2006-07-06_Memorandum_re_Puu_Lani_Ranch

Home

the destruction. ROA at 114 -115 and 118 — 119, respectively. In the meantime, the Planning Director refused to give clearance for any building permit on the lot because of the non-compliance with the requirements of the subdivision approval,pending the investigation into who was responsible. ROA at 114 -115 and 118 — 119,respectively. Rather than provide the requested information to the Planning Director, which was known by Mr. Bohnett at that time, PLRC asked its attorney to respond to the Planning Director's letter by stating that PLRC "has no objection to the disappearance of the site" or"to any bulldozing that occurred on the property," and that PLRC "has the right to do as [it] pleases with the site or feature." ROA at 122-123. However, Mr. Bohnett had previously stated in a letter dated September 18, 2003, that"[w]e are doing our best to comply with all of the policies and regulations of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division." ROA at 104-105. In that same letter, Mr. Bohnett stated that"[t]he present policy for building now requires that the builder get approval from the DLNR-SHPD before he receives his grading permit." ROA at 104-105. At the end of that same letter, Mr. Bohnett stated that"[w]e will continue to do all that we can to help enforce this policy of obtaining approval before construction." ROA at 104-105. The historic preservation process, for this project and generally, requires an "inventory survey" (to find out what is there and determine what is significant), and a "preservation plan" (sometimes called"mitigation".) Section 13-277-2 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) defines "mitigation" as "the measures taken to minimize impacts to significant historic properties." The preservation plan would normally include i i things like recording an easement around the site, marking it with yellow tape prior to 3