HB1710 makes several changes to Hawaii’s historic preservation review process under chapter 6E, HRS. It revises the definition of a “complete submittal” for historic preservation review, replacing the prior permit-set/drawing-set requirement with an application number and adding more detailed documentation requirements, including site plans, scopes of work, photographs, maps, prior surveys or literature reviews, building permit applications for certain projects, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs consultation materials for projects with high potential effect levels.
The bill also changes how the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) reviews private-property projects and government-permitted projects that may affect historic properties, aviation artifacts, or burial sites. It authorizes phased review for large, restricted, or staged projects, sets deadlines for SHPD to issue written concurrence or non-concurrence, and provides that if SHPD does not act within the deadline after a certified complete submittal, the applicant or lead agency may assume concurrence and proceed. It also tolls the review period when an application is incomplete and requires follow-up procedures if project scope changes or new historic resources are discovered after review.
For certain residential and mixed-use transit-oriented development projects, the bill expands and refines the programmatic review framework. Counties and the Hawaii Community Development Authority are directed to work with SHPD to identify parcels and rights-of-way near mass transit stations, classify them by risk to historic properties, and adopt permitting memoranda and best practices. Parcels rated in the lower two risk categories may be treated as compliant for later approvals if development follows the agreed best practices and reaches substantial construction by June 30, 2036, while highest-risk parcels still require referral to SHPD. The bill also extends the timeline for this transit-oriented development planning process to January 1, 2028.
HB1710 further narrows when section 6E-42 applies to older privately owned single-family detached dwellings and townhouses. Under the bill, a project on a dwelling or townhouse over 50 years old is subject to SHPD review only if the property is listed or nominated for the Hawaii or national register of historic places, is located in a historic district, or involves ground-disturbing activity on a property with previously identified burials or cemeteries. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, and is structured to work alongside Act 306, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025.
The overall sentiment appears broadly favorable and procedural rather than controversial, as reflected by unanimous committee votes in the Senate Water, Land, and Agriculture, Senate Judiciary, and conference committees. The main policy tension is between streamlining development approvals—especially for housing and transit-oriented projects—and preserving historic, archaeological, and burial resources. The bill’s supporters appear to favor clearer deadlines, phased review, and reduced delay, while preservation interests are reflected in the continued referral requirements for high-risk parcels, consultation requirements, and protections for burial sites and newly discovered historic resources.
HB1710 amends chapter 6E, HRS, by tightening and clarifying the documentation needed for historic preservation review, establishing tolling rules for incomplete applications, setting enforceable review deadlines, and allowing assumed concurrence when SHPD misses those deadlines. It also expands the use of phased and programmatic review for certain projects, especially transit-oriented residential and mixed-use development, while preserving SHPD oversight for higher-risk parcels and burial discoveries. The bill changes the review threshold for older single-family homes and townhouses, limiting when those projects must undergo historic preservation review.
The bill appears to have received strong support in committee and conference, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes and no recorded opposition in the provided history. The tone of the measure is pragmatic and administrative, focusing on speeding up review timelines and providing more certainty for applicants while maintaining historic preservation safeguards. The absence of recorded dissent suggests the bill was viewed as a negotiated compromise rather than a sharply divisive proposal.
The central point of contention is the balance between development efficiency and historic preservation. Developers, counties, and housing-related entities are likely to support the bill’s deadlines, assumed concurrence provisions, and streamlined treatment for lower-risk transit-oriented parcels, while preservation advocates may be concerned that shorter timelines and deemed approval could reduce SHPD’s ability to fully evaluate impacts. Another likely area of concern is the narrowed review trigger for older private homes, which could limit preservation review unless the property is formally recognized, nominated, in a historic district, or associated with burials or cemeteries. The bill addresses these concerns by preserving referral requirements for highest-risk parcels and by retaining special procedures for burial sites and newly discovered historic resources.