Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-31 TSEASCAPE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 SEASCAPE DEVELOPMENT, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SLU 07-000014/REZ 07-000064) was called to order at 11:21 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo C. Kimo Alameda Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Christopher Yuen, Planning Director And 16 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SEASCAPE DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 07-000014/ REZ 07-000064) Continuation of a Public Hearing on applications for the following: a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 10.001 acres of land from an Agricultural to an Urban District. b.Change of Zone for 10.001 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Multiple-Family Residential 1,000 square foot (RM-1a) district. The property is located south of the Kona Palisades Subdivision, approximately 1,200 feet south th of the extension of Kakahiaka Street, Kalaoa 5, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-10: 3. GRAHAM: The third item on our agenda today is, applicant is Seascape Development, LLC. There’s two parts to the application. One is a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 10.001 acres of land from the Ag to the Urban District. Another for the same 10 acres, a Change of Zone from Ag 5-a to a Multi-Family Residential 1,000 square foot. These are applications that we will be making a recommendation to the County Council who will make the final determination. This property is located south of the Kona Palisades Subdivision, 1,200 feet th south of the extension of Kakahiaka Street, in Kalaoa 5, North Kona. Jeff, please? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could bring your attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the North Kona district of Hawaii. More specifically we are looking at the new industrial area in this area. For reference we have Queen EXHIBIT C 1 Kaahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction. The red line in the middle of the highway is the special management area line. The special management area would be makai of that line. The other reference above on the top portion of the map, we have Mamalahoa Highway running in a north–south direction. Running in an east-west direction we have Kaiminani Drive, which is within the Kona Palisades Subdivision. Also to the south we have Hina Lani Street. The area of the application is identified by this red dot in this location. The applicant Seascape Development is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Multiple-Family Residential 1,000 square feet for 10.001 acres of land. The applicant has represented that this will be in a 100 percent affordable housing rental project that will be targeted mainly for the 60 percent of the median income level. The project tentatively consists of 18 three-story structures identified in yellow. This will consist of 90 studio units, 108 one-unit, one-bath, or one-room, one-bath units and 108 two-bedroom, one-bath units. For reference, we have Kakahiaka Street in this particular location. And if I might come back to the location map, the area of this application is within a parcel that was previously 50 acres in size. The parcel has been subsequently subdivided and made into four lots and a roadway lot. Previously in 2004 we had an application before the Planning Commission and the County Council for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Multiple-Family 4,000 square feet. The applicant who is the same applicant that we have before us today is in the process of constructing a 108 affordable housing, 108-unit affordable housing project called Seascape Condominiums. And, again, that’s located in this particular area on the site plan. There has been a question brought before the Commission regarding segmentation. At our last meeting we heard testimony from Executive Officer Tony Ching from the State Land Use Commission on the matter. Also at our last meeting, we also heard from Joel Gimpel of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. The Planning Director is recommending that both applications, the State land Use Boundary Amendment and the Change of Zone, receive a favorable recommendation to go to the Hawaii County Council from the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Jeff, I have one. I’ve written it down in the past but I cannot find it. What is the definition again of affordable housing? At what price range is that? DARROW: If I can direct this question to our Planning Director. Thank you. YUEN: The County has an overall ordinance on affordable housing, that’s Chapter 11 of the Hawaii County Code. And it requires developers to put in affordable housing. There’s a range that you can, there’s a range that’s considered affordable. And the developer will earn more credits if they build housing at the lower end of the range than at the upper end of the range. The complete range is, and this starts to get a little technical, housing affordable to families earning between 80 percent of the median income and 140 percent of the median income; so, and that’s for a family of four. In dollar terms the median income is, and I’m sorry, EXHIBIT C 2 then for rental units I believe you can get extra, going down to 60 percent of the median. But the median income now for a family of four is 55,000. So the target, the upper end of the group would be a family earning 77,000. The lower end would be a family earning 44,000. Then the for sale price and the for rent prices are also established in the ordinance. They vary. The for sale price, there’s a HUD guideline for how much a family, say, at the top end earning 77,000 a year can afford to pay in a mortgage. So that varies with the interest rates. You know, you have a lower interest rate, you can afford a more expensive unit. With a, you know, if you want ballpark numbers, with a 6 percent interest rate roughly you could, the family could pay roughly four times, could afford a unit costing roughly four times their annual income. So a family of four earning 77,000, roughly 300, 310 would be the top end for a for sale unit. Okay? Now getting back to the credits, if you make a unit at a, that’s for sale at 140 percent of the median, you only get half a credit. Okay? If you make it 120 percent of the median you get a full credit. So, and 120 percent of median family is 66,000 a year. Now this is a for rent project and there’s HUD guidelines for rentals that are adjusted to the local conditions by the Office of Housing and Community Development. So there will be a guideline as to the rental that’s affordable at 80 percent of median. And there’s a table on that. I don’t have, I don’t think we made that part of this. But there is a table as to what would be the income, I mean, the monthly rental limits with and without utilities for units in order to earn the, to be considered affordable and earn the credits. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: That’s great. Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Chris, also, the understanding is that these affordable housing credits are sort of like a negotiable quantity. So the developer in this case, in addition to collecting rent or whatever he does, he also has a revenue source from being able to sell these credits to other developers in the region. Is that correct? YUEN: If they do more affordable housing than they’re required, then they can sell the excess credits to another developer within a 15-mile radius of their project, 15-miles measured on a straight line from their project. So if you have another developer out there who may have an affordable housing requirement that doesn’t want to do it within their own project, they can make a deal with this project, for example, and take some of their credits if they, you know, if this project as is planned earns extra credits.And this is, in effect, a subsidy to the affordable project that is doing, you know, more than it is required to do. So this was, there were some excess credits sold in relation to the Seascape project, which this developer did earlier. GRAHAM: Thank you. Anything further from the Commissioners? All right, the applicant could come forward at this time. And I don’t have any testifiers signed up yet, so if anyone wants to testify on this project please fill out the slip and leave it at the desk. Do you all swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. EXHIBIT C 3 GRAHAM: Thank you. And whoever would care to begin, you may give your testimony. Mr. Tsukazaki, and start with your name and address, please. TSUKAZAKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning to you all. My name is Ben Tsukazaki. I’m representing the applicant in this action, Seascape Development, LLC. My address is 142 Kapaa Street, Hilo, Hawaii. With me here is Alan Dickler, the representative from Seascape, and also Ms. Makani Maeva, who is a Director with Pacific Housing Advisors. Pacific Housing Advisors has joined with Seascape in this particular project; and Pacific Housing Advisors is very well experienced in this particular kind of affordable housing project, meaning rental project. So she is here today in the event that you should have any questions regarding the ultimate development and operation of that kind of project. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Tsukazaki. Mr. Dickler, do you have any presentation you’d like to make? DICKLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. No, I don’t have any specific presentation. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have some questions? Mr. Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question. You know, there’s quite a few units; and, well, first of all, I think it’s a great project. But do you have the water secured for this? TSUKAZAKI: As the Director’s recommendation indicates, and this was also stated in our application, the Department of Water Supply has agreed to provide water for this project from the existing County water system on Kakahiaka Street. It will need to be extended into the project. WATANABE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You don’t have to answer, but I’m just curious again. So what would be the rent then, or range of, if you can give me a range. I know the Director mentioned a chart. DICKLER: We just gave Chris the chart. If you can hand it over -. YUEN: Let me give you your chart back. ALAMEDA: And this is just for prac -. GRAHAM: Mr. Tsukazaki, maybe you could just read into the record what you have there. ALAMEDA: Yeah. And this is just for practical reasons in case somebody asks me in the future what defines affordable I have a ballpark figure. EXHIBIT C 4 DICKLER: Based on the 60 percent of median income the studio will rent for 654, the one-bedroom for 700 and the two-bedroom for 941, including utilities. ALAMEDA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Dickler. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Yeah. At our last meeting we heard from Mr. Ching who’s the chairman of the Land Use Commission; and it was his contention that because this is a staged development which is eventually going to occupy more than the 10 acres, in fact 10 acres have already been approved, you’re asking for approval for another 10, and you’ve got two more 10- acre sites, that he felt that this matter should be addressed by the Land Use Commission. And I know that you spoke with him at the last meeting. Where do you stand in that regard? GRAHAM: Mr. Tsukazaki, go ahead. TSUKAZAKI: Thank you. Mr. Woodward, at this point we do not agree with Mr. Ching’s interpretation of the law; and if you need for us to go into that we will. But suffice it to say that I did follow up with Mr. Ching as well a couple of times after the last meeting. My last conversation with him was two days ago, Tuesday afternoon. And what he told me was that, I think there had been some mention either on the record or off the record at the last meeting that Seascape had submitted an application for what’s called a 201H project approval, and that is under State law. That’s an approval for a project that will involve over 50 percent of its units at the affordable income ranges and also that will be using Davis Bacon wages. And what his statement to me was, is that, well, you know, in light of the efforts to get certification as a 201H project, he considers that completely different and his comments would not be applicable, because he recognizes that as a special type of a project. In fact, that agency’s own rules provide for special expedited treatment of a 201H project. GRAHAM: Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. If I might -. GRAHAM: Go ahead. WOODWARD: Follow-up with one other question. At the last meeting we also heard from concerned residents, I guess, in the Kona Palisades area about traffic impact; and I notice in the report here there was a traffic impact analysis report that says a number of things. But what it does say “we have some concern that that the study may underestimate the number of Kaiminani Street trips distributed to Kakahiaka Street. The Department of Transportation states the TIAR submitted by the applicant…did not account for any traffic increase due to the UH West Hawaii Campus or the Palamanui project.” So there are concerns about traffic. And I was wondering if you had any more specific statements in that regard. GRAHAM: Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI: Yes. May I just pause for a minute? EXHIBIT C 5 GRAHAM: Sure. TSUKAZAKI: Right, I believe you’re referring to Joel Gimpel’s letter. The traffic impact analysis was based upon an assumption on the increase in regional traffic based upon a factor provided by the Department of Public Works. That is based upon, I believe, a 3.5 percent annual growth factor. So the methodology of that analysis anticipated additional regional growth, and arguably accounts for the kind of projected increase in regional traffic that would be projected for some of those other projects. So I think in reality, Mr. Woodward, it’s difficult to keep the snapshot current at all times because when the traffic analysis, traffic impact analysis is done the engineer is taking into account the most relevant information at that particular time. By the time that that report is reviewed and comes to public hearing, perhaps there may be, you know, some other information indicating that some other sources of traffic should be taken into account. So it’s not intended to be very exact in terms of numbers. These are projections based upon the best information available at that time. WOODWARD: Well, if I might just follow-up briefly, this came from the background information we got from the Planning Department; and it came from, on our background information to be page 7, Item No. 24, traffic impact analysis report. It’s a report titled “Lokahi Kau Subdivision, Kailua-Kona,…Revision to Traffic Impact Analysis of December 2005” and this was dated January, 2007 prepared by Witcher Engineering, LLP. And it goes on to describe and it does mention assuming a 3.5 growth factor, etc., etc. In a memo th dated May 7 the DPW, Department of Public Works, has stated “that we have some concern that the study may underestimate the number of Kaiminani Street trips distributed to Kakahiaka Street.” So it comes from a memo from the Department of Public Works. And, “The Department of Transportation states that the TIAR submitted by the applicant referenced an outdated ITE Trip Generation Manual which not account for any traffic increase due to the UH West Hawaii Campus or the Palamanui project.” So that’s where it came from. It didn’t come from a letter. It came from the background information we got from the Planning Department. GRAHAM: Mr. Tsukazaki, go ahead. TSUKAZAKI: Yes. And if that is the source, then I am mistaken and I apologize for that. You know, I think that, I think where we are right now is that if those agencies take exception to certain parts of the traffic impact analysis then it is appropriate for them to make that kind of input and hopefully offer this body some specific findings as to what they believe the projected traffic should be and make some recommendations as to the kinds of improvements that should be made in the future. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I have a question. You know, we’re talking about a little over 100 units. About how long do you anticipate it will take you to build this entire project out? GRAHAM: Mr. Dickler? EXHIBIT C 6 DICKLER: Mr. Watanabe, just to correct you, we’re talking a little over 300 units. WATANABE: Excuse me, yeah. DICKLER: We would anticipate, with utilizing some of the techniques that we’ve perfected in our previous affordable project, we’ll build this project from start to finish in 18 months. WATANABE: Oh, so pretty short timeframe then. DICKLER: Yes. WATANABE: I have a follow-up question, and I don’t know if you have the answer to this. But the widening of Queen K, the second phase, that is budgeted and it does front your property, right? And it is scheduled, I think, within the next two years, am I correct? DICKLER: I’d defer that to Public Works. GRAHAM: Maybe Mr. Yuen could address that more easily. Chris? YUEN: Well, as you know, the Phase I which is, the Phase I widening which is Henry Street to Kealakeha Parkway is underway. Phase II widening is funded in the State Transportation improvement plan. I don’t have the date in my head but it is funded in the next few, you know, the next couple of years’ cycle. So, and that would be from Kealakehe Parkway to the Airport. And it would pass the entrance, you know, pass Kaiminani, and improve the access along the main highway getting up to the property from Kailua-Kona side. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Go ahead, Mr. Tsukazaki. TSUKAZAKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to add that that particular information is included in the Traffic Impact Report that was provided with the application, just to acknowledge that regional improvements are in the -. WATANABE: Scheduled? TSUKAZAKI: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. About, one last follow-up. About how great a distance is it from where you would enter the Palisades Road and move on down to Queen K? How, what kind of distance is that, a mile? DICKLER: One mile. WATANABE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Do we have any further questions from Commissioners? EXHIBIT C 7 RHO: Yes, I do. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Rho. RHO: I’m actually reading the minutes from our last meeting; and I don’t know that you have access to it, but it’s on page 6 of Exhibit B. And it’s actually going back to this traffic situation. But Mr. Gimpel talks about the TIAR on page 7. And he says that that traffic report was done, or he refers to it as old, a year and a half years old. So do you folks have a response to that, or his comment about that? DICKLER: Yes. GRAHAM: Mr. Dickler. DICKLER: The report actually was updated in January of 2007. Mr. Gimpel, it references a traffic count from 2005, but the report itself was updated and submitted. The report that was submitted along with the application was done in January of 2007. RHO: And then on page 6 he refers to a single access. So, I kind of missed the discussion, I was distracted. But is there going to be in the future more than one access to that, I don’t want to call it a subdivision but to that property? GRAHAM: Mr. Dickler, go ahead. DICKLER: To the property, after Mr.Gimpel’s comments, we said that we would provide secondary access to the property itself, and then in the future there will be other roadways that are planned in the future to access Kakahiaka Street. So there’s two. RHO: So I guess my real question is whether or not there will be access to Queen K -. DICKLER: Directly? RHO: No, no, I’m not saying directly. But are there going to be other roads that your project can actually access into Queen K without going onto Kaiminani? GRAHAM: Mr. Dickler? DICKLER: At this point, no. There is no other access to Queen K. RHO: No, no, no. But I’m asking in the future. DICKLER: No, there -. RHO: As far as you know there are no plans -? DICKLER: As far as we know there are no plans on the south side of Kaiminani to access directly to Queen K. At some future point the mid-level road, which has a EXHIBIT C 8 name and I can’t remember it, is planned, will connect to Hina Lani in the future; and that would be another access point down, going south. RHO: So that mid-line road going to be below your proposed -? DICKLER: Yes, just below. RHO: Project or above? DICKLER: Just below, just below. RHO: Just below. And then my -. GRAHAM: Go ahead, Mr. Rho. RHO: My last comment or question is having to do with page 6 again and the parking. And he testified that your parking stall number is or meets the County requirement. But he had concerns that it wasn’t really realistic, given the fact that you have 306 units. So do you folks have any comments about that? GRAHAM: Mr. Dickler? DICKLER: Yes. No. 1, I believe that it’s, we exceed the County requirements. We put, we did in fact include extra parking to exceed the County requirements on this. We are maxed out. And because of the nature of the project at 60, we are tapping the residents at 60 percent of median income, the actual number of vehicles per family is much less because they can’t afford the extra vehicles on their own limited income basis. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Dickler. I also want to just point out the reason I keep sticking my nose in and calling out names is that we are transcribing this and I think it makes it easier if we do that. Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I think it would be useful to, on Commissioner Rho’s questions. just to talk for a minute about both the local traffic circulation from this and the longer range aspect of this. And, I think, just to mention the local aspect for a minute and then I’m going to go up on the board and talk about the regional. I think it’s useful for the Commission to understand this. There’s two ways into the project. There would be two ways into the project from Kaiminani. One would be directly across from Kakahiaka, the street that goes straight in. But then there’s also a street where, what they’ve constructed up -. Maybe you can point out where that would be, Jeff. At the bottom of Palisades there’s a portion, they’ve constructed a portion of what the County calls a mid-level road. I’ll show you what that’s supposed to do later. And then that, there’s a stub from the Lokahi Subdivision which has kind of a loop road; and it connects down to that mid-level road. So you can, say if you’re coming up Kakahiaka, I mean, sorry, Kaiminani, you could turn right on the mid-level road and come up through the Lokahi Subdivision, then turn right on Kakahiaka and get to this project area. Or you could go straight, you can just go straight on Kakahiaka. So there’s two ways of doing that. And then as far as the overall plan, I think, I don’t really need to take it up there. But the mid-level road is a road that comes from the end of where Henry Street hits Palani and there’s a water tank; and it basically EXHIBIT C 9 goes parallel to Queen Kaahumanu and ends up at, well, it would come all the way to this point at Kaiminani. The County has an environmental assessment going on right now to construct the first leg of that which would be from Palani to Kealakehe Parkway, just below the High School. Now so then going north Palamanui has a requirement that they construct the portion of the mid- level that goes from Kaiminani north to their access road, which is a mile or so north. So it would be, for people in this area, if you know, if and when that’s built, for people in this area they have another way to get to Queen Kaahumanu and go north. They could either go straight down Kaiminani like they do now or they could take a right on the mid-level road, go a bit north, and hit the Palamanui Road, and then come down to Queen Kaahumanu. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Do we have any further questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Tsukazaki, all the conditions that are in the Department’s recommendation, are they all acceptable? TSUKAZAKI: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, although I’d like to remark that as to the fair share contributions that are one of those, we would hope that given the nature of the project we’d be able to seek some relief from that when we get to the County Council level. We understand that the Planning Director is following protocol in recommending that be imposed and it’s -. I believe this body understands that to achieve a project which is targeting this income group, it’s not an easy proposition; and so the challenge is to be able to do a project that is properly designed for the health and welfare of its tenants, while also making sure that it’s economically feasible. And the fair share requirements as you know at this point approximate about $10,000 per unit. So it’s quite an expense for a project of this kind. So it’s just to state on the record that, so that you know that we would like to pursue that issue at the County Council level. And, all right -. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Tsukazaki, for being forthcoming in that regard. I appreciate it. Anything further from Commissioners? All right, we still don’t have anybody signed up to hear public testimony, so I guess we can close the hearing at this time. You folks can go back and we can move into our action process. WATANABE: Okay. GRAHAM: Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I’ll be willing to make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for State Land Use Boundary Amendment application (SLU 07-000014), based on the Director’s recommendations. IWASHITA: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion from the Commissioners? Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I obviously have some reservations. But I think the greater good will be served by approving this project, so I will vote in favor of it. But I do hope that the developer is serious about trying to mitigate traffic problems, even though EXHIBIT C 10 we have not stipulated that as such in one of our conditions. And I’m not sure that what we’re doing is more than an exercise, if in fact this does have to go before the Land Use Commission. But, again, I think it will serve the greater good. I do hope the developer is serious about mitigating traffic problems, but I do plan on voting for the measure. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Woodward, and thank you for your careful scrutiny of this application which benefits us all. ALAMEDA: I just want to say some -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just to comment as well about affordable housing -. I think it’s important, no doubt. But affordable housing does lend itself to greater density, which then lend itself to possibly commercial development. So, you know, kind of along the lines of Commissioner Woodward. I am voting in favor of the motion, but just to keep those impacts in mind. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Any further comments before we take a vote? All right, thank you. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve or to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. EXHIBIT C 11 GRAHAM: All right. We now have the rezoning before us. Would, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that the change of zone, a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Change of Zone Application REZ 07-000064 based on the Director’s recommendations. IWASHITA: Second. GRAHAM: Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita, for a favorable recommendation on the Change of Zone. Any discussion by the Commissioners? Thank you, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone to the Hawaii County Council. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you. You folks will be notified. TSUKAZAKI: Thank you very much. EXHIBIT C 12 The discussion ended at 11:59 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary A T T E S T: Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 13