§205-17  Land use commission decision-makingcriteria.  In its review of any petition for reclassification of districtboundaries pursuant to this chapter, the commission shall specifically considerthe following:

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

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

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

(A)  Preservation or maintenance of importantnatural systems or habitats;

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

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

(D)  Commitment of state funds and resources;

(E)  Provision for employment opportunities andeconomic development; and

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

(4)  The standards and criteria for thereclassification 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 countygeneral plan, as they relate to the land that is the subject of thereclassification petition; and

(6)  The representations and commitments made by thepetitioner 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 toProtect the American Dream in Paradise:  Is Affordable Housing Possible inHawaii?  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 fulfillits duty to preserve and protect customary and traditional native Hawaiianrights to the extent feasible, the land use commission, in its review of apetition for reclassification of district boundaries, must, at a minimum, makespecific findings and conclusions as to the identity and scope of the valuedcultural, historical, or natural resources, the extent those resources will beaffected or impaired by the proposed action, and any feasible action thecommission may take to reasonably protect such native Hawaiian rights if theyare found to exist.  94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.

  Where land usecommission allowed petitioner to direct the manner in which customary andtraditional native Hawaiian practices would be preserved and protected by theproposed development, prior to any specific findings and conclusions by thecommission 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 commissiondelegated a non-delegable duty and thereby acted in excess of its authority. 94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.

  Where land usecommission failed to enter any definitive findings or conclusions as to theextent of the native Hawaiian practitioners' exercise of customary andtraditional practices in the subject area nor made any specific findings orconclusions regarding the effects on or the impairment of any Hawaiiconstitution, article XII, §7 uses, or the feasibility of the protection ofthose uses, the commission, as a matter of law, failed to satisfy its statutoryand constitutional obligations.  94 H. 31, 7 P.3d 1068.