§205-17  Land use commission decision-making
criteria.  In its review of any petition for reclassification of district
boundaries pursuant to this chapter, the commission shall specifically consider
the following:



(1)  The extent to which the proposed reclassification
conforms to the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Hawaii state
plan and relates to the applicable priority guidelines of the Hawaii state plan
and the adopted functional plans;



(2)  The extent to which the proposed reclassification
conforms to the applicable district standards;



(3)  The impact of the proposed reclassification on
the following areas of state concern:



(A)  Preservation or maintenance of important
natural systems or habitats;



(B)  Maintenance of valued cultural,
historical, or natural resources;



(C)  Maintenance of other natural resources
relevant to Hawaii's economy, including agricultural resources;



(D)  Commitment of state funds and resources;



(E)  Provision for employment opportunities and
economic development; and



(F)  Provision for housing opportunities for
all income groups, particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap groups;



(4)  The standards and criteria for the
reclassification or rezoning of important agricultural lands in section 205-50;



(5)  The county general plan and all community,
development, or community development plans adopted pursuant to the county
general plan, as they relate to the land that is the subject of the
reclassification petition; and



(6)  The representations and commitments made by the
petitioner in securing a boundary change. [L 1985, c 230, §1; am L 1990, c 261,
§2; am L 2005, c 183, §6; am L 2008, c 26, §1]



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  The Scramble to
Protect the American Dream in Paradise:  Is Affordable Housing Possible in
Hawaii?  10 HBJ No. 13, at pg. 37.



  When Nobody Asks: 
The Toxic Legacy of Oahu's Pineapple Lands.  29 UH L. Rev. 553.



 



Case Notes



 



  In order to fulfill
its duty to preserve and protect customary and traditional native Hawaiian
rights to the extent feasible, the land use commission, in its review of a
petition for reclassification of district boundaries, must, at a minimum, make
specific findings and conclusions as to the identity and scope of the valued
cultural, historical, or natural resources, the extent those resources will be
affected or impaired by the proposed action, and any feasible action the
commission may take to reasonably protect such native Hawaiian rights if they
are found to exist.  94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.



  Where land use
commission allowed petitioner to direct the manner in which customary and
traditional native Hawaiian practices would be preserved and protected by the
proposed development, prior to any specific findings and conclusions by the
commission as to the effect of the proposed reclassification on such practices,
the commission failed to satisfy its statutory and constitutional obligations;
in delegating its duty to protect native Hawaiian rights, the commission
delegated a non-delegable duty and thereby acted in excess of its authority. 
94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.



  Where land use
commission failed to enter any definitive findings or conclusions as to the
extent of the native Hawaiian practitioners' exercise of customary and
traditional practices in the subject area nor made any specific findings or
conclusions regarding the effects on or the impairment of any Hawaii
constitution, article XII, §7 uses, or the feasibility of the protection of
those uses, the commission, as a matter of law, failed to satisfy its statutory
and constitutional obligations.  94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.