caren. Chair Furfaro: In the last discussion, you were talking about concrete foundations. This is the reason the work has to be done in Committee. Ms. Diamond: Right. Chair Furfaro: I do not know what happened between the State, our Building Department and so forth, but our Bill does not allow concrete foundations for Farm Worker Housing to begin with. Why is somebody not comparing that with the Bill that we passed? It is those types of things and you will find those questions in here for the promotion of Farm Worker Housing, but at the same time, being sensitive to these increases of density that you are allowed to put a concrete foundation on. That is why we only put it in for wood flooring. Just to respond to your question. Mr. Kagawa: Caren, I just have one quick one since we are asking questions. Can you clarify industrial and do you mean the Coffee Company and Seed Company? Ms. Diamond: Yes, mostly Seed Companies. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. That is good because somebody is here from there. Ms. Diamond: Good, thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. Next registered speaker, please. SCOTT MCFARLAND: Good morning, Scott McFarland, Vice President of the Hawai`i Farm Bureau Federation. I am here today as the Co-Chair of the State's Government Affairs Committee. I just wanted to follow-up regarding as the Farm Bureau is working with each of the Counties right now, as they adopt local Ordinances that are aligned to Act 114; this important Act that allows for more local food production by our ranchers and farmers. Thank you, Kauai County for taking up the Ordinance. I think you are on the right path and we appreciate being part of the conversation. As the representative of the State Farm Bureau, I will work closely with Jerry in the local farm bureau to make sure we get to a good place. What we did notice and what we thought was unique in the Kaua`i Proposed Ordinance, is the dollar amount that Louisa and Melissa had recognized. It is an interesting threshold that probably needs to be examined. I will work with you as a representative of the Farm Bureau. I think we need to open a dialogue with the BILL NO. 2460 8 January 17, 2013 Attorney General's Office about that dollar amount because the Act 114 certainly wants to facilitate and accomplish its Legislative goals to promote these low-risk structures from any undue burdensome local issues. With that, I will entertain any questions that anyone has quickly, but I look forward to working with you through this process. Mr. Kagawa: Mahalo, Scott. Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. The State Law does not include the requirement of a Certification by an Architect or Engineer? Mr. McFarland: It does not. Ms. Yukimura: Does the Farm Bureau think that works okay, to not require it? Mr. McFarland: We think at this stage, and again, we want to make sure that the County go out and talk to their local food producers, not the industrial local complex that operates in Hawaii as Caren had indicated. It is clearly for local food producers. It is not for the benefit or large scale agriculture. The Farm Bureau does not believe that on some of these low-risk structures that, that the Certification step is necessary. I can understand the health and safety issues that you have been discussing, Councilmember Yukimura. I think that there could be some wiggle room to look at that if the dollar threshold goes up to a certain level. While the dollar threshold is the first...you are the a e t e first County that we have seen introduce a dollar threshold. We will have to look at making sure that dollar threshold does not unduly conflict with the Legislative intent of what Act 114 is designed to do. I think we will get there. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. You say that the Law is intended for the smaller local producers but I do not see that industrial agriculture is exempt. Is there somewhere in either the State Law or the Proposed Ordinance that that is so? Mr. McFarland: I think you would have to look at the Legislative history and prior testimony related to the Bill as it passed through those Chambers. I think it is reasonable to say that the State Law has set an expectation for greenhouses, storage sheds, aquaponics, and aquaculture. I can tell you that the majority of that is activity designed for small farmers and small local food producers. We are this year as the Hawaii Farm Bureau with some companion Amendments to 114 that will help the Counties along this path. We are hoping with this is that the Counties open dialogue with local food producers about the State Law protecting greenhouses, fish ponds, and storage sets. Is there anything else in our County that we are missing that we can put into our Ordinance,but also stimulates local food production. That is why we are encouraged here on Kauai County, with our local growers and local producers. There may be a few more things that Kauai County wishes to include in its Ordinance so that we can use the 114 vehicle to achieve more local food production. Ms. Yukimura: I think you have a lot of background so it is not just what the history says, but the first place you look for interpretation is in the actual text. This might apply to all industrial buildings, right? Mr. McFarland: Honestly, I have not examined it from that perspective. BILL NO. 2460 9 January 17, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: Okay, we will ask our Attorneys. Mr. McFarland: Absolutely, I think that is a great question to clarify. Ms. Yukimura: Staff, if we can ask our Attorney's that. Mr. McFarland: I am also excited to see the Governor's packet too. I have not gotten the Governor's packet yet, so I will look forward to looking at that. Chair Furfaro: You represent the Farm Bureau, but you have not seen the Governor's proposal. Mr. McFarland: I have not seen this letter from the Governor. Chair Furfaro: I am suggesting that you folks get to read it before we get to Committee. Mr. McFarland: Exactly. Ms. Yukimura: This is basically a cover letter that he signed and the Bill that was passed. Mr. McFarland: I am very familiar with the Bill. Chair Furfaro: That clarifies. Mr. McFarland: Yes. That would not be the first time our Governor has surprised me on some things related to agriculture. I say that in the highest respect to the Governor. Chair Furfaro: Let us respect to see the spirit in our Rules. We are not here to work through the issues here until it gets to the Committee Meeting. By that time, we will have some of these questions resolved. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. McFarland: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Go ahead my wise friend across. Mr. Hooser: Just a quick question, since the subject of industrial agriculture and its impacts came up. It sounds like you are okay with having this industrial agriculture operations carved out of this if that was legally possible. Mr. McFarland: That is a good question for other Attorneys to look at and make sure that 114 can support that. Yes, conceptually, I do not think the Hawai`i Farm Bureau Federation would be adverse to what you are suggesting. Mr. Hooser: The industrial agriculture operations would have a higher level of pesticides or herbicide use. (Inaudible) greenhouses over BILL NO. 2460 10 January 17, 2013 experimental kind of crops, that kind of thing where you might want to higher level of protection in terms of building permits. Mr. McFarland: As some of you know, I am very familiar with the operations on our West side and those building operations...when they go to do buildings, they are usually multi-million dollar structures that do go through the County processes. I cannot envision a situation where they would be impacted or would ever want to use 114 as a vehicle to advance their commercial ag interests. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Scott. Is there anybody else from the public that wishes to testify? If not, public hearing is adjourned. There being no further testimony on this matter, the public hearing adjourned at 2:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, EDUARD* OPENI 1 JR. Administrative Assistant to ,e County Clerk :cy