HHF Action Alert: Preservation Bills at State Legislature
Allison Lawrence
Aloha,
The 2009 Legislative Session has begun and several bills related to historic preservation have been offered. HHF will provide ACTION ALERTS when relevant bills are scheduled for public hearings to ask for your input to decision-makers. You can also monitor all the bills and HHF’s positions though the “legislative session” link at www.historichawaii.org
Three bills have been scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 4, at the Senate’s Economic Development and Technology Committee. HHF is alerting its members to these bills and asking that you contact the EDT Committee to OPPOSE the sections of SB1672 that undermine the State’s powers to protect historic resources and SUPPORT the sections of SB954 and SB787 that offer technical corrections to current code requirements for photo-documentation of historic buildings.
Sample testimony that can be personalized is pasted below. Links to the hearing notices, the text of the bills and instructions for submitting testimony can be found at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/hearingnotices/HEARING_EDT_02-04-09_.HTM
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/hearingnotices/HEARING_EDT-TIA_02-04-09_.HTM
These three bills are related to a law that was enacted last year that requires owners of historic buildings to provide archival-quality black and white photographs of any building older than 50 years to SHPD prior to demolition, construction, or other alteration (Act 228, SLH 2008). However, SB1672 goes beyond that scope and would undermine the State’s ability to review and concur with projects that prior to demolition or alteration of buildings that are listed on the Hawai‘i State or National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, HHF is opposing that section of the bill.
HHF supports the sections of all 3 bills that would provide technical corrections to Act 228. The intent of the photo-documentation law is to build a photographic record of the built environment of Hawai‘i, capturing images of the historic buildings prior to permitting construction or demolition activities that would alter or destroy them. However, the Act included overly broad language that does not differentiate those structures that meet the requirements of inclusion on the state register of historic places from those that do not. It also does not include definitions of the types of permits that represent substantial alteration, and it does not include standards and protocols for the types of the photographs that would meet the legislative intent.
Thank you for continuing to support the preservation of the historic sites that are essential to Hawai‘i.
SAMPLE TESTIMONY: SB1672
VIA EMAIL: EDTtes...@capitol.hawaii.gov
To:
Senator Carol Fukunaga, Chair
Senator Rosalyn H. Baker, Vice Chair
Committee on Economic Development and Technology
Senator J. Kalani English, Chair
Senator Mike Gabbard, Vice Chair
Committee of Transportation, International and Intergovernmental Affairs
From:
Committee Date:
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2:00 pm
Conference Room 016
I am writing in opposition to some provisions in SB1672 related to amending current law that requires the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to review and concur with projects that may affect historic property.
Although I support efforts to provide technical corrections to current law related to photo-documentation of buildings over 50 years old, SB1672 goes well beyond that scope and would undermine other powers and responsibilities related to SHPD’s mandate to protect historic sites.
SB1672 Section 2 would reduce the timeframe for SHPD to review effects on buildings that are both eligible for and listed on the Hawai‘i or National Registers of Historic Places from 90 days to 30 days for commercial structures and 15 days for single family dwellings. Absent review and concurrence, projects would be automatically approved.
The historic preservation division is already drastically understaffed and underfunded, with only one employee in the Architectural Branch to conduct these reviews. With hiring for staff positions frozen and under threat of being eliminated entirely, the State is in danger of losing its standing under federal law to implement the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. SB1672 would compound this problem by severely reducing the amount of time for the division to do its work.
Causing further damage, SB1672 Section 2 would also change the applicability for all reviews (not just for the purposes of photo-documentation) from “construction or other alteration” to “major alteration” for both designated historic structures and those that are eligible for designation. While some professional judgment needs to be used to address the workload for the State, it needs to be done thoughtfully and deliberately, in a way that does not compromise the safeguards for Hawai‘i’s irreplaceable historic legacy. If the current net is too broad, this proposed amendment is too narrow. In seeking efficiency, the State must not sacrifice effective mechanisms to protect historic resources.
I respectfully ask that SB1672 Section 2 be stricken and that the bill be amended to address only technical corrections to the photo-documentation contained in Sections 3 and 4.
SAMPLE TESTIMONY: SB954 and SB787
VIA EMAIL: EDTtes...@capitol.hawaii.gov
To:
Senator Carol Fukunaga, Chair
Senator Rosalyn H. Baker, Vice Chair
Committee on Economic Development and Technology
From:
Committee Date:
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
1:15 pm
Conference Room 016
Subject:
SB954, Relating to Photographs of Historic Buildings
SB787, Relating to Historic Preservation
I am writing to support elements of two bills (SB954 and SB787) related to providing technical corrections to current law that requires owners of historic buildings to provide archival-quality black and white photographs of any building older than 50 years prior to demolition, construction, or other alteration.
The intent of the photo-documentation law is to build a photographic record of the built environment of Hawai‘i, capturing images of the historic buildings prior to permitting construction or demolition activities that would alter or destroy them. However, the Act included overly broad language that does not differentiate those structures that meet the requirements of inclusion on the state register of historic places from those that do not. It also does not include definitions of the types of permits that represent substantial alteration, and it does not include standards and protocols for the types of the photographs that would meet the legislative intent.
Not all historic buildings have the level of significance that would necessitate preservation or restoration. In addition, many alteration and rehabilitation activities are benign or beneficial for the maintenance, repair and preservation of historic structures. For both ineligible buildings and insubstantial work, high quality photographs are unnecessary and present an undue burden to both applicants and government agencies.
For those structures which are historically significant and for which substantial alteration, addition or demolition is proposed, the public benefit is served by having a state depository of photographic documentation for future study, understanding the context of the site, historic analysis and a complete architectural record. For projects of this kind, technical specifications based on nationally-accepted standards should be used to provide predictability and consistency.