Editorial: Turtle Bay tests land-use conflicts

Environmental and community groups represented by lawyers with Earthjustice filed suit Tuesday, challenging plans for a new hotel at Turtle Bay on Oahu’s North Shore. The suit charges that Maryland-
based Host Hotels &Resorts and Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) relied on an outdated environmental report, and failed to take into account a newly listed endangered species of bees and evolving ecological conditions.

Environmental protection is worth fighting for — but it must be balanced against regulatory promises granted by government. Certainty is important to any project that requires hefty financial investment.

The Hawaii court’s decision may well establish a framework for considering similar issues in the future. This decision will center on environmental concerns, as it should — and give insight into the standards that justify renewed environmental analysis. Determining how old is “too old” for an EIS could also come into play; if that allows developers to consider this issue with more certainty as part of the scoping/ planning process, it’s also progress.

Host Hotels acquired Turtle Bay Resort in 2024, including what’s now branded The Ritz-Carlton O‘ahu, along with a 49-acre parcel “entitled for development.” Approval was sought for a new hotel with up to 375 rooms, retail and dining, and a spa and fitness center — smaller than a 530-unit project considered in 2013. In December, DPP approved the project, determining that it satisfied 2013 environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements.

But this week’s lawsuit claims that Host Hotels and DPP violated Hawaii’s Environmental Policy Act by relying on that 2013 EIS, asking the court to void city approval and halt construction until a new supplemental EIS is prepared.

Echoing an earlier chapter in Turtle Bay’s litigious history, the suit cites the 2010 Hawaii Supreme Court decision that required a refreshed EIS in 2013. That decision held that a previous 1985, city-approved EIS was unacceptable more than two decades later, describing Turtle Bay as an “ecological hotspot that provides haven and habitat for numerous native species.”

Those earlier disputes over land use at Turtle Bay set important ground rules for the area, and forged compromises for its future use. They resulted in significant actions serving the public good, including permanent preservation of large undeveloped parcels for agriculture and open space, and closer monitoring of North Shore properties for endangered species. By the same token, when Host Hotel acquired the Turtle Bay parcel, it came with land-use allowances, including for a hotel.

So, is forcing yet another, expensive environmental analysis and delay justified?

At issue today, specifically, is the Hawaiian yellow-faced bee, listed in 2016 as a federally protected species, three years after the resort’s last environmental review.

The proposed “damaging development” at Turtle Bay relies on an “outdated environmental review that never considered endangered nalo meli maoli, which are irreplaceable native Hawaiian yellow-faced bees,” states The Center for Biological Diversity. “When the science advances and new species are at risk, the law requires the county to take a hard look, not look the other way.”

Preventing extinctions or the destruction of beleaguered and rare environments are priorities — and no one wants to go back to the “bad old days” when developers ran roughshod over the aina. However, there’s also value in seeking cooperation over confrontation.

“Keep the Country Country” activists have been able to force preservation by coalescing in opposition and displaying their force as both a political and environmentalist group. This model works, but it’s not the only model available.

There’s room for advocates for environmental stewardship to also value the well-being of community residents in regulating economic growth, removing barriers to change in areas where public and private sectors can cooperate. That can’t happen without a framework of cooperation and accountability that binds developers, of course — but increasingly, public and private models exist based on these modern-day standards, and as often as possible, should be followed.

Past environmental fights over Turtle Bay produced valuable advances in aina protection. There’s also value in predictable planning outcomes that nurture enterprise and social advancement. This court decision must be looked to for guidance on capturing the value in each.