Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-05 TPD CDH WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 5, 2010 PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25, DOWNTOWN HILO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT was called to order at 11:33 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Councilroom, County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Andrew Iwashita, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And approximately 28 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendments to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), Article 1, Section 25-1-5 (b) (Definitions), Article 2, Division 7 (Plan Approval), and Article 7, Division 2 (CDH, Downtown Hilo Commercial District), relating to the Downtown Hilo Commercial District. The proposed amendments to the CDH Commercial District includes, among others, the deletion as well as addition of certain permitted uses, reduction of the height limit from 120 feet to 60 and 80 feet, and required design patterns for new development within a new Downtown Hilo Commercial Core (DHCC). WOODWARD: The final item here on the agenda is Item No. 4. It’s also dealing with EnVision Hilo and it’s an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. We do have 13 people signed up from the public to testify on this matter. So, again, if you’ll please limit your testimony to three minutes. First two people would be Jackie Parkinson and Jeff Melrose. PARKINSON: Good morning. WOODWARD: Good morning. Okay, I’ve already sworn in Mr. Melrose, but Jackie if I could swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? PARKINSON: I do. WOODWARD: Okay, Ms. Parkinson, if you’ll give us your name and address, and then begin your testimony. 1 EXHIBIT C PARKINSON: My name is Jackie Parkinson. I live at 16-465 Laniuma in Keaau. But I’m here today representing the Hawaii Island Board of Realtors; and we are currently located at 26 Waianuenue, right next to Koehnens. I’d like to, I’ve submitted some written testimony, it’s rather lengthy.I’m not going to go into all the issues on the written testimony. But we have been asked, the Hawaii Island Board of Realtors has been asked to become a lead partner in some portions of the proposed plan, as well as other kinds of partnerships. So we are very much in support of smart growth and excited about the plan. But we also are protectors, our mission is to protect private property rights. And we are concerned that there are some issues here that are impacting the property rights without enough thought being put into some of the issues. One of the issues that isn’t in my written testimony that I would like to point out is that - I’ve discussed just a tiny bit with some of the plan creators - is that there’s not enough thought about the impact of the tsunami rebuilding requirements from FEMA in the inundation zone, in incorporating that into the plan. If you’re going to have a pedestrian-oriented Downtown, I think that also needs to be addressed. I think we need a little bit more time on that. The ordinance itself is our primary concern, that we aren’t there, the design criteria isn’t developed enough yet to really create an ordinance. And perhaps some of these design elements are better done outside of an ordinance and in a design review of some sort. I also want to point out in our testimony, it is pointed out a little bit, some of the incongruence between the plan, including the ordinance. And that is the reduction and use and elimination of some, like rest homes or residen -, what would be otherwise considered acceptable and mixed use in a residential/commercial community. So I’m grateful to hear that you’re postponing. I’m not sure I’ll be here in May so I just wanted to make sure that we could point out some of our concerns. The other is the cost that some of these, that ordinance would create for redevelopment of Downtown, which is something all of us are, and I think all of us are on the same page, we all want Hilo to be a wonderful place for people to come and shop and visit and live as well. I think another thing pointed out here that we need to revisit is the zero lot line and the impact that it has not only on future development but on our current businesses who use the sidewalks or their little foyer for marketing and encouraging visitors. So I thank you. I hope you will take some time to read through this rather lengthy written testimony we provided; and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Parkinson? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No, no, no. WOODWARD: No, okay, I was just anticipating. Okay, I always look there. Okay, Mr. Melrose, you’ve already been sworn in, sworn at, and given your name a couple of times, so you may just begin. MELROSE: Thanks. I’m going to wear the Downtown Improvement Association’s hat in this conversation; and I chair the Planning and Government Affairs Committee of the DIA. Our 2 EXHIBIT C current, we’ve been around for, I don’t know, Taka, you probably know more than I do, maybe 30 years as an organization. We’re about 150 members. It’s a mix of organizations, mix of individuals and businesses and landowners in Downtown. We have a mission, kind of a day-to- day mission, of trying to improve and enhance the activities, and implement some of the goals relating to revitalization in Downtown. Our testimony on this conversation is really not positional at this point. We’re still trying to listen and trying to understand what the variety of different groups are going to say. But we do have some particular thoughts we want to share with you on them. Our priorities Downtown, our government priorities Downtown are really kind of along the lines of what Mr. Koehnen spoke about in terms of getting out of the way regulatorily to allow investment to happen. And we see the two places where that’s most important today, is in backing up on the 2006 Flood Ordinance that this County Council adopted some time in 2006, really in relationship to some issues in other parts of the State or other parts of the island. But it caught Downtown kind of like the turtle or the dolphin in the drift net. It wasn’t intended to affect Downtown but it really ultimately, has ultimately condemned much of the Kamehameha Avenue frontage to some high level of investment requirements to simply repair what is in Downtown. So we’re working with the Council in that regard, and we’ve been working hard on on-going efforts to try and get the Building Department to use some of their own discretion to allow the small investments to move forwarded without kind of being bloodied through that process, and to use the discretion necessary to renovate in renovated circumstances. So those are our priorities; and that’s where we’ve been trying to focus our attention. We’ve also suggested that there’s a need for design guidelines. There is a body of design guidelines that were adopted by HRA called Rule 6 under the HRA Rules. When HRA, the Hawaii Redevelopment Authority, went away those guidelines were somewhat hanaied to the County. And the Planning Department, they used them; but they’re still kind of written in the old term and in the old way. And our intention is to try and update those, bring those back so that you can provide for a developer and for the County a clear view of, you know, what the preferred sense of look and character Downtown is about. So we’ve written to the County over the years to encourage that. That’s where we would choose to begin this conversation, is that the, coming up with a body of guidelines rather than ordinances related to specific design. The height limit is an interesting one as it relates to the specific proposal. I think the highest height limit through much of the island is about 55 feet, except for the exceptions that are provided for Kahaluu and Keauhou in Kona. I think those are 90 feet. And Hilo town both in the Resort designation, in the CVH zone, and in all of the Commercial, General Commercial zone is 120 feet. And aside from one building in Downtown nobody has come close to taking advantage of that for very practical reasons, for very economic reasons. And we think in Downtown although the idea of a 120-foot building in the middle of these old style-buildings is a little bit, you know, it’s a stunning thought and would probably undercut the iconic field that Downtown has today, practically I don’t see it as a realty, don’t see it as an issue that’s driving land ownership today. People are not buying land cause they can put 120 feet there. Rents are $2, $3. If you go and build something new, you’re going to be needing to getting rents in the $10, $30, $30 a square foot kind of range in order to justify that investment. So is it a real issue? Maybe in some sense of vision perhaps. But as a practical economic issue, doesn’t seem to be a key one to us. Maybe the most important issue for us is the issue of the design criteria. There are three pieces of design suggested by ordinance. 3 EXHIBIT C WOODWARD: If I could get you to summarize, please. MELROSE: This is the last -. WOODWARD: Okay. MELROSE: Three issues associated with the design in the ordinance. There is no other zoning ordinance on the island and none in the State that I’m aware of that has a classical zoning ordinance in which design elements are identified, specifically, and adopted by ordinance. So I think generally that’s a reflection of the fact that design is often less a function of rule and more a matter of guidelines and discussion about specific projects and specific circumstances. So when you, in this case they picked three elements, not necessarily out of a broad array of well articulated design elements. They just picked three elements. All of them have current tales to them. We kind of understand where each of the case is from, but they’re not necessarily chosen out of a context, an array of what the real key issues are in Downtown. But they’re being placed into an ordinance which makes that much harder to deal with. And so our suggestion is that the design elements really belong, first addressed in a comprehensive design review process and that, in which the whole community is involved on how to do that; and then you determine how you implement those issues. So we’ll continue to follow this issue as we move forward, but I think the design issues is probably the one that rubs most specifically for us. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Melrose. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Jeff, you know, you mentioned about those flooding areas, proned to flooding. And that’s Alenaio Stream we’re looking at, yeah? MELROSE: No, it’s not. The Alenaio Stream was re -. A LOMAR was done after Alenaio Stream so that the flooding that you related to, after the flood control system went it, that large area of flooding in the Hara Store area by the market, that was removed and rechanneled. So the issue is really the inundation line from the tsunami, which is, that’s the most prominent flood line in Downtown. DOMINGO: Now what if, what if in any event the volume of water that comes down and the flooding begins to be more serious, that would certainly adjust the lines of the flooding areas, wouldn’t it? MELROSE: Right. What they did in ’06 was they just across the board put 50 feet on that boundary, just generally said 50 feet makes it bigger. But more importantly they made the recovery of the investment horizon, you can produce 50 percent of the value of the building. FEMA requires a year, prior Code says three, change went to ten. And it simply stops the ability of a small landowner to invest incrementally, particularly if they have to do ADA requirements and fire suppression issues, and other issues that have to do with keeping those buildings that we admire in Downtown in place. So it’s those changes that we’re focused on. 4 EXHIBIT C DOMINGO: You know, for the long-term planning, as I said the more water that comes down from above, the more impact it will cause in that area where the flood basin, I call it flood basin, is. MELROSE: Right. DOMINGO: Yeah? And if more water comes then it will certainly enlarge to and encroach on the Downtown area. To what extent depends on how much water comes down. You know, my feeling is we should then now look at how much development are we going to permit above Komohana that goes up from Sunrise Ridge and way up into Kaumana. And certainly we’re looking at other develop -, perhaps other developments coming in through there for residential homes and everything. Right now we have a buffer which, a buffer of trees and shrubs that somewhat absorbs the rain and the flooding that takes place. But if we continue to develop in that area, you know, I foresee matters getting worse. And I think what we should be looking at is looking at expansion of our rural areas further toward south or north towards Hamakua passing Wailuku River, and be careful as to how much and to what extent we would develop on the mauka area. Now that’s just my thought. MELROSE: Just a quick thought on that. One of the most prominent issues we see in Downtown is really not related to mauka development but it’s the little -. Because a lot of the drainage facilities that are on the sides of the streets in Downtown were installed in the 1910’s and ‘20s when the roads first went in, County really doesn’t even have a good map of where those go. They know where it comes out because there’s a place in the Bayfront where the water exits. But how it travels and what condition they’re in and how well they’re filtered or how much is, you know, balking them up -? So now you get a big rain, and sometimes they pack up and they’ve got to go -. We really don’t know specifically where they go, nor can we maintain them. So my concern would be bringing that to a practical level right down in the middle of Downtown. We need to be spending time figuring out how to let the water drain, which it doesn’t work -. DOMINGO: But no matter how much an elaborate drainage system you have, I don’t think it will help as much because, you know, Downtown is at sea level already. And the amount of water that comes down will only go into the ocean, and there’s no way that it will just flow out. It’ll just build up. MELROSE: Yeah, and that’s the process -, of the design of the Alenaio project, particularly; and I don’t argue your point. I think you’re making a good point. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. We’ve had a request for a break for five minutes, so let’s take five minutes. And the next people will be Megan Kuwahara and Charlene Masuhara again, once we reconvene in five minutes. PUBLIC: They’ve left. WOODWARD: Oh, they’ve left. Okay. All right, we’ll take five minutes and then we’ll reconvene. 5 EXHIBIT C RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 11:47 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:56 a.m. WOODWARD: Okay, Planning Commission meeting please come back to order. We’re continuing with public testimony on Agenda Item No. 5, amendments to the Zoning Code. And I see Ms. Kuwahara and Ms. Masuhara have left. Next person would be Albert Nakaji. Albert Nakaji? PUBLIC: He stepped out. WOODWARD: Okay, we’ll get him when he gets here then. In the meantime we have Kawehi Stevens, Kawehi Stevens and Cynthia Inoue. And we’ll get back to Mr. Nakaji when he gets, after this. All right, if I can get you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? STEVENS: Yes, I do. INOUE: I do. WOODWARD: Okay, Mr. Stevens, if you can give us your name and address and you may begin. STEVENS: Thank you. My name is Kawehi Stevens and I live at 2476 Kinoole Street. I’m a third generation that’s occupied that property. Aloha members of the Windward Planning Commission and mahalo for allowing me to address you today. As I said, my name is Kawehi Stevens, I am Kanaka Maoli. I’m Keiki O Ka Aina. I was born and raised on this beautiful Hawaii Island. I am here to object to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code of the proposed amendments. My Ohana consists primarily of the Bells, the Purdys, the Lincolns, the Lindseys and the Stevens. Our roots trace back primarily to Kamuela and Kohala on Hawaii Island. We are the largest local family in the State of Hawaii, and we are very proud of our koko, and our Hawaiian Heritage. Some of my family members are owners of some very significant properties on Hawaii Island and Hilo proper. 6 EXHIBIT C Namely, the former Western Auto Building on Haili Street, the former Farmers Exchange Building on Kinoole Street, and the Canario Building at the corner of Kamehameha and Haili Streets, just mauka of the Palace Theater, I’m sorry, makai of the Palace Theater. I’m sure you’re all aware of the fact that the Western Auto Building was reluctantly, recently sold, and will soon be the home of a McDonald’s Restaurant here in Downtown Hilo. I’m sure you are also aware that the zoning for that particular parcel is multi family dwellings, hotels, and the like. My family’s ultimate plan for that property was to build: * at least 1 floor of parking, possibly 2, much needed in the Downtown Hilo area, * 1 floor of commercial space, and * 3 floors of condominiums, which would surely enhance Downtown Hilo, and promote residency in the area. About a year prior to even considering the offer from McDonald’s, I personally shared my family’s vision of building the previously mentioned complex on the site with the County’s Planning Department, and did not get a favorable response about our vision. Why? The height of the proposed development. Although we did not build the complex, we ran into numerous obstacles with the City and County in the process of attempting to utilize the complex as it currently stands, which ultimately led us to our decision to consider the offer from McDonald’s. As previously mentioned, we are the largest local family in the State of Hawaii, and are here to stay. We are not speculators, and love to refurbish these old towns, just as we have done in Paia, and the Haiku Cannery, on Maui. We ask that you give the proposed amendments to change the height limit in Downtown Hilo some close consideration, as any future proposed developments could, and should, be reviewed individually, as they are presented. Without claiming to be a legal expert to any degree, it appears that some of the other proposed changes on the table today may violate the rights of property owners, thereby leaving the County of Hawaii open for possible future legal ramifications, at these already dismal economic times. In closing, I am awed that the “powers that be” proposing the change in the height limit in Downtown Hilo has never contacted my family, or any other property owner I know of in the Downtown area, about the proposed changes in the height limit in Downtown Hilo. We need to promote revitalizing Downtown Hilo, while still retaining the charm, and get away from the “Old Plantation Town” mentality. Again, mahalo for allowing me to share my mana’o with you today. 7 EXHIBIT C WOODWARD: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Thank you for your comments. What’s your ideal height limit as you envision Hilo and its growth, and also with respect to some of the plans that you may have? STEVENS: Our plan, original plan for the ultimate building was a maximum of five floors, even if we had to go down to create an additional floor of parking. We wanted at least one floor, possibly two. DOMINGO: Okay. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, any further questions? No? Okay, Ms. Inoue. INOUE: Hi. My name is Cindy Inoue; and my address is 2427 Kaiwiki Road, Hilo, Hawaii. I am a resident of Hilo and I’m also the current president of the Wainaku Kaiwiki Community Association. And I’m here to speak to you on the proposed amendment to Chapter 25. It is my belief that Hilo is a business area and allowed uses should remain consistent with normal and regular businesses. Instead of reducing the kind of businesses that are allowed, restrictions should be reduced. Instead of reducing the building height limit, it should be left alone. Increasing the allowable density is a good thing and should be supported as proposed. More businesses should be encouraged to use the Downtown space. Property owners should be encouraged to renovate and improve their buildings. Rules should be adopted to help business owners, not hurt them or refrain from their business activities. Thank you very much. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any questions for Ms. Inoue? Okay, thank you very much. You folks may be seated. Albert Nakaji and William Lowe, all right, if I could swear you in. If you’ll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? NAKAJI: I do. LOWE: I do. WOODWARD: Okay, Mr. Nakaji, if you’ll give us your name and address, and you may begin. NAKAJI: My name is Albert Nakaji. I reside at 27-309 Kaieie Road, at Papaikou. Chairman Woodward and Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the proposed amendments to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. Although I’m not a property owner of any parcel in Downtown Hilo, I speak about it because it is part of my heritage. You should have my written statement so I won’t read it. But I will touch on major points and maybe add a few more thoughts that, in reference to some of the earlier comments. The first point I’d like to make is contrary to the reference that was made in the proposed bill, Downtown Hilo was never a plantation style town, never, never in any sense of the word. It was and is a business hub with mixed uses. And although the Hilo businesses did support the sugar industries, it was totally different with regard to architecture, layout, and purpose. And while it 8 EXHIBIT C may be a fanciful idea that’s promoted in the Envision 2025 Plan, to view Hilo as a plantation style town, that view is really not based in fact and is totally inappropriate. As the former speaker Fred Koehnen mentioned, Hilo as a historic place is only what we see it today. But if you go to the Shinmachi Museum and see some of the photos of what was, the tsunami museum of the Shinmachi area down here, you will see as he said, it was not pretty, not at all. Anyway, Downtown was and always has been a complete community, integrated mixed uses. Residences, recreation, business, transportation, everything else was mixed together. Fish markets, pharmacies, grocery store, repair shops, hotels, banks, churches, you name it, whatever was needed it was there. We find today that in other areas of the United States where single use districts have been established, it has not worked. History has shown it has not worked. So the trend is to go forward to mixed use communities. That is what works. I agree that it’s desirable to retain the existing uses and consequently do not agree that reducing the building height from 120 to 60 or 80 feet is the thing to do. The 120 feet if some of you recall was established to allow the construction of the Bayshore Towers. That’s the only building that has that kind of height. And although the property owners have had opportunity to go up that high, they have not done that; and they have had that opportunity for many, many years. So as Mr. Melrose suggested before, just because it’s there does not mean it’s going to happen. And as Commissioner Domingo has stated, the economics will be a major driving factor in what the property owners do put up or don’t put up. The hurdle for the economics now is very, very difficult to get over. And so I would suggest that any change to Chapter 25 that you consider, you should consider not for the purpose of restricting the business opportunities and the business buildings, but if anything to encourage activity in Downtown Hilo in order to help us not only economically but also to reduce the amount of crime in the area. That’s a terrible, terrible problem; and it’s growing. If anything, provide incentives for the property owners. You do not do that by taking away allowed uses, such as the service stations and other things that already are allowed, and provide incentives by giving them greater freedom to engage in the kind of activities that they feel they can make money from. WOODWARD: If I could ask you to summarize, please. NAKAJI: Certainly. I would summarize by saying that, you know, ultimately it will be based on what the property owners decide to do with their properties. And so any proposed changes should look at how it impacts their opportunities. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Nakaji? Okay, no. All right, Mr. Lowe, if you can give us your name and address, and you may begin. LOWE: Okay, thank you. My name is Bill Lowe and I live at 2427 Kaiwiki Road. And I’ve lived in Hilo for five years now. I’m a resident of Hilo. It’s not a very long time, I’m a short- timer here. But I’m not a short timer as far as change goes. And by change I’m referencing Chapter 25 against the limitation on the height. I’m not even sure even if you should have a height limitation, because when changes comes at you, it can hit you from a different angle, a different time, it can happen all at once. And you’d have to make changes accordingly. I don’t 9 EXHIBIT C know what the master plan is for Hilo. I don’t know if this modification is just one little change or it’s part of a larger picture which I’m not seeing. But what I do know is that by enforcing or putting limitations on development or growth it can impact the economic condition of a town or a city. We have many small towns and cities in the United States. Hilo is just one of them, but oftentimes we’ve found in research that it’s the small towns that have the less restrictions that get the automobile plants, that get the windmill farms, that get all the new innovative things, investments from, investments from overseas. As I said the change can come from anywhere in any direction. And all I ask is that we keep an open mind that we do not put ourselves in a corner or restrict ourselves as far as growth and development goes. Because it can come up on us very quickly and without any notice. So that’s my summary. WOODWARD: All right, thank you very much. Any questions? Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much for you testimony. You may be seated. The next two would be Caleb Yamanaka and Monika Mallick. All right, if I could swear you in. If you’ll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YAMANAKA: Yes. MALLICK: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. Mr. Yamanaka if you want to give us your name and address, then you may begin your testimony. YAMANAKA: Caleb Yamanaka, 1636 Mona Loop, Hilo. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning. My name is Caleb Yamanaka. I’m the broker in charge of Yamanaka Enterprises Inc. We represent the owners of 250 and 252 Kamehameha Avenue (the Young building). For purposes of Full Disclosure I would like to say that I was a former or am a former Vision Keeper from June 2008 to September 2009 and participated in many of the events and conversations that helped shape this Ordinance. With that being said I would like to state my opposition to this entire Ordinance. Not that there are not some good thoughts or ideas that are included in this but more so because as a whole I think this Ordinance only takes us in the wrong direction in regards to the planning for Downtown Hilo, by creating more rules and regulations, when what we need is streamlining and simplicity to encourage investment. Four main points of Contention: Section 25-7-20 Purpose and Applicability – This is a complete redefinition of the CDH zone. There are key words in here that are eliminated and replaced. The current definition of Downtown Hilo’s role is that of a “compact high density area for retail shopping, professional and administrative activities, cultural arts activities and other supportive business and commercial services and multiple family housing.” The new definition is much more abstract, proposing an “ideal” of what Downtown Hilo is and shall provide while proposing that the 10 EXHIBIT C purpose of the CDH zone is to “protect Downtown Hilo’s character, promote its functions as an economic engine, and protect the health and safety of its residents and visitors.” It’s an ideal. It’s not, you know, this is something that should be very definitive. This new definition goes on to turn the current definition of Downtown Hilo on its head. Somehow Downtown Hilo has changed from an area which should be a compact high density area servicing all types of commercial and mixed uses, and is instead now a “Plantation Town”.One would suppose that Downtown Hilo is now, and no disrespect to Honokaa or Pahala, but this is the economic hub and seat of government for our island. And should, you know, this is the urban core of that town. Section 8, Chapter 25, Article 7, Division 2 is amended to add the Designation of Downtown, of a Downtown Hilo Commercial Core. This additional new “zone” is an additional encumbrance upon some of the most heavily restricted property in the CDH. Properties in this proposed zone are already affected by FEMA and SMA regulations. I mean it’s a very restricted area as far as development goes as it is, and creating a new zone only increases that. Section 25-7-23 is the height limit. Many people have spoken about the height limit. Plain and simple this is a “taking.” The current proposal is to reduce the height limit from 120 feet to 80 feet and 60 feet in the proposed DHCC. At best this is roughly a 33% reduction of potential buildable area and 50% at worst. On the other hand the authors of the ordinance will argue that they give a 25% increase in overall residential density with the reduction of the residential requirement from 1000 square feet per unit to 750 square feet per unit. But no matter if you are in the DHCC or not, this is a net total loss to overall potential density, when what we’re trying to do is encourage density. Some may argue that lot sizes do not allow for building to the height limits. But not being taken into consideration is the option of Landowners to Partners with adjoining lot owners, to consolidate or acquire multiple parcels to maximize development potential. Reducing options here reduces the opportunity. WOODWARD: If I could ask you to summarize, please. YAMANAKA: Okay. I had a few more points but -. It is my belief that the intentions of the authors were to craft an ordinance that would help in the process and encourage development in Downtown Hilo, I have no doubt about that. They want to maintain Hilo’s “charm”. I think this ordinance has completely missed the mark. This ordinance further complicates investment in Downtown Hilo by imposing more stringent restrictions on the area and discouraging investment by telling any potential investor (If this ordinance is passed) that Downtown Hilo is not a place you want to invest, because the people do not want anything to happen here. That’s what we’re telling people. In these economic times in which Downtown Hilo is experiencing high vacancy rates and higher instances of crime, we should not create more layers of bureaucracy but rather simplify the process in a clear and concise manner. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Yamanaka. Do we have any questions for Mr. Yamanaka? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Just a note of opinion. I appreciate your comments, yeah, and I’m not angry at you on whatever you said. But, you know, the reference to a plantation town, Hilo being a plantation 11 EXHIBIT C town, it’s not the plantation town. It’s a town that was built upon efforts of many people of diverse races who have come here, and not only people who come from the plantations. In fact, if you recall the plantation history, plantation people couldn’t come to Hilo to shop because their possessions and the wages they were making did not permit them to travel far from where they lived. That’s why the plantations had their own plantation stores in the camps, in their place. So we were kept in a confine area by management. You know, thank God for the union, for the unions that came into the picture, and elevated our standard of living; and therefore we could then afford cars, we could afford some other luxuries. Then at that point we started to travel to Hilo and do a lot of shopping. And I think the plantation communities at that time upheld, you know, upheld Downtown Hilo for a period of time in their hard times. And the fact the plantation mentality, you know, I come from a plantation background. I grew up in a plantation. My father came from the Philippines, my grandfather came from Okinawa. And, you know, all the people that I mingled with came from different areas, different parts of the world; and we made the plantations and we had the plantation mentality. I’m proud that I was brought up with that mentality and the values that I was taught and brought up with; and that’s what makes me the person that I am today. And on top of that, people with plantation mentality have contributed so much to the growth of this State, the State of Hawaii. If you look in their backgrounds, they’re all, most of them or a lot of them came from plantation communities, plantation mentality. That’s what I think contributed to the growth of this state. I just wanted to say that so it’s on record, Mr. Chairman. I’m not angry with you because we all tend to use that phrase “plantation mentality” or whatever. YAMANAKA: Plantation town is taken directly out of the ordinance. DOMINGO: Well, that’s another thing. When that thing comes before me, I’ll make that correction, whatever it means. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Any other questions? Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you, Mr. Yamanaka, for your testimony. I want to ask you about Vision Keepers. You know, it says past and present; and Ms. Eileen O’Hara had mentioned that there was a reorg and -. YAMANAKA: I’m not familiar -. AU: And, well, and you were on it from 2008 to 2009. YAMANAKA: Yes. AU: You know, and I see a bunch of people in this room who are either a past or present member of it. And if there was a reorg, can you just talk about the reorg, like what happened from your opinion? YAMANAKA: Oh, I’m not familiar with the reorganization because I’ve been out since late last year. I think that must have happened after I left so I’m not familiar with it. 12 EXHIBIT C AU: Can you tell me about, you mentioned you were in it only for a year from 2008 to 2009. And what was your reason to -? YAMANAKA: I resigned from the Vision Keepers because of this ordinance. The Vision Keepers as Eileen mentioned are shepherds. They try not to take a side either way. And as a Vision Keeper I have a definite opinion about this ordinance and I needed to resign to be able to voice that opinion. WOODWARD: All right, very good. Thank you. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes. DOMINGO: So you’re saying that the Vision Keepers that come before this Commission with an already established direction where they really want to go in-? YAMANAKA: No, I can’t -. Oh, sorry. DOMINGO: Instead of rather being neutral and just presenting an option for the County to accept or reject? YAMANAKA: I don’t know that they come with a definite direction in mind. I can’t speak to that for the individuals on the Vision Keepers. I think they take whatever they, they take what they have and they put it together. And I think there are a few other Vision Keepers here that could probably speak better to how their process works. I just know that I was not that, as a Vision Keeper I was not able to step out and then -. I’d have to wear separate hats; and I don’t want to wear separate hats. I speak what I speak. And the point of view that I have, and I did not think it would be -. It would do my clients and my families which are owners in Downtown, I think it would do them a disservice to be on the Vision Keepers and to put forth an ordinance that actually hurts us and hurts Downtown Hilo. That’s my opinion. WOODWARD: Fine, thank you. Is that it? Okay. Ms. Mallick, give us your name and address first, and then begin, please. MALLICK: Monika Mallick, 27-250 Maluna Place, Papaikou, 96781. Director, Chairman Woodward and Members of the Windward Planning Commission, thank you for this opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25, Article 7, Division 2. My name is Monika Mallick and I am an owner of property in the Downtown Hilo area. I am here before you today to express my opposition to the proposed changes introduced by the EnVision Downtown Hilo 2025 group relating to the reduction in building height limit, as well as the designation of Downtown Hilo Commercial Core as an additional “sub-zone” within the CDH. 13 EXHIBIT C While I realize that the Envision Downtown Hilo 2025 group has put a lot of time and effort into their plan, I believe that the proposed changes adversely affect the redevelopment of Downtown Hilo, and all of us. The height limit from 120 feet to 60 feet or 80 feet (all other CDH zoned property) will negatively impact Downtown Hilo’s potential to become a healthy, mixed-used community by eliminating almost half of the potential buildable area within Downtown. A vibrant Downtown is dependent on residents living, working and finding recreation in the immediate area. The elimination of any potential buildable area Downtown will deter investment and may prevent Downtown Hilo from developing into the comprehensive living and work space most residents would like to see it become. Practically, a height limit of 60 feet, combined with the current interpretation of building requirements within the Tsunami Inundation Area, will most likely limit projects to a maximum of three floors of potential living space. Based on market construction costs and rental income, it is currently unfeasible to redevelop any property in Downtown Hilo to its highest and best use. A reduction in the height limit will perpetuate this condition. Maximum density must be achieved to reliably attract new businesses and services to the Downtown area. The current lack of public parking and pedestrian traffic serve as deterrents to many businesses, which I feel has been a major hindrance to the revitalization of Downtown Hilo. The best way to address this issue is to encourage developers to increase housing options and construct parking, since doing so will logically attract more traffic Downtown. A height limit of 60 feet is not conducive to the construction of parking or residences, two essential elements of redevelopment. I also disagree with the assertion that the CDH requires an additional “sub-zone”, the proposed Downtown Hilo Commercial Core, which would include all property bounded by Hilo Bay, Wailuku River, and the eastern boundary of Kinoole and Ponahawai Streets. This additional definition proposes to further restrict the potential uses of property that is already the most restricted land within the CDH zone. Properties within this zone are not only governed by applicable building and zoning requirements, but flood plain management restrictions (FEMA and SMA regulations) apply to the majority of properties in this zone as it is. By further classifying the CDH, we will only create additional disincentives to rebuilding and revitalizing Downtown Hilo. Finally, I do not believe it is wise to amend the Code to eliminate uses that are currently allowed and in existence in Downtown. A better strategy would be to encourage even more diverse uses and create greater opportunities for businesses and residents. 14 EXHIBIT C For these reasons, I ask the Windward Planning Commission to reject the proposed changes to Section 7; 25-7-23 of the Zoning Code regarding Height Limit and Section 8; 25-7 Designation of Downtown Hilo Commercial Core. Again, thank you so much for allowing me to speak on this matter. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Ms. Mallick. Questions? Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Mallick. We had another business owner, Mr. Stevens, he was here. He mentioned that he wasn’t notified of these amendments. My question to you is were you notified? MALLICK: Jeff Melrose invited me to a DIA meeting last year; and since then I’ve become involved. AU: Okay, well, you know, the reason why I asked that question is, you know, maybe there was another testifier who did, who is a landowner who said that they weren’t notified. So, you know, I just wanted to know if you were. So -. MALLICK: It was in passing AU: Did you get anything? MALLICK: You know, in passing Jeff and I talked about it. But actually I didn’t realize about the 120 feet until I started attending these meetings. So I think for people who don’t attend the meetings, they don’t have any idea about the restriction. And I can only say one thing that did very clearly come out of these meetings with the DIA and various other groups regarding Downtown Hilo, is that we desperately need a housing component Downtown. It will pretty much eradicate all of this violence and thievery and gang activity at night. When you have people living Downtown walking the streets, using the facilities, the businesses, it creates a much safer environment. Also, a lot of cities the size of Hilo throughout the United States are revitalizing and older people are trending towards, you know, facilities. So I really encourage you to think about that, please, that, you know, we do need housing as we used to have in the old days, I guess. You know, so many people had their homes above their shops. So, yeah, it’s not safe at night. I mean I can’t leave my office at night. I work at the -. My office is at the old Hilo Hotel and I get lickings from my husband if I don’t come home before 6 o’clock because it’s, just, really a lot of weird stuff goes on Downtown at night. AU: Okay, so, you know, just to confirm and get on record, you know, you have been attending these Vision Keeper meetings as well as people stated on the list. I mean it’s open to the public, right, these Vision Keeper meetings? MALLICK: I believe it is. You know, but Jeff Melrose, as I said, in passing he just mentioned, he said, you know, you own in Downtown, you should come to these meetings. But before then I wasn’t really aware of anything. 15 EXHIBIT C AU: So you’ve never got any public notification? MALLICK: No. AU: Nothing in writing in the mail as a business owner, as a property owner? MALLICK: I don’t believe so, no. AU: Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Okay, thank you, folks. You may be seated. The last two people signed up to testify on this item are Nancy Cabral and Charlene Prickett. LEITHEAD TODD: Nancy left for another meeting. WOODWARD: Oh, okay. I’ve been informed that Ms. Cabral has left for another meeting. So, Ms. Prickett, if you’ll have a seat. And if I can swear you in, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth PRICKETT: I do. WOODWARD: Very good. If you’ll give us your name and address, and you may begin. PRICKETT: I’m Charlene Prickett. I live in Papaikou at 27-121 Mill Road. I just want to briefly say how impressed I am with Jeff Melrose and others who have put in so much time and effort into this process. And while I may not agree with everything that is in the proposal I am so respectful of their time and effort. As a Hamakuan I don’t want to see urban sprawl. And it strikes me that if ever there’s going to be a 10-story building on this side of the island it might best be in Downtown Hilo. I don’t want to see 10-story buildings or even 5-story buildings perhaps coming out the Hamakua coast. I think many of, most of us in Hamakua see that as a rural area and want to keep Hamakua rural. I think I heard you say, Mr. Domingo, that you wanted to see the urban moved to Hamakua. DOMINGO: You know, we have the General Plan which addresses all those concerns. PRICKETT: I know. DOMINGO: And it doesn’t need to be vigilant whenever we review the General -, when there’s a General Plan Review and -. PRICKETT: Absolutely. DOMINGO: Just watch the papers, see what comes up. 16 EXHIBIT C PRICKETT: I know that we have designated certain buildings in Hilo as historic. And while I sympathize with the landowners who feel that they’re losing potential and losing height, I would just throw this out on the table. It is often a convention in urban areas on the mainland when a building is designated as historic and worth preserving. That landowner is allowed to transfer his development rights to another site in the urban area, therefore, preserving his economic potential. And I’m not a planner, I’m not a developer, but I’m just wondering if you feel that if there is a historical area, if you designate an historical area of the Downtown that should be kept at a lower height, maybe if that needs to be done and is popular you might placate or, yes, you might placate those owners by offering them some other transfer of equal value. Do you see what I’m saying? Because although I don’t own any land Downtown I would be, I would be mortified if I bought land with a certain potential and then that potential were taken away from me. So I just wonder if there’s some reconciliation that might go on there. It seems to me that areas, that historic buildings and areas that are kept lower have to be supported by robust growth and development in surrounding structures, because it’s the growth and the development that draws in the people who would support the activities going on in historical structures or an historical area. So I’m less likely to be in favor of a blanket limitation on height, but one that is rather a little bit more judicial that considers case-by-case or area-by- area. But for sure it seems to me that you’ve got to have this robust economic development for Downtown economic health to have busy streets, vibrant streets. And I certainly support increased residential Downtown; and I don’t, it seems to me that largely now we have low- income residential. Well, I’m 64 and when I’m 84 I might well want to live Downtown where I’m close to services, close to shopping, near the hospital and can use an elevator. And we have young professionals who might want to locate their office Downtown and maintain their residence Downtown. Middle income people who would staff the businesses Downtown, and those people coming and going, I think Monica mentioned, that kind of traffic Downtown is what clamps down crime, criminals flee eyes. So I’m here as the devil’s advocate to encourage you to think very carefully about the disincentive of this blanket height restriction. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thanks for your testimony today. I don’t have a question as much as a comment. Lot of what you say I agree with in terms of what’s needed for revitalizing Downtown Hilo and, you know, make it better than today and probably better than how it ever was. I just want to make my last plug. One of the testifiers talked about, I guess it was Mr. Koehnen, how -. I guess my spin on it would be like crazy ideas come from very few crazy people, and I’m going to put myself in that category right now cause I, with regard to -. I view the County’s role in all of this, the primary role, as the only entity that can provide the infrastructure to really promote the accessibility, you know, to Downtown Hilo. And in the plans that we see, you know, parking is always brought up as a problem. And in my mind there’s really no way to practically solve that, you know, build enough garages to have enough cars come down to create the population. So in the long run when there’s three, four, five hundred thousand people living on this island I, my vision is that or my idea, I don’t know if it’s a vision, is that there needs to be train stations that stop in various places Downtown that provide the accessibility from around the island into 17 EXHIBIT C the Downtown area and allow the people that are going to live there in these multi-story buildings, and, you know, high density residential areas access to the other parts of the island. So I really think that in the long run we really need to be looking in the real big picture, right? I, in the break I talked to Mr. Koehnen. You know, he remembers the trains, right, before “46 when they were shut down after the tsunami, right, because the businessmen decided cost too much to rebuild the trellis that were damaged, you know, to support the train. But my mother, right, Mr. Domingo, after the, well, I guess my grandfather wasn’t really on the plantation but he could afford to put my mother on the train from Paauilo to come into the Hilo, right, to go Kress Store or whatever, shop, and do those things. But the train, you know, before ’46 was really an economic engine, if not one of the bigger economic engines, that drove the economics of Downtown. Right? It brought the people with the money in the pockets to spend. So I think looking forward, to me, that has to be a main component. Otherwise you’re talking about building freeways or bigger roads and more garages; and the model that one of the testifier talked about doesn’t really work. So I thank you for your testimony, giving me the opportunity to put my 1 ½ cents in. PRICKETT: Well, your idea of mass transit, I think it wouldn’t necessarily have to be a train, it could even be free shuttle buses throughout the Downtown. IWASHITA: It has to be a train. PRICKETT: You’re into trains. I got ya. WOODWARD: All right -. PRICKET: Thanks. WOODWARD: Any further questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. IWASHITA: Sorry, Mr. Chair, just -? WOODWARD: Yes. IWASHITA: Seriously, in Portland, in the metropolitan area of Portland, there’s half a million people, half a million people. Half of the population of Oahu, right? And for the last almost 40 years now, right, they’ve been implemented and put in their light rail transit system, and all of that. The fact of the matter is that where those trains stop, and they don’t stop at stations, right? They stop, I mean they stop on the street -. PRICKETT: On the corner. IWASHITA: On the corner, right? The property values in those areas have tripled or quadrupled right from before they put the train in. So, you know, in terms of revenue for the 18 EXHIBIT C County, right, guess what? We can, you know, in the long run it’s an investment. And it boggles my mind that Oahu -. And we as a State talk about how expensive it is to build the train on Oahu, which should have been done back then, too. And we had, Honolulu was at the top of the list to get a train built from Downtown to Hawaii Kai. Right? And they turned it down. Why? Cost too much money. You know, and it doesn’t, the economics really works out better. So thank you again for the opportunity to respond. PRICKETT: And of the great perks of living Downtown is not having to have a car. So if there’s a train, all the better. IWASHITA: Exactly. The redevelopment areas in Portland don’t allow parking spaces, or minimize parking spaces. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll make it short. I appreciate your comments, Ms. Prickett. I like your vision, I like your vision. And I was listening to the discussions and, you know, about the future, about the possibility to have trains or even monorails like they do in Portland. It’s all promising, you know, when you consider growth, the growth of an area, not only Hilo. But what I’m seeing and what I’m hearing is that you put in more restrictions, especially with Hilo Downtown, I think you curtail any future growth in that particular area and you limit its growth. And there’s no promise to its well-being in the future. And if we adopt a plan that would restrict growth with a lot of restrictions, with a lot of restrictions, then we do that and eventually as years go by we’ll see Hilo really being a dismal place. PRICKETT: Yeah, we don’t want an empty town, an empty Downtown. DOMINGO: No. It’ll be an empty town. But, you know, what I’m hearing today is, from a few who were bold enough to say, we don’t want the entire plan. I think two of you folks said that. And majority of the people here are saying that, you know, let’s do away with the, you know, you folks, the plan reduces the height limitation, we should consider at even bringing it up to its original height or perhaps even consider something higher, you know. If people, if owners in Downtown with shops and everything have any plans of growth and development and becoming successful, perhaps they can partner with some individuals in coming up with some plan and start building above the ground, as has been mentioned here today. PRICKETT: Well, I think, like Jeff though, it’s so, you know, it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Economically it’s just -. DOMINGO: Mine, too. But, you know, as we look in terms of the future, long-term development -. PRICKETT: Yeah, I’d like to, yeah -. DOMINGO: One that will benefit those who will be here, we’ve got to look at it in that sense. And, you know, I respect those who were talking about preservation of Downtown as it is and, 19 EXHIBIT C you know, we want to maintain the same lifestyle. You know, that’s a big decision that we’ve all got to make. You know, do we sit down and look at the beautiful place we live in but without jobs or any means of support or growth in the future for us? You know, it doesn’t seem to paint a real promising picture economically for us. But it’s inevitable that the future will bring more people here to the island. There’s no question about it. And there will be need for room for growth and everything. And growth can be taking place outside there; but bring the people Downtown or thereabouts with some new kind of development, you know. I have some visions of what a good development here would be, even with the fact that there’s some threat of tsunami inundation. But Hilo has its values, you know. PRICKETT: Absolutely. DOMINGO: It’s unique in its own way. PRICKETT: I don’t think anybody who came into this room today came without a passion for Hilo. DOMINGO: Oh, yeah. PRICKETT: That’s why these people took time out from their day, both people with -. And it all comes from a good place. DOMINGO: Thank you very much. WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have anybody else from the public that wanted to give testimony on this agenda item? Ms. Gagorik. GAGORIK: Is it good morning or good afternoon? WOODWARD: It’s afternoon actually. GAGORIK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Susan Gagorik. I’m a long-range planner in the County of Hawai‘i Planning Department. And I wanted to answer Commissioner Au’s question in regards to the notification of surrounding property owners. And the Planning th Department on February 4 did send notification to all the landowners in Downtown Hilo regarding the zoning change and the action plan update. So a copy of the draft ordinance was sent to landowners of record from the Department of Real Property, from that list. WOODWARD: Okay. Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you. Thank you for addressing that. I’m glad you came forth and you said something about that. You know, it’s great that everybody is here, that everybody is involved. You know, this is an exciting time for Hilo, even for the people who are against this height restriction. This is an exciting time for Hilo, you know. I looked at other developments, you know, around the United States, I just wanted to mention a few. You know, for example, 20 EXHIBIT C Commissioner Iwashita mentioned something in Portland. You know, I just want to mention Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado, even Fort Street Mall in Honolulu, you know, it all started off, it got developed, you know. And it is an exciting time for Hilo because, you know, we have a possibility to develop Hilo. And, you know, I’m very happy there’s a lot of people involved, seems like there are lot of people involved. There’s the Vision Keepers. You know, Downtown Hilo is huge, property owners. So, you know, it is an exciting time; and I look forward to see what’s going to happen because it will happen in my lifetime. ISHIBASHI: Well, thank you so much for bringing that to light because that was my concern on notifying the landowners over there. To be inclusive is the key when we start planning the future development of a cherished area like Hilo town, and the landowners should be part of that. Now we got a McDonalds going to come in where potentially we could have one, probably one bigger building. And housing and all of those things, we’re kind of missing the boat on that. But if you excuse yourself from the discussion, that’s some problem. You should be in there all the way to the end and protect your interest, instead of depending on us to make the changes that probably we can try and make. But you’ve got to be part of the solution. You’ve got to be part of the discussion. You’re got to be part of the involvement in your ideas, and protect the ideas to the very end before you come to us. To excuse yourself from the discussion is not helping. Cause I understand the height limitation that we’re trying to put into the plan or any changes to the plan. I think we should continue to be part of it. So I’m happy that the notices did go out. And if you choose not to participate, that’s your choice. To build in a tidal wave area and the tidal wave comes and take your building, you as a landowner, that’s your choice. If you get that money to spend, then so be it. But to take away that right from you, I can understand that argument. And this is going to be continued next time, two months from now. So let’s continue that discussion and see. But get involved, let us hear more about your concerns on these restrictions. Thank you. Thank you so much. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Rees, did you want to testify on this? REES: Very briefly on something another testifier brought up related to this subject. WOODWARD: Okay. If I can -. REES: It’s important. WOODWARD: Swear you in since this is a new meeting. REES: Okay. WOODWARD: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? REES: Yes, sir. I do. WOODWARD: Okay. Name and address and then you may begin. 21 EXHIBIT C REES; My name is Tim Rees, R-e-e-s, P. O. Box 1787, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778, mailing address. Hilo resident the past 22 years. I wanted to refer to something that Mr. Melrose brought up, and it’s real important. He mentioned about Chapter 27 and needing a revision. And there’s a very important aspect to that where Ms. Ford at the time she was really leading that project at the County Council, she went above and beyond. My understanding is that she went above and beyond the FEMA language. She was stating we’re just following FEMA language. And in one key critical point, she added in that there would be no fill in the flood zones, which actually she added in the language of coral and sand. And now I mentioned earlier Chapter 205A when you have, 205A encourages beach nourishment, beach replenishment, sand replenishment projects. It actively encourages that, artificial reefs and what have you.That provision that I believe Ms. Ford was the author of putting that extra language in our Flood Control Ordinance prohibits, according to County Ordinance, from replenishing sand at Reeds Bay Beach Park. We’re talking about revitalizing Hilo. Actually, I believe EnVision 2025 back in 1999 had a report on what they would like to see at Reeds Bay Beach Park; and one of those items was sand replenishment. So we need to get this stuff straighten out; and I appreciate Mr. Melrose bringing it up. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, any questions? Okay, seeing one, we still need a motion to continue this to the May meeting. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Item No. 4, amendments to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), Article 1, Section 25-1-5 (b) (Definitions), etc. be continued to the May meeting of the Windward Planning Commission. KERN: Second. WOODWARD: Okay. All right, motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, I think we can probably get by with a voice vote on this. All in favor aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WOODWARD: Any objection? Seeing none, okay, that motion passes. The discussion ended at 12:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 22 EXHIBIT C