2008-07-18 TKONACDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

BARLOW: Yeah, I know, I know, I saw that. ALAMEDA: Maybe you could put your minds together and figure something out. WATANABE: Very well. I believe -, probably the next person is Mr. Murata? Would you state your name and address, please. Please speak into the mike and then state your name and address, and then you may begin with your testimony.+ MURATA: Okay. My name is Harold Murata. My mailing address is Box 1752, Kealakekua. I reside in the Keauhou Mauka area near Donkey Mill Art Center and the Board of Water Supply; I live in that area. On the backside of the sheet, I have an excerpt of the Kona Community – yes, okay – under sub-item “Capital improvements and equipment.” I think this is, you know, important beef of the Plan; I’m talking about beef that’s edible and good stuff – that beef in a combative way. The 16 items shown there plan how to spend the money and what to th improve. That’s good. I support that. But I’d like to see a 17 item added into it; and this item would be capital expenditures for Mamalahoa Highway between Honalo and Palani Junction for operational and safety improvements. The impact of urbanization has changed the character of that Highway from low-volume country road to urban commuters and residents going back and forth more. And that is a country road, narrow, and it’s dangerous with more use; the road will be subject to accelerated erosion and fatigue. So that’s why I’m saying that. In the process of developing of this Plan itself, I attended the Transportation Working Group meetings, and I talked about this. But somehow my talk fell through a crack regardless of how it happened, it did fall through or it got filtered out – I don’t know. And I didn’t catch this until the final draft was prepared. Before the final draft there was an opportunity to review an earlier version of the draft; I don’t remember if I review that thoroughly, but somehow it fell through my crack also. A fervent advocate of the Plan told me that my point is not substantive enough, and that it’s not worthy of slowing down the process for revision. And I talked with avid fans and they told me, yeah, that Plan is imperfect, maybe faulty, and it is important to forge ahead with this Plan during this administration, that there would be a lot of problem in administrative protocol and, you know, that kind of stuff. So I said, okay, yeah. But I think more important than expedient passage is completion of the Plan with clarity. The formulation process deserves correct prevision of the project theme with reflective revisions as appropriate before finalization. The mantra of “get it approved now” is perhaps shortsighted. That’s it. That’s all I’ve got to say. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Murata? I might add one comment, Mr. Murata. You know, every plan is really a living document; and so potentially in the longer term, revisions will be made. And possibly, that road that you are talking about will revert back to a more of a rural type of traffic when some of the other improvements are put into place. I think a lot of people are now using that road as an alternate route only because some of the improvements that are suggested and have been EXHIBIT D 7