Governor Josh Green’s signing of Senate Bill 15, now known as Act 293, has prompted significant alarm among Native Hawaiians, archaeologists, and members of the Oʻahu Historic Preservation Commission. This legislation is seen as a critical rollback of decades-long efforts aimed at protecting Hawaii’s cultural and historical heritage.
The new law significantly reduces the number of properties that are required to undergo a multi-phase review prior to any development, a process designed to mitigate the impact of construction on historically significant sites. Proponents of the bill argue that the historic review process can take up to six months, placing a considerable burden on efforts to address Hawaii’s pressing housing shortages.
Previously, the definition of “historic” included any property over 50 years old, which many supporters claimed was overly inclusive. However, the newly enacted SB 15 narrows this definition within Hawaii’s legal framework to only cover structures or sites over 50 years old that qualify for the Hawaiʻi Register of Historic Places. Criteria for listing include links to significant historical events, notable individuals, or distinctive architecture.
Moreover, the bill introduces an exemption clause for areas deemed “nominally sensitive,” allowing developers to proceed with projects in regions already heavily disrupted by prior excavation or construction—where significant historic sites haven’t been previously identified.
In practical terms, this means that renovation and expansion projects for private single-family homes and townhouses can bypass the historic preservation review unless they are located in historic districts or are at least 50 years old and earmarked for state or national registration.
Critics argue that these exemptions essentially enable developers to ignore the historical or cultural significance of many properties, as warned by Meahalani Cypher, a member of the Oʻahu Historic Preservation Commission. According to Cypher, this opens the floodgates for potential destruction of vital historic and cultural sites, including land where iwi kūpuna—ancestral remains—could be discovered.
Initially, the preservation commission supported the former version of SB 15, which emphasized safeguarding sites linked to Native Hawaiian cultural practices, traditional beliefs, and oral histories of various ethnic groups. Yet, the final version of the bill omitted these critical elements, leading to opposition from the commission, the Historic Hawai’i Foundation, and even the Department of Land and Natural Resources, who expressed their concerns at the last moment.
To make matters more complex, SB 15 was one of two historic preservation measures on Green’s intent-to-veto list published on June 6. The other measure, SB 66, provisions a streamlined permitting process for builders and developers who haven’t received a permit within 60 days.
Initially, Governor Green’s rationale for placing SB 15 on his veto list was focused on the inadequate consideration of properties that had never undergone historic reviews yet may contain significant artifacts or ancestral remains. However, on July 3, he ultimately decided to sign both pieces of legislation.
Cypher voiced deep concerns about the ramifications of SB 15, stating that it could enable significant losses of cultural and historic treasures to developers. She pointed out that the state’s historic preservation laws have been severely compromised through the new measures. Cypher expressed disbelief that the governor failed to fully grasp the implications of signing such legislation.
When Civil Beat sought clarification from the governor’s office regarding this decision, they received a statement from Makana McClellan, the communications director. The statement indicated that the inclusion of the bill on the intent-to-veto list provided an opportunity for thorough research on the bill’s implications.
According to McClellan, SB 15 aims to streamline construction on residential properties and “nominally sensitive” areas, all while maintaining the integrity of the state’s historic preservation program review process. She further asserted that all existing laws related to historic preservation and the culturally sensitive treatment of iwi kūpuna remain in effect.
Supporters of the bill, like Ted Kefalas of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaiʻi, argue that the concerns from the preservation advocates are exaggerated and that SB 15 favors genuine heritage sites. Kefalas stressed that not every building older than 50 years holds historical significance.
He claimed the newly refined definition encourages focus on properties with actual historic or cultural relevance rather than merely being old. A common point raised by both proponents and opponents of the bill is the prolonged duration of reviews conducted by the State Historic Preservation Division.
In a written testimony to SB 15, Kefalas noted that an analysis of the division’s data from 2021 to 2024 revealed an average review time of 94 days, with some cases taking up to 171 days. Alarmingly, the agency was only able to review half of the applications it received during that timeframe, largely because counties had submitted projects involving any structures or sites over the age of 50.
This raises the question: if properties lack documented historical or cultural significance, will historic reviews be effective? Kefalas posited that practical exploration may be necessary to ascertain a site’s relevance, suggesting that at times, it may require physical investigation before understanding historical potential.
Archaeologist Nick Belluzzo pointed out that busy development areas such as Kakaʻako and Waikīkī, which have seen extensive ground disturbance over the past century, would now be classified as “nominally sensitive” and exempt from historic reviews under the new legislation. He cautioned that this does not imply the absence of iwi kūpuna in the soil, just that the burial sites might not be intact and can be more challenging to identify.
Belluzzo noted that developers face inherent financial risks should they choose to bypass the historic review process. In cases where remains are discovered during construction, they have an obligation to report the finds and halt all work, which he stated often leads to increased costs and delays.
“From my experience, it costs more, creates additional delays, and causes significant issues to address burial desecrations afterward, as opposed to addressing them beforehand,” Belluzzo remarked. He acknowledged the pressing need for housing in Hawaii but suggested that a more effective solution would entail providing the preservation division with enhanced resources and staffing rather than undermining existing historic preservation processes.
There may be potential solutions arising from ongoing discussions about rebuilding Lahaina, where broader monitoring plans are being considered that would encompass larger areas. Instead of requiring individual plans for each homeowner, a more centralized approach could alleviate some of the burdens on the preservation division’s review process.
In response to the new bill, Mana Caceres, a lineal and cultural descendant of iwi kūpuna in Kakaʻako and Waikīkī, expressed frustration, stating that SB 15 undermines the established processes that allow his family to better care for their ancestors. He lamented that the state does not recognize the significance of iwi and ancestors as actual people, highlighting a fundamental disconnect in how the government engages with cultural heritage matters.
A recent incident showcasing the consequences of bypassing established review processes involved the desecration of iwi kūpuna during construction at a site on Ke Iki Road on Oʻahu’s North Shore. Caceres noted that such events could become the norm as a result of SB 15.
While Caceres acknowledges the urgent need for housing development, he firmly believes it does not have to come at the expense of preserving cultural heritage. “If we’re all human beings, whether we’re in the ground or above the ground, we should strive to find a way forward that respects all human beings,” he concluded.
image source from：civilbeat
