A state and city effort to preserve privately owned important agricultural land on Oahu appears in jeopardy of derailment after 16 years of work.

State Land Use Commission members expressed critical concerns Thursday about whether the city fulfilled its obligation assessing land for protection and seeking landowner input.

Commissioners spent the day mainly questioning city Department of Planning and Permitting officials after hearing a bar­rage of landowner complaints Wednesday.

Based on comments, a significant number of commissioners appear to have doubts about the contentious process in which the city recommends 1,781 parcels of privately owned farmland covering 41,407 acres — about 11% of Oahu — be protected.

“I am clearly appalled at the process,” said commissioner Nancy Cabral. “Even a pig with lipstick is still a pig.”

The LUC is considering whether to give final approval to protect private farmland on Oahu under a 2005 state law enacted in response to a long-ignored Hawaii Constitution amendment ratified by voters in 1978 mandating that prime ag lands be identified and protected.

The Important Agricultural Lands, or IAL, law directed county officials to identify land appropriate for preservation under eight criteria that include soil quality, water supply, active farm use and fragmentation prevention.

Honolulu is the first county to submit recommendations to the LUC.

The city’s work began in 2011 and included assessments of land quality ratings, community meetings, sending letters to affected landowners, a comment period, an opportunity to object, City Council hearings and Council approval.

On Thursday, DPP Deputy Director Dawn Apuna argued that the city complied with the law and exceeded minimum requirements by holding news conferences, advertising and promoting an interactive website.

“The city believes it has met the standards,” she said.

Commissioners raised issues largely focused on the city’s methodology for selecting land and notifying landowners.

Under IAL law, any of eight criteria can qualify land for protection.

To be pretty inclusive, a city-established committee representing major farmers, academics, landowners, government officials and others decided to qualify farmland meeting any one of three conditions: prime soil quality, water access and existing ag use.

Commissioner Dan Giovanni said that didn’t make sense to him.

Apuna noted that it’s possible a condition such as water access changes, and that land with significant slopes or small footprints could be on the list due to other criteria.

For example, she said DPP didn’t want to produce small islands of unprotected farmland amid preserved land.

Cabral said DPP’s effort to be so inclusive struck her as a “throw-net” approach.

“I’m upset,” she said. “It is unbelievable that the process … It may have met the criteria and the requirements of the law, of the statute, but I think it’s really inappropriate.”

Commission Chairman Jonathan Likeke Scheuer observed that many landowners who testified Wednesday appeared to be only learning now about IAL. He suggested it would be better to have more city outreach before the LUC decides whether to protect individual parcels.

Commissioner Dawn N.S. Chang also expressed concerns over notifications and public involvement.

Cabral, who said she owns ag land on Hawaii island and is terrified about the IAL process, was the most critical of the city’s work, particularly over direct landowner notification.

Apuna said the city mailed two form letters, one in 2016 and one in 2017. A third was sent in 2018 in about 125 cases where the prior letter was returned, and only two of these letters could not be delivered, according to the city.

Cabral said the letters could have been perceived as junk mail.

“Getting it and reading it are two completely different things,” she said. “I really have to question this process. This was not well done.”

Ray Young, a DPP official, said the city letter provided IAL information to each landowner whose name was on the envelope but not the letter.

“If it’s important enough for the government to send it to me directly with my name on the envelope, I would pay attention,” he said.

Some affected landowners who testified Wednesday claimed they never received a city letter, but did receive a recent letter from the LUC about being on the city’s list. Several also said they received a recent letter from a law firm, Durrett Lang Morse LLLP, warning about how the IAL designation would diminish their rights to use their land.

Apuna said IAL doesn’t materially reduce currently allowed uses of ag land, and noted that some landowners who expressed concern about not being able to legally keep a home on their land if their land is protected could be in present violation of state law.

IAL law aims in part to support growth in local food production, and protects the state ag classification on property from future change by requiring the LUC to consider additional criteria for approving such a change.

The state Office of Planning and Department of Agriculture endorsed the city’s work as meeting all requirements.

LUC members could deliberate and decide whether the city met its requirement at meetings tentatively scheduled for May 26 and 27.