[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]







                                                                    ATTACHMENT B


                1991 OAHU SHORELINE

                   MANAGEMENT PLAN




















      HT
      393
       H3
      034
      1991
 







                1991 OAHU SHORELINE
                 MANAGEMENT PLAN


                                                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                          COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                          2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                          CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413



                                         Prepared For.

                                City and County of Honolulu
                               Department of Land Utilization


                                           Prepared By:      Property Of CSC Library

                                       Sea Engineering, Inc.
                                        Waimanlo, Hawaii
                                                and
                                         Barbara A. Moon
                                            Consultant



          The preparation of this plan was financed in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act
             of 1971, as amended, administered by the Office Of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                 Management National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration, United States Departrnent of Commerce, through the Office of State
                                      Planning State of Hawaii.
 











                                                   Table of Content





                                                                                                                        PAGE


                 Executive Summary                ........................................................................................ iii

                 I. BACKGROUND                   ............................................................................................1

                 2.   STATEMEM OF PROBLE"ISCUSSION OF
                      PUBLIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS                               .........................................................2

                 3.   PURPOSE, APPROACH, AND
                      MIETHODOLOGY                 .........................................................................................5

                 4.   GENERAL BEACH PRESERVATION
                      STRATEGIES              ...............................................................................................8
                     4.1 State of Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act                            ..............................8

                     4.2 Oahu: History and Relationships of Existing
                            Preservation Mechanisms                ..................................................................... 10


                 5.   PHYSICAL INVENTORY: OAHU BEACH
                      SECTORPROFILES                    ................................................................................. 15

                     5.1 Waialua District             .................................................................................... 15

                            5.1.A. Mokuleia           .................................................................................... 15
                            5. 1.B. Kawailoa          .................................................................................... 17

                     5.2    Koolauloa District         .................................................................................. 18

                            5.2.A.     Sunset      ........................................................................................ 18
                            5.2.B.     Waialee     ....................................................................................... 19
                            5.2.C.     Malaekahana          ............................................................................. 20
                            5.2.D.     Laie Beach      .................................................................................. 21
                            5.2.E.     Laniloa Beach         ............................................................................ 21
                            5.2.F.     Kokololio Beach          ......................................................................... 22

                     5.3    Koolaupoko District           ............................................................................... 22





                                                                   Table of Contents
                                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Manageinen t Plan


                       5.4 Honolulu District               .................................................................................... 22
                              5.4.A. Portlock           ...................................................................................... 22
                              5.4.B. Kahala           ........................................................................................ 23
                       5.5    Waianae District            .................................................................................... 23
                              5.5.A. Maili Beach             ................................................................................ 23
                              5.5.B. Mauna Lahilahi Beach                    .............................................................. 24
                              5.5.C. Makaha Beach                 ........................................................................... 24

                  6. ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY APPROACHES                                                    ................................ 26
                       6.1 Retaining "Status Quo" (40-Foot Setback)                             ........................................... 26

                       6.2    Increasing Shoreline Setbacks                  .............................................................. 27

                       6.3    Prohibiting Shoreline Protection Structures                          ........................................ 31

                       6.4    Increasing Minimum Lot Areas for Residential
                              Shoreline Properties             .............................................................................. 33

                       6.5    Creating a Beach Preservation (Overlay) District                             ............................... 34

                       6.6    Increasing Monitoring and Enforcement Efforts                              ................................. 35


                 7.    NON-REGULATORY PRESERVATION
                        STRATEGIES               ............................................................................................. 38

                 8.     RECOMMENDATIONS                          ............................................................................ 42

                       8.1    General       ................................................................................................... 42

                       8.2    Beach Sector Recommendations                       ........................................................... 48

                              8.2.A.     Mokuleia         .................................................................................... 48
                              8.2.13.    Kawailoa         .................................................................................... 48
                              8.2-C.     Sunset (Sunset Beach and Sunset Point)                          ................................. 49
                              8.2.D.     Waialee       ....................................................................................... 50
                              8.2.E.     Malaekahana            ............................................................................. 50
                              8.2.F.     Laie Beach         .................................................................................. 51
                              8.2.G.     Laniloa Beach (Laniloa #1)                  ....................................................... 51
                              8.2.H.     Kokololio Beach (Kokololio, #1)                   ................................................. 51
                              8.2.1.     Kailua Beach          .............................................................................. 52
                              8.2-J.     Portlock       ...................................................................................... 52
                              8.2.K.     Kahala       ........................................................................................ 52
                              8-2-L.     Maili Beach          ................................................................................ 53
                              8.2.M. Mauna Lahilahi Beach                    .............................................................. 53
                              8.2.N.     Makaha Beach             ........................................................................... 53





                                            Table of Contents
                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan





                                   List of Figures and,
                                              Tables





                                                                                      PAGE



           FIGURES

           Figure 3.1                     Area Map                                         6

           Figures 5.1 through 5.21       Oahu Beach Sector Maps                          15

           TA13LES

           Table 1.                       Factors to Consider in Choice of
                                          Appropriate Shore
                                          ProtectiorVStabilization Measure                41

           Table 2.                       Summary of Beach Sectors and
                                          Recommended Preservation
                                          Strategies                                      55





                                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

           This report is a follow-up to and builds upon the data base established by Part
           1. and Part 2., of the Oahu Shoreline Survey, by Sea Engineering, Inc.,
           published in 1989. The objective of this report is to explore alternative
           strategies, both regulatory and non-regulatory, for preserving certain Oahu
           beaches threatened with loss through erosion, and to formulate a general and
           beach-specific plan for preserving these natural resources.

           As discussed in Section 2., certain constraints have impeded beach
           preservation in the past, including lack of a good historical technical data base
           for predicting erosion, overlapping governmental jurisdictions, and funding
           restraints. An additional complexity, the primary focus of this report, is the



                                                   W





                                            Table of Contents
                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            conflict between preserving a public resource and protecting Private property
            interests in those areas where significant residential development has already
            occurred, or is likely to occur in the future.

            Section 3. describes the basis and methodology for the analysis of 31 miles of
            Oahu's sandy beaches and the considerations given particular attention in
            developing beach preservation strategies. These considerations include:

                1.   The implications of regulatory changes on small, shallow, or
                     otherwise severely-impacted lots.

                2.   The desirability of easing regulatory requirements in some areas to
                     allow certain structures, such as small retaining walls and open work
                     fences.

                3.   The advantages and disadvantages of permanent setback on both the
                     private property owner, the general public, and public agencies
                     charged with administration and enforcement of beach preservation.

                4.   The extent and effects of illegal seawalls on future beach preservation
                     strategies.

                    An analysis of the State of Florida's comprehensive program for
                    preserving its beaches is contained in Section 4., followed by a
                    description of the history and relationships of Oahu's existing
                    regulatory regime in this regard. The conclusion reached is that there
                    is no lack of policies, programs, and regulations but more a lack of
                    focus and funds directed specifically at preserving endangered beaches
                    and resolving publir,/private interest in the shoreline.

                    Section 5. profiles 19 Oahu beaches where residential development
                    has occurred, where beach loss has occurred as a result of natural
                    forces and/or man-made development, and where previous studies
                    recommended increased shoreline setbacks. In addition to detailed
                    physical descriptions, the profiles include the more intangible but
                    equally important cultural, historical and recreational features of
                    these beaches.

                    Six alternative regulatory approaches to beach preservation are
                    explored in Section 6. and traditional non-regulatory approaches, such
                    as beach replenishment and re-vegetation are discussed in Section 7.
                    The regulatory approaches range from retaining existing shoreline
                    setbacks (40 feet in most instances) to increasing setbacks and
                    prohibiting shoreline protection structures. The relative advantages
                    and disadvantages of each approach are also discussed.



                                                   iv





                                             Table of Contents
                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Abnagement Plan


                    Section 8. contains the recommended strategies and rationale which
                    would serve as a shoreline management plan, directly focusing on
                    preventing future beach loss. General recommendations are for both
                    short-term and long-term actions, including:

                        1.   Eliminating the 20-foot shoreline setback now permitted in
                             certain cases.

                        2.   Requiring a minimum 3,000 square feet buildable lot area for
                             residential beachfront properties.

                        3.   Prohibiting shoreline setback "credit" on accreted shorefront
                             land.

                        4.   Increasing setbacks to 60 feet for new developments or
                             redevelopments at increased densities.

                        5.   "Grandfathering" illegal shoreline protection structures when
                             they can meet established engineering and design standards.

                        6.   Prohibiting vertical seawall structures in certain areas.

                        7.   Strengthening criteria for shoreline setback variances.

                        8.   Imposing civil fines for violations within the shoreline setback

                             area.


                        9.   Establishing a Beach Preservation (overlay) District, and
                             adopting a form of Improvement District for vulnerable beach
                             sectors.

                        10.  Establishing and funding a recruitment and training program
                             for a professional monitoring and enforcement staff to
                             implement the management plan.

                    In addition to these general recommendations, and because of the
                    diverse characteristics of Oahu's beaches, specific strategies tailored to
                    each of the profiled beaches are also recommended.












                               1991 OAHU SHORELINE
                                MANAGEMENT PLAN





            1. BACKGROUND

            The Oahu Shoreline Study, Part 1. and Part 2., conducted by Sea Engineering,
            Inc., and published in November and December of 1989, documented and
            evaluated changes on 59 miles of Oahu's sandy shoreline.

            Study results showed that, over the past 40 years, accretion has occurred on
            approximately one-third of our beaches, erosion has occurred on more than
            one-third, and one-third are more or less stable. The objective was to develop
            preliminary preservation strategies by integrating the beach change data from
            Part 1. with existing land uses, the shoreline condition, the recreational value
            of the shoreline, the ongoing beach processes, and the oceanographic condi-
            tions and hazards of the particular area.

            The Oahu Shoreline Study recommended that shoreline setbacks be increased
            along approximately 31 of 59 miles of Oahu's shoreline. Of this, 16 miles were
            developed with residential uses and the remaining 15 miles were either unde-
            veloped, or in industrial or park use.

            A Bill for an Ordinance (Bill No. 7-90) was subsequently proposed by the City
            Administration and introduced on January 9, 1990. It proposed, for an interim
            Period, increased setbacks within the Oahu study area. In many areas, exist-
            ing 40-foot setbacks along residentially-developed areas would have been
            increased to 60 feet. The rationale for the proposed interim increases was
            contained in Part 1. and Part 2. of the shoreline study referenced above. Bill
            No. 7-90 was filed, without further action, on April 4, 1990. Testimony in
            opposition to the Bill focused primarily on the loss of the use of pri-
            vately-owned property to the proposed increased setbacks.






                                     1991 Oahu Shoreline Manffemen t Plan



             2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEWDISCUSSION OF PUBLIC
                  ISSUES AND CONCERNS

             As noted above, the Oahu Shoreline Study covered 59 miles of Oahu's sandy
             shoreline. Major areas not covered included Kaneohe Bay, Ala Moana and
             Waikiki, beaches under military control, Kualoa and several other beach
             parks, the area between Kahuku Point and Kahuku Golf Course, and Kahe
             Beach. Of the 59 miles of beaches studied, approximately 22 miles, or 37 per-
             cent of the total, have eroded over the past 40 years.

             Many of the beaches of Oahu, which have a high public value as a natural
             resource, and are limited in extent, are being destroyed through erosion. Some
             of the loss is from natural causes, such as waves, wind, and severe storms, but
             much of it is associated with man-made developments.

             According to The Cost of Environmental Protection: Regulating Housing Devel-
             opment in the Coastal Zone:

                    'Typically, residential developments constitute the primary competitor for
                    coastal resources and dominate the land use pattern within the coastal zone.
                    The pressures of population and economic development threaten to overwhehn
                    the balanced and best use of the invaluable and irreplaceable coastal
                    resources."


             Beach preservation is an explicit, acknowledged goal of Federal, State, and
             City land use policies and regulations, but beach erosion continues to occur
             and the loss of a highly-valued, but severely-limited public resource proceeds.
             There is no lack of governmental shoreline protection, management and
             enhancement policy documents, guidelines, and regulations, but successful
             preservation strategies, which translate into actual beach preservation action,
             have lagged behind.

             Hawaii, like every coastal state, recognizes beaches as one of our most valu-
             able resources. They represent a substantial economic base, both as a major
             attraction for the visitor industry and as highly-valued homesites. They pro-
             vide scenic and recreational benefits to visitor and resident alike, offering a
             wide range of opportunities for popular leisure activities and a welcome
             diversion from and contrast to the more urban and intensively-developed
             areas of Oahu. They are also a rich source of historical legend and cultural
             significance.

             The erosion of Hawaii's beaches, and Oahu's in particular, has been
             well-documented, first in Beach Changes on Oahu as Revealed by Aerial Pho-
             tographs, Dennis Hwang, 1981; in the Oahu Shoreline Study, Parts 1. and 2.,






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            Sea Engineering, Inc., 1989; and in Hawaii Shoreline Erosion Management
            Study, Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc., and OHM, Inc., 1989.
            The loss of our beaches is caused by both natural forces and man-made devel-
            opments. Most studies in this state, and in others, conclude that a combination
            of regulatory and non-regulatory strategies are needed to counter both.
            Studies in this state suggest, however, some severe constraints on both regula-
            tory and non-regulatory strategies which, in the past, have prevented a pro-
            gressive beach preservation effort. They are summarized as follows:

                1.   Lack of a good historical technical data base for measuring past ero-
                     sion and predicting future erosion loss, and a shortage of personnel
                     (coastal engineering) expertise.

                2.   Overlapping jurisdictions and complex regulations,which make for a
                     lack of coordination and effective action among various levels of gov-
                     ernment.

                3.   Funding restraints, particularly at the county level of government,
                     which adversely affect a beach preservation program in several
                     respects, including a lack of -adequate staffing in maintaining a data
                     base and in monitoring and enforcing existing regulations. These
                     restraints not only affect existing efforts, but may preclude more
                     ambitious non-regulatory strategies, such as beach replenishment,
                     and new regulatory approaches, such as "special districts" for beach
                     preservation.

                4.   The complex question of "public good versus private interest." Of the
                     59 miles of beaches surveyed in the Oahu Shoreline Study, 58 percent
                     are already developed with residential uses. Clearly, areas which are
                     undeveloped, developed in public park use, or planned for major
                     resort or marine-oriented industrial uses are relatively easier to con-
                     trol through existing governmental review and the regulatory regime.
                     Areas where there are a number of private homeowners create special
                     problems and conflicts. For example, when erosion occurs, the most
                     likely and frequent response from a homeowner is to erect a shoreline
                     protection structure, usually a seawall or revetment. This can cause
                     adverse impacts on neighboring shoreline properties (sometimes pro-
                     ducing a chain-reaction and the proliferation of protection structures)
                     and can, in the long-term, lead to irreversible erosion and loss of
                     public beaches.

            The continuing concern about an adequate data base is not unique to Hawaii
            and seems to be shared by all coastal states attempting to preserve their beach
            resources. Florida, which most references agree has the most sophisticated


                                                   -3-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            data base and the most progressive beach preservation system in place, is still
            trying to improve its information base. The local studies referenced earlier
            have contributed to the state's data on erosion of beaches, and information on
            Oahu beaches is certainly more abundant and accurate than it has ever been
            in the past. Maintaining and continuing to enhance what we have in the way
            of data should be a major priority, of course, but should not preclude the
            development of action-oriented beach preservation strategies. Lack of ade-
            quate technical data should no longer be cited as a reason for postponing
            remedial action.

            Funding and staffing a monitoring and enforcement program is a continuing
            concern as well. If non-regulatory strategies, such as beach replenishment, are
            pursued, even more of a public monetary investment will be needed. The
            Hawaii Shoreline Erosion Management Study recommended consideration of
            "improvement districts" for beaches where preservation objectives are endan-
            gered. The Improvement District is a traditional, tested, and usually success-
            ful concept which involves public/private funding, assessing a fair share of the
            improvement monies required to those who benefit most from the improve-
            ments. It is also a time-consuming, controversial process. Again, the lack of
            funds committed to beach preservation is a serious concern, but other, more
            easily accomplished strategies should be immediately evaluated and imple-
            mented.


            While all of the above constraints exist and the concern about them is valid to
            some degree, the focus of this report is primarily on #4. above, those areas
            where the preservation of a public resource comes into direct conflict with
            individual private property interests. Both regulatory and non-regulatory
            strategies will be addressed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
            will be evaluated.






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan



            3. PURPOSE, APPROACH, AND METHODOLOGY

            This report focuses on 31 miles of Oahu's sandy beaches which meet all of the
            following criteria:

                a.   Are developed primarily in residential use;

                b.   Are high-quality recreational beaches which should be preserved for
                     public use;

                C.   Were recommended in Part 2. of the Oahu Shoreline Study, for
                     increased shoreline setbacks. Figure 3.1. is a map of these areas.

            The specific objectives of the study are:

                a.   To reconfirm and clearly identify natural beach sectors which are
                     high-quality public recreational resources;

                b.   To develop alternative strategies and a management plan for
                     preservation of these beaches;

                C.   To examine the impacts of these alternative strategies on existing
                     residences and other uses of private lands abutting the shoreline; and

                d.   To recommend government regulations and other actions to carry out
                     a plan encompassing the most promising strategies.

            As a basis for the analysis which follows, Sea Engineering, Inc., prepared
            digitized maps showing all major structures, seawalls, revetments, and the
            beach toe and vegetation line as of 1988 for the 13 miles of residential shore-
            line properties included in the study area.

            Aerial photos (1988), vertical and oblique, were used for the location of these
            structures. Field visits were required to validate results. The City Department
            of Land Utilization's (DLU) seawall inventory was also used to identify the
            prevalence of shoreline protection structures and their legal status.

            It should be noted that the above information was used to build upon the basic
            methodology of Part 1. and Part 2. of the Oahu Shoreline Study, which utilized
            historical beach transect data in the development of a statistical model. For
            this model, updated transect tables were used to predict future shoreline posi-
            tions and to provide information on the statistical variability of the prediction.
            Development of the model, which also serves as the technical basis for this
            report, is described in detail in Part 2. of the Oahu Shoreline Study, along
            with the results.






                                                            LEC
                                                              .LEND
                                                            PROJEC'F LOCAIIONS-





              NORTHSHORE


                               -.671A

                                                                     EAST SHOR
                                                                      (WINDWARI






                                      OAHU






      WEST SHORE
      (LEEWARD)





                                           SOUTHSHORE




                                     FIGURE 3-1. - AREA MAP






                                    1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan


             In identifying and analyzing alternative preservation strategies, the following
             considerations were given particular attention:

                 a.   The implications of regulatory changes on small, shallow, or other-
                      wise severely-impacted lots.

                 b.   The desirability of easing regulatory requirements in some areas to
                      allow certain structures, such as small retaining walls and open work
                      fences.

                 C.   The advantages and disadvantages of permanent setbacks on both
                      the private property owner, the general public, and public agencies
                      charged with administration and enforcement of beach preservation.

                 d.   The extent and effects of illegal seawalls on future beach preservation
                      strategies.

             It should be noted that the regulatory strategies evaluated ranged from a
             11status quo" posture, which would retain the existing 40-foot universal set-
             back, to a prohibition of all shoreline protection structures. In addition, a real-
             istic and effective monitoring and enforcement program was considered an
             integral part of each preservation strategy, and non-regulatory erosion con-
             trol/beach preservation techniques were considered as an essential supple-
             ment to regulatory strategies.



























                                                     -7-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan



            4. GENERAL BEACH PRESERVATION STRATEGIES:


            4.1 State of Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act

            The State of Florida has had a strong and comprehensive program for preser-
            vation of its beaches in place since 1970 (the Beach and Shore Preservation
            Act, enacted by the Florida Legislature). The regulatory agency for this pro-
            gram is the State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and
            Shores.

            Like Hawaii, the state's beaches contribute significantly to the economy as an
            attraction for tourists, and the Legislature explicitly acknowledged in the
            Beach and Shore Preservation Act (Chapter 161, Florida Statutes) that "beach
            and shore erosion is a serious menace to the economy and general welfare of
            the people of this state."

            The beach preservation effort in Florida has four major elements, as described
            in Florida's Beach and Coast Preservation Program: An Overview, by James H.
            Balsillie. These elements are the establishment of a sound scientific and engi-
            neering basis through Coastal Construction Control Lines, coupled with a
            Thirty-Year Erosion Projection Program, a Permitting and Enforcement com-
            ponent, and a Beach Erosion Control Program.

            The Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCL) are setback or control lines
            established on a county-by-county basis (but only in sandy-beach counties)
            and designed to address the erosive forces of "extreme event impacts," such as
            heavy storms and hurricanes. The control lines are developed on the basis of
            field data collection and storm tide and dune erosion modeling. In cases where
            property owners refute the Division's findings, a public hearing is held.

            It should be noted that one of the most important aspects of the Florida beach
            preservation program is the emphasis on data collection and establishment of
            the scientific and engineering basis for the CCCL. According to Balsillie's
            overview, referenced above, more than 9,800 beach profiles and more than
            2,300 offshore profiles are stored in the computerized data base. This data,
            combined with aerial photographs, are then plotted on photomaps.

            To supplement this extensive data base, modeling is used to determine storm
            tide water levels and wave heights for periods of 10, 50, 100, 200 and 500
            years. Dune/bluff erosion as a result of storm impact is also modeled. Results
            are used in determining the location of CCCLs.

            It should be noted that restudy of the established CCCLs may be initiated
            and that the control lines may be altered when documented shoreline changes






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline AUnageinen t Plan


            render established lines ineffective. This is an important element of flexibility
            which makes this aspect of the preservation program responsive to c
            physical conditions.

            In addition to the control of erosion caused by "extreme event impacts,"
            long-term shoreline change trends are taken into account. The Thirty-Year
            Erosion Projection Program essentially prohibits major structures which
            would be placed seaward of the "seasonal high-water line" within 30 years of
            the permit request. This prohibited area is based on projections of erosion in
            the area. Exemptions are provided for shoreline protection structures and
            other "minor" structures.

            As noted previously, a credible regulatory program (permitting, monitoring,
            and enforcing) is essential to any serious beach preservation effort. Florida's
            permitting program is distinguished by its emphasis on technically-oriented
            coastal design and engineering considerations.

            The applicant is required to submit technical data such as a recent topograph-
            ical survey and detailed, site-specific grading, drainage and structural plans.
            Permits are reviewed by a coastal engineering staff which consider storm
            surge data, design wind velocity/structural loading computations, federal base
            flood elevation requirements, and other factors related to the predicted natural
            forces in the area and design life of the proposed structure.

            Beach-dune preservation and project siting are also considered, e.g. construc-
            tion impacts on the beach and adjacent property and potential cumulative
            impacts along the shore, and public access.

            Permit and violation monitoring is accomplished not only by a staff of field
            inspectors, but is supplemented by periodic site visits by the coastal engineer-
            ing staff. Violators are prosecuted and fined, for each offense, an amount up to
            $10,000. Each day a violation occurs is considered a separate offense.

            Finally, perhaps the most interesting component of Florida's beach preserva-
            tion program is a recognition that simply regulating public/private interests in
            this arena) essentially perceived as a negative effort,, is not enough.

            Under the Beach Erosion Control Program, an existing agency is designated
            the "beach and shore preservation authority" and administers a Beach Man-
            agement Trust Fund. This fund is used to carry out long-range plans for ero-
            sion control and beach preservation and is specifically earmarked to assist
            local governments in alleviating sandy beach erosion when it occurs and
            preserving sandy beach resources.






                                                   -9-






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            According to Balsillie's overview, specific projects include:

                "a. Beach restoratiow'renourishment,

                b.   Sand transfer, bypassing and stockpiling,

                C.   Jetties, groins, breakwaters, revetanents,

                d.   Sand trap construction and maintenance,

                e.   Dune construction and revegetation,

                f.   Beach-dune overwalks,

                g.   Dune protective walkways or other measures for dune protection/preservation,

                h.   Sand fencing,

                i.   Biological and hydrological monitoring studies,

                j.   Sand source studies,

                k.   Education signs, and

                1.   Other projects of desirable intent."

            These projects can only be done within pre-established boundaries, "Erosion
            Control Lines," to ensure an equitable distribution of a restored beach between
            State and upland ownership and to guarantee public use of beach resources
            seaward of the Erosion Control Line. In addition, the applicant for a project
            must provide permanent public access to the area and adequate vehicle park-
            ing areas.

            It should be noted that the preservation programs described above work in
            concert toward a single and focused objective, preservation of sandy beaches,
            and that they are soundly based in legislative intent by the Florida Legisla-
            ture's statement: "The greater public interest compels that certain reasonable
            restrictions be placed upon the location of coastal construction and excavation
            even though such construction or excavation be located on privately-held
            land."


            4.2 Oahu: History and Relationships of Existing Preservation
                   Mechanisms

            Beach preservation is not the exclusive objective of existing Federal, State,
            and City policies and regulatory controls on Oahu, but it is explicitly
            addressed in all.

            At the Federal level, The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 created a
            mechanism for assisting coastal states in managing resources within their


                                                    _10-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            coastal zones. (Other Federal involvement in this area includes the flood
            insurance programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
            implemented through Flood Hazard District regulations at the City level, and
            the numerous activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.)

            The Act specifies certain critical areas of concern, those which have the poten-
            tial of being resource-depleted, where projected demands exceed available
            resources, or where resources are already limited and unique. With specific
            regard to Oahu's residentially-zoned and/or developed beaches, these critical
            areas apply:

                Ila. Areas of unique, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat;

                b.   Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat;

                C.   Areas of substantial recreational value;

                d.   Areas where activities are dependent upon coastal waters;

                e.   Areas of unique geologic or topographic significance to industrial or commercial
                     development;

                f.   Areas of urban concentration;

                g.   Areas of significant hazard, if developed; and

                h.   Areas needed to protect, maintain or replenish coastal lands or resources."

            At the State level, Chapters 205 and 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS),
            provide the basic, state-wide legislative framework for beach preservation.
            Again, the policy objectives are far broader, but they explicitly include beach
            preservation.

            Chapter 205, BRS, established conservation districts for, among other things,
            11 providing park lands, wilderness and beach." Until recently, the State
            Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) had complete jurisdiction
            for all land seaward of the certified shoreline. State Act 356, 1989, permits the
            counties to expand their jurisdictional control into the "area between mean sea
            level and the shoreline." This is a significant move toward claribdng jurisdic-
            tional matters and is indicative of a trend toward directing monitoring and
            enforcement responsibilities toward the counties. (Refer to Section 6.6.)

            Chapter 205A, BIRS, was Hawaii's response to the federal Coastal Zone Man-
            agement Act, and remains the basis for guiding, in terms of policy, and regu-
            lating the use of our coastal resources. Again, the objectives are broad, but
            preserving our major coastal resource, the beachfront, is explicitly expressed.






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            Reference 205-A-2: "Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational
            opportunities in the coastal zone management area by:

               Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that
                     cannot be provided in other areas;

                Requiring replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational
                     value, including but not limited to surfing sites and sandy beaches,
                     when such resources will be unavoidably damaged by development; ...

                Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conser-
                     vation of natural resources, to and along shorelines with recreational
                     value."

            City involvement on Oahu in the preservation of beaches involves two basic
            regulatory mechanisms: review and permitting of development proposals
            within the Special Management Area (SMA), a boundary which varies by area
            and extends inland beyond the actual established shoreline, and through the
            40-foot shoreline setbacks established under Chapter 205A, BIRS, Part III.
            Within this setback area, certain actions are specifically prohibited; however,
            a variance procedure is in place, which allows certain exceptions after City
            review. (It should be noted that while the common established shoreline set-
            back is 40 feet, the law does provide for even lesser setbacks - to 20 feet -
            under certain "hardship" situations, e.g. for small, shallow lots.)

            Both the Special Management Area statute and the Shoreline Setback Rules
            and Regulations address beach preservation as a public goal.

            Reference, Section 205A-21, HRS: "The legislature finds that, special controls
            on developments within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid
            permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management
            options, and to ensure that adequate access, by dedication or other means, to
            public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is pro-
            vided."

            Reference Section 205A-26, HRS: "Alterations to existing land forms and vege-
            tation, except crops, and construction of structures shall cause minimum
            adverse effect to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities and
            minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event
            of earthquake." (Note: the statute also provides for "adequate access ... to pub-
            licly owned or used beaches.")

            Reference, "Shoreline Setback Rules and Regulations of the City and County
            of Honolulu", Rule 2. Purpose: "Growing population and expanding develop-
            ment have brought about numerous cases of encroachment of structures upon
            the shore. Many of these structures have disturbed the natural processes and



                                                   -12-






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan


            caused erosion of the shore. Concrete masses along the shore are contrary to
            the policy for the preservation of the natural shore and open space. ...
            "Moreover'   the Hawaiian Islands are subject to tsunamis and high waves
            which endanger residential dwellings and other structures which are built too
            close to the shoreline. For these reasons, it is in the public interest to establish
            shoreline setbacks and to regulate the use and activities within the shoreline
            setbacks."

            Despite the comprehensive policies, programs, and specific regulatory controls
            available to public agencies on Oahu, at all three levels of government, there
            are certain limitations and constraints which ultimately affect beach preser-
            vation:

                 1.   As noted above, while the commonly established shoreline setback is
                      40 feet, the statute does provide for setbacks of half that amount. In
                      addition, all counties were given the option of increasing shoreline
                      setbacks beyond 40 feet; none have done so, although Oahu has
                      attempted to do so.

                2.    The Special Management Area (SMA) has, in many cases, proved
                      itself as a valuable regulatory tool in preserving coastal resources,
                      most notably when applied to large resort, conunercial, or mixed-use
                      developments on or near the shoreline. In these cases, additional
                      shoreline setbacks and guarantees of public access to beaches have
                      been imposed as a condition for SMA permit approval. However, sin-
                      gle-family dwellings are exempt from the process. The basic and
                      widespread conflict between the use of a beachfront parcel by private
                      homeowners and preserving the beach as a public resource is not
                      addressed by SMA controls.

                3.    While the shoreline setback variance procedure is a necessary
                      approach to dealing equitably with "hardship" situations, it does
                      intrinsically weaken the concept of preserving beaches. A potentially
                      more serious impact is the number of illegal shoreline protection
                      structures erected by individual beachfront owners in the past, the
                      extent of which was not known until recently, when an inventory was
                      completed by the City. Refusing to grant shoreline setback variances,
                      or requiring the removal of every illegal seawall or other structure,
                      would be the most straight-forward corrective action, but is not con-
                      sidered practical given the number of residentially-developed beach-
                      front properties on Oahu.









                                                    -13-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            As noted above and in other Sections of this study, there are certain positive
            improvements being made in beach preservation. For example:

               (a)  Establishing the nonconformity or illegality of existing protective
                    structures was an important addition to the data base;

               (b)  Updating and increasing technical data on residentially-developed
                    beach sectors by Sea Engineering, Inc., and mapping these areas has
                    also significantly improved the information available to deci-
                    sion-makers;

                (c) Streamlining and clari6ring jurisdictional responsibilities between
                    State and City should also contribute to more effective beach preser-
                    vation strategies in the future, provided this leads to cooperative
                    regulatory actions and necessary funding.

            In summary, the problem is not a lack of legal controls, but rather the
            broad-based nature of the policies and programs, and the absence of regula-
            tory and non-regulatory strategies specifically focused on - and funded for -
            the preservation of beaches undergoing erosion and threatened by either exist-
            ing or future residential development.






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline A@&nagemen t Plan



            5. PIWSICAL INVENTORY: OAHU BEACH SECTOR
                PROFILES

            In this Section, selected Oahu beach sectors where residential development
            has occurred are profiled. It should be noted that these do not include all resi-
            dentially-developed shoreline properties, but only those where increased set-
            backs were recommended in the Oahu Shoreline Study, Part 2. In certain
            cases, reference should be made to the Oahu Shoreline Study for a transect
            view of the beach sector, e.g. "Kawailoa #1."

            The physical descriptions of the beach sectors are taken from the base data
            and model developed during the Oahu Shoreline Study and the additional
            data since gathered, described in Section 2., (now reflected in Figures 5.1
            through 5.21).

            More intangible, but equally important cultural, historical and recreational
            features of these beaches were drawn directly, in a highly condensed form,
            from the observations and legends presented by John R. K. Clark in Beaches of
            Hawaii.


            5.1 Waialua District


            5.1.A. Mokuleia

            Mokuleia means "district of abundance," probably referring to an ancient time
            when it supported several large Hawaiian settlements. Modern-day recre-
            ational activities typically include diving, shorecasting, swimming, and beach-
            combing. Much of the Mokuleia beach area, with the exception of Mokuleia
            Beach Park, is private property where public access is limited. Inshore waters
            are considered relatively safe, but there is exposure to strong currents during
            winter months, especially when there is large surf activity along the North
            Shore.

            The Mokuleia Beach residential area is approximately 2.5 miles long, and
            extends from the west end of Crozier Drive to Kaiaka Bay. Although the sandy
            beach is continuous, the conditions vary along the beach.

            The shoreline is a continuous sandy beach, which consists of a number of gen-
            tly curving, poorly defined embayments. Shoreline conditions vary greatly
            along the 2.5 mile sector with eroding areas, accreting areas and some pro-
            tected areas.

            The entire Mokuleia residential area is shown on Figures 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3.
            Figure 5-1 shows the western 4,000 feet of the sector. The area just west of











                LEGEND*
                        On shore features Pats, buildings, roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February 1988
                        Beach too as of February 1988
                        Shore Protection
                S, R. 0: Type of Wx)re protection
                        S - Seawalls
                        R - Revetments
                        0 - Other

                L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                        L = Legal
                        I - lNegal
                        N   Nonconforming





                                                                             ell-
                                                                                                           r

                                                                                                                                  Lj                 tua E@each Road
                                                                                                                                     Crozler     viaia                                 it
                                                                                                      lj@











                                                    00400 N



                                                WI




















                                                                                                                                        NOTE:
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the Cftys set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                 August and September 1990.











              LEGEND:
                      On shore features (Iots, buildings, roads)
                      Vegetation line as of February I 9W
                      Beach too as of February 1 9W
                      Shore Protection
              S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                      S = Seawalls
                      R - Revetments
                      0 = Other

              L, 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                      L - Legal
                      I - I"
                      N    Nonconfiorming







                                            + 151900 N

                                                                                                                           LJ
                                    15;                                             waialua Beach




















                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City an
                                                                                                                                       Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines a
               *The preparallon of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the CW3 set of February 1988 aerial photq
               amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
               service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
               through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawall.N                                                                 August and September 1990.











               LEGEND:
                       On shore features Qots, buldings, roads)
                       Vegetation line as of February 1988
                       Beach toe as of February 1988
                       Shore Protection
               S, R. 0: Typ& d shore protection
                       S - SeawaAs
                       R - RevehYmuft
                       0 - Other

               L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                       L - Legal
                       I - Illegal
                       N    Nonconforming









                                                                                        r  r    r
                                                                                               -4,  r



                                                                                                                        T-T
                                                                                          (7



                                                                   j51900                                                                            aiua Beach ROad
                                                                             0
























                                                                                                                                        NOTE:
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                        information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                7he preparation of this report was financed In pan by the CoasLRI Zone Management Act of 1972, as                       computer analysis of the Cltys set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                 August and September I 9W.







                                      1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan



               Crozier Drive consists of two houses and three vacant lots. One house is set
               back approximately 40 feet from the vegetation line, but the other is very close
               to the line. Should any erosion occur, the house will be threatened.

               The remaining 3,300 feet of the shoreline is fully developed, with many of the
               houses very close to the vegetation line and on small lots. Much of the vegeta-
               tion line along this area has been stabilized by vertical retaining walls, and
               the extent of the walls is shown on Figure 5-1. The walls are concentrated in
               two areas. Although some of the walls are concrete, most are built of vertical
               timber planks or piles. In many locations, the walls are deteriorating and are
               in marginal condition.

               These wooden retaining walls are similar to many others along the North
               Shore. The walls are more similar in design to retaining walls than to sea-
               walls, since their main function appears to be stabilization of the vegetation
               line. Where the walls are present, the beach is generally narrower and steeper
               than in adjacent areas, and the general impression is that the beach is erod-
               ing. If the walls were not present, it appears that the beach slope would flatten
               out, possibly undercutting some of the houses close to the vegetation line.

               The central, unprotected area of shoreline has a noticeably wider beach, with
               the houses set back from the vegetation line. There are no shore protection
               structures in this central area. Transect data from the 1988 Oahu Shoreline
               Study indicate that this shoreline accreted approximately 20 feet between
               1979 and 1988. This gain should be considered temporary, and encroachment
               on the accreted area should be prevented.

               Figure 5-2 shows the central 5,000 feet of Mokuleia Beach, down to Au street.
               The western 2,900 feet of this sector has a relatively wide beach and appears
               stable. The Oahu Shoreline Study indicated that accretion has occurred in this
               area, which would explain the deep setback of some of the houses. Since the
               accretion cycle could reverse at any time, encroachment on the accreted land
               should be prevented.

               The beach condition deteriorates noticeably in the vicinity of Au Street. The
               beach narrows, and erosion is obviously occurring in many areas. Shore pro-
               tection in place includes a temporary sandbag revetanent, vertical seawalls,
               and sloping rock revet3nents. Lateral access is restricted in some places
               because of these revetments. Backshore development includes single-family
               houses, apartments and a proposed park site.

               Figure 5-3 shows the east end of Mokuleia Beach, from Puuiki Park to the end
               of the residential development. The west end of this sector, from Puuiki Park
               to Kaimanu Place is eroding, and much of the shoreline is protected by sea-
               walls and revetments. The eastern most 2,800 feet of Mokuleia Beach is
               accreting beach, with measured accretion over the past 40 years ranging from


                                                      -16-






                                     1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


               31 to 87 feet. The existing houses are older and as a result are set well back
               from the vegetation line.


               5A.B. Kawailoa

               Kawailoa, or "the long water," refers to a stream in the area which was
               thought to be the longest stream on Oahu. Kawailoa Beach encompasses many
               of the famous surfing areas on Oahu's North Shore. It changes with the sea-
               sons and experiences up to 40 feet of erosion in some sections during winter
               months.

               Papailoa and Laniakea Beaches (Figure 5-4)

               Papailoa ("long hut") refers to a temporary shack erected near a fishing
               ground and is the first section of Kawailoa Beach offering a place for swim-
               ming. Modern-day recreational activities at this beach include diving, shore-
               casting, board surfing, and swimming. Laniakea takes its name from a small
               freshwater spring, on the Waimea side of the point. It is a popular surfing
               beach, but not a particularly good swimming beach, because of strong cur-
               rents.


               The Papailoa and Laniakea 3,800-foot-long sandy shoreline appears to be a
               discrete littoral cell, bounded on the west end by a protruding beachrock point,
               and on the east end by a basalt peninsula. The transect data from the Oahu
               Shoreline Study indicate a generally stable or slightly eroding beach.

               The backshore is zoned R-5 Residential District and, except where the high-
                 ay is adjacent to the shore at Laniakea, it is fully developed. Exposed
               beachrock stabilizes the beach toe along the westernmost 1,000-foot-long
               w

               developed sector of Papailoa Beach. The two houses at the point have stabi-
               lized the vegetation line by construction of a vertical timber retaining wall.
               The beach narrows and is noticeably steeper in the central section of Papailoa
               Beach. The houses are also slightly closer to the vegetation line. The two lots
               just west of the stream discharge may be subject to some erosion, particularly
               during summer months, when the predominant sand transport is apparently
               to the west.

               These beaches are among the high quality North Shore beaches, but they are
               extensively developed. If erosion were to occur, some of the houses along the
               beach, particularly in the center and the east end, will be threatened.

               Chun's Reef (Figure 5-5)

               Chun's Reef, named for John Chun, a long-time resident, was once known by
               various Hawaiian names, many of which referred to the wind in the area.
               Chun's Reef is now a highly popular surfing spot.



                                                     -17-









             LEGEND:
                      On shore features pots, buildings, roads)
                      Vegetation line as of February I M
                      Beach too as of February 1988
                      Shore Protection
              S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                      S - Seawalls
                      R - Revetments
                      0 - Other

              1- 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                      L = Legal
                      I - Illegal
                      N    Nonconforming



                                                                                             600








                                                                                              n


























                                                                                                                                        'N=
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines arid roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                7he preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                      computer analysis of the Cftys set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aed
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawail.0                                                                 August and September 1990.










             LEGEND:
                     On shore features Pots, buildlrVs, roads)
                     Vegetation line as of February 1988
                     Beach toe as of February 1988
                     Shore Protection
             S. R. 0: Type of shore protection
                     S = Seaviah
                     R - Revetm   erft
                     0 - Other

             L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                     L - Legal
                     I - Illegal
                     N    Nonconforming



                                                                                   1%V00



                                                                                                                                                             Izir
                                                                                                                                          0




                                                                                                                                           Kameham         way





























                                                                                                                                     NOTE
                                                                                                                                     Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City aric
                                                                                                                                     information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines a
             7he preparation of this report was financed In pan by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                       computer analysis of the Cky's set of February 1988 aerial photog
             amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
             Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
             through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                 August and September 1 No.





                                    1991 Oahu Shoreline Mamanen t Plan


              This sector is bounded on the west by the highway and on the east by a storm
              water discharge path. The transect history indicates a stable beach, for the
              most part; however, there is a potential erosion problem at Kamehameha
              Highway access points both for Chun's Reef and Lanikea Beach.

              The four house lots in the Chun's Reef area have some type of basalt boulder
              shore protection. The beach in front of the shore protection is very wide and
              gently sloping. Vegetation has grown seaward of the revetment in some
              places. (It appears that the rocks were placed to protect against the occasional
              event of waves undercutting the shoreline scarp). This is a high-quality, heav-
              ily-used recreational beach.

              Kawailoa #1 (Figure 5-5)

              East of the stream mouth separating the Chun's Reef residential area from the
              Kawailoa Beach, there is a 1,200-foot-long stretch of beach bounded by the
              stream mouth on the west and a basalt outcrop at the end toe of the beach on
              the east. Four contiguous lots in this area have a retaining wall stabilizing the
              vegetation line, with a total wall length of 400 feet. The beach is wide, with
              scattered basalt boulders along the shoreline. There is vegetation, including
              some fairly large ironwood trees, seaward of the retaining walls.


              5.2 Koolauloa District


              5.2.A. Sunset

              Known to the surfing community as Sunset Beach, it was once called
              "Paumalu," which, based on a Hawaiian legend, means "taken by surprise."
              The Sunset area has spectacular surfing waves and has been the site of pro-
              fessional surfing contests known around the world. While diving and swim-
              ming are other recreational activities enjoyed in this beach area, board surfing
              is the predominant recreational activity.

              Sunset Beach (Figures 5-6 and 5-7)

              This beach sector is 11,000 feet long, and extends from Pupukea Beach Park to
              Sunset Point. Single-family dwellings extend along most of the backshore,
              with some interspersed park areas, including Ehukai and Sunset Beach
              Parks.

              Sunset Beach is a high-quality, heavily-utilized North Shore beach with
              numerous access points to the beach.

              The beach is wide during the summer, but is severely cut back during the
              winter wave season. The vegetation line has a small scarp in some parts of
              this sector, indicative of some wave undercutting during the winter. The tran-










                 LEGEND:
                         On shore features Pots, buildings, roads)
                         Vegetation line as of Febnkvy 1988
                         Beach too as of Febnary 1988
                         Shore Protection                                  x
                 S, R, 0: Type of shore protection                     gjb@0
                         S = Seawalls
                         R - ReveUnents
                         0 - Other

                 L' 1. N: Leged status of shore protection
                         L - Legal
                         I - Iwo
                         N - Nonconforming










                                                                                                                                                                                                  r
                                            S                                                                                                                                             R  R        T
                                                                                                                             Kamehameha Kghway


























                                                                                                                                                                                        00



                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation line.,
                 "The prepamllon of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial p
                 amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Ocean
                 Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                        Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                 through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii."                                                                August and September 1990. *











              LEGEND:
                     On shore features (lots, buildings, roads)
                     Vegetation line as of February 1988
                     Beach toe as of February 1 We
                     Shore Protection
              S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                     S - Seawalls
                     R - Revetments
                     0 - Other

              L, 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                     L = Legal
                     I - Inegal
                     N - Nonconforming



                                                                         4,                                                                                                      - - - - - - -





                                                                                                                                                                   S      S


                                                                                                                                                  D

                                                                                                                                                                            C33

                                                                                                T            T
                                                                                                a
                                                                           a   0    0   S                                                     ha KQhwgky
                                                                                                 E3                                  Kamehame

                                             uk





























                                                                                                                                      NOTE:
                                                                                                                                      Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City an
                                                                                                                                      Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines a
              'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial photq
              amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
              Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
              through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawall.0                                                                 August and September 1990. '






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Managetnent Plan


           sect data indicate a relatively stable beach, except during the high winter surf
           of December 1960. The transect located at Sunset Beach Park recorded signifi-
           cant erosion during the past 10 years.

           One 1,350-foot-long sector of beach, just east of Pakulena Stream, has 950 feet
           protected by seawalls or rock revet3nents. Many of the houses along the beach
           have constructed small retaining walls and beach fences at the beach crest,
           apparently to prevent undercutting of the vegetation line during periods of
           high surf. Many of the houses along the beach are close to the vegetation line,
           and are subject to flooding during periods of very high winter surf.

           Sunset Point (Figure 5-8)

           According to The Beaches of 0ahu, "Sunset Point, the housing area and
           shoreline on the Kahuku side of the surfing beach, is better protected by a
           wide, fringing reef, but even there the inshore currents are strong when the
           waves are big."

           This shoreline sector is 800 feet long and is completely lined with shore pro-
           tection. Vertical seawalls are the most common type, but one large lot is pro-
           tected by randomly dumped basalt boulders.

           The 1988 aerial photographs show the seawall alignment at the point protrud-
           ing further seaward than the vegetation line of the adjacent properties, an
           indication of ongoing erosion on each side of the point.


           5.2.B. Waialee

           "Waialee means 'rippling or stirring water.' At one time, on calm days when
           the tide was low, people on shore could see freshwater bubbling up in small
           fountains above the offshore reef This upwelling of freshwater in the ocean
           may have influenced Hawaiians in naming the area." (Source: The Beaches of
           0'ahu) Recreational activities typically include diving, pole fishing, and
           swimming.

           Kaunala Beach (Figure 5-8)

           Kaunala is "the plaiting," or "the weaving," but the reason for this name is
           unknown. It is now often referred to as "Velzyland," originating with a surfing
           movie made on location. The area attracts beachcombers and fishermen in
           addition to surfers. Velzyland remains a famous surfing beach on Oahu's
           North Shore.

           The shoreline area seaward of Makanale Street has been recently developed,
           and most of the lots shown on Figure 5-8 now either have houses or are in the
           permit stage. The next 1,600 feet of shoreline to the east, down to Kaunala









                LEGENDO
                        On shore features oots, buildkV% roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February I=
                        Beach toe as of February 1 9w
                        Shore Protection
                S. R, 0: Type of shore protection
                        S = Seawak
                        R - Revetrnerft
                        0 - Other

                L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                        L - Legal
                        I - Illegal
                        N    Nonconforming                                           .188000


                                                                                                                                 IN.











                                                                                                                   Ll






























                                                                                                                                        NOTE,
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the Chys set of February 1988 aerial pho
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii."                                                                 August and September 1990. '






                                1991 Oahu Shoreline Managenien t Plan


          Gulch Stream, is undeveloped except for four houses next to the stream dis-
          charge. The houses are either on, or close to, the vegetation line. Two of the
          four have built combination shore protection/retaining wall structures. The
          beach just west of the houses appears to be eroding with a slight scarp at the
          vegetation line and ironwood trees seaward of the present vegetation line.

          Pahipahialua Beach (Figure 5-9)

          Pahipahialua, "to clap the lands twice," is said to have been the name of a
          fishing shrine, but its exact location is lost. The beach is also known as West
          Kawela, and is occupied by a number of private beach homes.

          This 2,700-foot-long beach is a discrete littoral cell, bounded by Kukaimanini
          Islet on the west and a limestone headland on the east. The area is zoned R-5,
          and much of it is developed with single-family dwellings.

          At the west end, there is a 600-foot-long undeveloped property. The lot depth
          varies from 150 feet on the west end to only 60 feet on the east end.

          Proceeding east from the point, there is a 1,000-foot long combination revet-
          ment/retaining wall, consisting of randomly dumped boulders. Several houses
          are protected by the wall, as are three or four vacant lots. The beach is narrow
          through this sector, and there are extensive beachrock outcrops at the toe of
          the beach. The beachrock is so extensive that the effect is to make the remain-
          ing beach a perched beach, above the normal tidal range.

          The remaining 1,100-foot length of beach, extending to the limestone shelf at
          the point, has no shore protection structures, although one house in the middle
          of this sector is very close to the vegetation line. Again, beachrock is exposed
          at the water line along most of this sector, and probably provides some stabil-
          ity against erosion.


          5.2.C. Malaekahana (Figure 5-10)

          The naming of Malaekahana is also said to be connected with an ancient
          Hawaiian legend. The general area is well-known to fishermen and the
          inshore waters provide a safe swimming area. The area has long been the site
          of beach homes for the affluent.

          Malaekahana Beach lies between Makahoa Point, a rocky headland, and
          Kahawainui Stream, and is approximately 8,500 feet long. The sector includes
          Kalanai Point, an unstable sandy tombolo in the lee of Mokuauia Island (Goat
          Island).

          Figure 5-10 shows the northern 4,500 feet of this sector, which is zoned R-5
          and is fully developed with single-family dwellings. Most of the houses are set



                                                 -20-











            LEGEND:
                     On shore features pots, buildings, roads)
                     Vegetation line as of February 19M
                     Beach too as of February 1988
                     Shore Protection
            S. R. 0: Type of shore protection
                     S - Seawalls
                     R - Revetrnents
                     0 - Other

            L, 1, N: U)gal status of shore protection
                     L - I-egal
                     I - Illegal
                     N    Nonconforming
                                                                                      111>00
                                                                             1P









                                                                                                                                               Cal
                                                                                                                                       Kamehameha Highway


































                                                                                                                                    NOTE,
                                                                                                                                              nd roa
                                                                                                                                    Lot lines a      ds; shown on this map are taken from the City arx
                                                                                                                                    Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines a
             'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                    computer analysis of the Citys set of February 1988 aerial photog
             amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
             Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                        Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
             through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii."                                                                August and September 19M.










              LEGEND:
                      On shore features pots, buildings, roads)
                      VegeWlon line as of February 1 9W                                      Makahoa Point
                      Beach too as of February 1 9w
                      Shore Protection
              S, R. 0: Type of shore protection
                      S - Seawalls
                      R - Revetmew-
                      0 - Other

              L, 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                      L   Legal
                      I - Illegal
                      N   Nonconfoffning



















                                                                                                                                                   011@





                                                                                                x
                                                                                                                                         T
                                                                                                                                         lini
                                                                                                         e-1                             lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City a
                                                                                                                                     Informa     System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation Iln
              @rhe preparation of this report was financed in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                    computer analysis of lheroft&40-91LFebnmfy@@6toc
              amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
              Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                        Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
              through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawall.*                                                                August and September 1990.






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nen .t Plan


            well back from the vegetation line and have relatively deep lots. A fairly high
            bluff extends along the beach, just inland of the vegetation line. Transect data
            indicate a stable or accreting beach. The main part of Malaekahana State
            Park is located to the east of the residential area.


            5.2.D. Laie Beach (Figure 5-11)

            According to The Beaches of 0ahu, "the land division of Laie was named for a
            beautiful legendary princess, Laieikawai, who was said to have been raised in
            the district." Recreational activities include diving, board surfing, bodysurfing,
            swimming, and throw-netting.

            Laie Beach is a continuation of Malaekahana Beach, and is bounded on the
            north by Malaekahana State Park and on the south by Laie Point, a promi-
            nent headland. The 1,200-foot length just south of Kahawainui Stream is
            undeveloped, and is zoned preservation. The remaining 2,300 feet of this sec-
            tor is zoned R-5 and is fully developed.

            Depending on the location, the developed portion of Laie Beach has accreted
            from 15 to 48 feet over the past 40 years. Because of this accretion, the lots are
            relatively deep, particularly at the south end of the beach. There are very few
            shore protection structures along this beach.


            5.2.E. Laniloa Beach (Laniloa #1 - Figure 5-12)

            "Laniloa Beach takes its name from Laniloa Point, a wide, elevated protrusion
            of coraline rock thrusting into the sea." (Source: The Beaches of 0ahu) The
            beach provides a recreational activity area for diving, snorkeling, swimming
            and throw-netting.

            Laniloa Beach is approximately one mile long and is bounded by Laie Point
            and Kehukuuna Point. The area is zoned R-5 and is almost completely devel-
            oped with single-family dwellings. The sandy beach continues another 1,200
            feet to the south, to Pali Kilo Ia, a distinct rocky headland. This beach sector is
            known as Pounders Beach and is a City park. Pounders Beach is separated
            from Laniloa Beach by the Koloa Stream discharge.

            Laniloa #1 extends from Laie Point to a man-made groin 3,000 feet south of
            the point. Most of the sector has been developed with single-family dwellings,
            but there are a few open lots. The beach is relatively stable, but there are a
            few lots with shore protection on the south half of this sector. The predomi-
            nant sand transport is to the south and the groin therefore stabilizes the
            southern part of this beach. South of the groin severe erosion has occurred.






                                                    -21-










               LEGEND:
                       On shore features pots, buildings, roads)
                       Vegetation line as of February 1988
                       Beach too as of February 1988
                       Shore Protection
               S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                       S W Seawalls
                       R - Revetments
                       0 - Other

               L. 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                       L   L89W
                       I  Illegal
                       N    Nonconforming






                                                                                          N,
                                                                                                                                                                                            700 10

                                                                               Lalegkah   'k
                                                                                 Y   ate Ww                                                                  CA

                                                                                                                                                             t
                                                                                                                                                             Away
                                                                                                                                                             hway

































                                                                                                                                       N "T.
                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
               "The preparation of this report was financed In pan by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                      Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
               amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean                            computer analysis of the Cltys set of February 1988 aerial photo
               Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerla
               through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawafl.*                                                                 August and September 1990.









                                                                  wThe preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
                                                                  amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                                                                  Service, National OceanIc and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
                                                                  through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii."

                                                                  NOTE:
                                                                  Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City and County of Honolulu Graphical
                                                                  Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines and beach toe locations are based upon
                                                                  computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial photographs.
                                                                  Seawalls and revetmerit locations are based upon the 1988 aerial photographs, with field verification In.
                                                                  August and September 1990.









                                                                                   Al 00     Al







                                               We Point






             LEGEND:
                                                                                                                       \<
                                         ngs roacj@ï¿½)
                   On shore features (lots, buildi
                   Vegetation line as of February 11
                   Beach toe as of February 19M                                               vj@
                   Shore Protection
                                                                                                                             Y'
            S,R,O: Type of shore protection

                   S   Seawalls
                   R   Revetments
                   0   Other


            Q,N: Legal status of shore protection

                   L = Legal
                   I  Illegal
                   N   Nonconforming






                                    1991 Oahu Shoreline Managanent Plan



             5.2.F. Kokololio Beach (Kokololio #1 - Figure 5-13)

             Kokololic, is located between Paki Kilo Ia and Kaipapau Point and means
             "creeping horse," taking its name from a peculiar wind that blows from the
             mountains in this region in very sharp, vigorous gusts. The long, curving sand
             beach of Kokololio is one of the most beautiful shorelines in this area of Oahu,
             and popular recreational activities include beachcombing, shorecasting, body-
             surfing and swimming.

             This 2,900-foot-long sector is at the north end of Kokololio Beach. The back-
             shore is zoned R-5 and is approximately 50 percent developed. The beach is
             relatively wide and the transect data indicate that the beach is either stable or
             accreting. The houses are set well back from the shoreline. At the south end of
             this sector, there is a 600-foot-long stretch of beach with the backshore zoned
             preservation. This is one of the few beaches between Laie Point and Kualoa
             Point that is not eroding or protected by seawalls.


             5.3 Koolaupoko District

             Kailua Beach (Figures 5-14 and 5-15)

             Kailua Beach is a high-quality stretch of sandy shoreline between the rocky
             points of Kapoho on the north and Alala on the south. Kailua is usually
             translated as "two currents in the sea." In addition to its scenic beauty, it
             offers a wide range of recreational activities including boating, diving, sailing,
             snorkeling, board surfing, bodysurfing, and swimming.

             The northern 11,000 feet of the beach is fully developed with single-family
             dwellings, and the southern 2,800 feet is dedicated to park use.

             The beach, especially at the north end, is very dynamic, with periodic signifi-
             cant erosion or accretion. The middle section of the beach is presently accret-
             ing. To date, there as been no significant shore protection placed on the beach.


             5.4 Honolulu District


             5A.A. Portlock (Figure 5-16)

             The Portlock shoreline seaward of the old Henry Kaiser Estate is rocky, with
             no sand beaches. Moving toward the Hawaii Kai Marina entrance channel
             from the Kaiser estate, the next 4,000 feet of shoreline is protected by vertical
             seawalls. There is little or no sandy beach remaining and lateral access is
             restricted.







                                                     -22-










               LEGEND:
                       On shore features Clots, buildings, roads)
                       Vegetation line as of February 1Ws
                       Beach too as of February 1988
               Mm"M Shore Protection
               S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                       S - Seawalls
                       R - Revetments
                       0 - Other

               L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                       L   Legal
                       I  Illegal                              ngers
                       N   N                               Diu c




                                                                                                                                                                                          600




                                                                                                                                                                                                S

                                                                               ri




                                                                                                                                                                          C3

                                                                                                                                                                                             L3




                                                                                                                                              9hW1









                                                                                 lip


                                                                                    "100







                                                                                                                                       NOTE:
                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                       Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
               'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial phot
               amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
               Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
               6through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii."                                                                August and September 1990.









                                                                    'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
                                                                    amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                                                                    Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
                                                                    through the Office of SMte Planning, State of Hawaii.*

                                                                    NOTE
                                                                    Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City and County of Honolulu Graphical
                                                        0 X.        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines and beach toe locations are based upon
                                                                    computer analysis of the City's set of February 19M aerial photographs.
                                                     L.j
                                                                    Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial photographs, with field verification In
                                                                    August and September 19M.











                                                                              -tee.
                                                                                1100






                                                  Ole
















             LEGEND:
                    On shore features (lots, buildings, roads)
                    Vegetation line as of February 1988
                    Beach toe as of February 1988
                    Shore Protection


            S,R,O: Type of shore protection

                    S = Seawalls
                    R = Revetments
                    0 = Other


            L,I,N: Legal status of shore protection

                    L  Legal
                    I I'llegal
                    N  Nonconforming










                LEGEND:
                        On shore features Pots, buildings, roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February 1W8
                        Beach toe as of February 1988
                        Shore Protection
                S. R, 0: Type of shore protection
                        8 W Seavlaft
                        R = Revetmerft
                        0 - Other

                L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                        L - Legal
                        1 - illegal
                        N - Nonconforming                                                           _NP>



                                                                                             1:3
                                                                                                                                             - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                                                              C=






                                                                                                                                                                   no
                                                                                                                    ICI @i
                                                                                                                                                                                         gaaT  IN*
                                                                                                                                                                                           eac



                                                                                                                                         na u































                                                                                                                                                                              IOU
                                                                                                                                       NOTE:                               x I to,
                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map aNdon from the City
                                                                                                                                       Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                'The preparation of this report was financed In pan by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the Cltys set of February 1988 aerial photi
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                        Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1 9W aert,
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawafl.'                                                                August and September 1990. '










               LEGEND:
                       On shore features Pots, buildings, roads)
                       Vegetation line as of February 19M
                       Beach too as of February 1988
                       Shore Protection
               S. R, 0: Type of shore protection
                       S - Seawalls
                       R - Revetments
                       0 - Other
               L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection                                              Kajanianaole Hwy.
                       L - Legal
                       I - illegal
                       N    Nonconforming












                                                                                                                                        V"
                                                                                                   x                                       d,

                                                                                                         00












                                                                                                                                                                         4@


                                                                                                                                                                                    4@
                                                                                                                                                                                       4f








                                                                                                                                       NOTE:
                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City a
                                                                                                                                       information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines a
               7he preparation   'of this report was financed In pan by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                    computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial photo
               amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
               Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerial
               through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.*                                                                 August and September 1990.






                                    1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


             The remaining 1,300 feet of the shoreline is sandy, with no shore protection
             structures. The sand transport along this shoreline is essentially unidirec-
             tional, with the transport towards the marina entrance channel. This results
             in chronic erosion at the east end of the sector, some accretion at the west end,
             and shoaling of the marina channel. This shoreline was greatly influenced by
             the extensive dredging associated with the Hawaii Kai development, particu-
             larly the dredging of the 200-foot-wide channel under the bridge in the 1960's.
             The new channel started to fill in immediately after the dredging was com-
             pleted, and there was corresponding erosion of the Portlock shoreline.


             5A.B. Kahala (Figure 5-17)

             A commonly accepted meaning of Kahala is "the amberjack fish." Kahala
             Beach is a long and narrow stretch of sand extending from the Waialae Beach
             Park to Black Point, a distance of 6,000 feet. Diving, pole fishing, snorkeling,
             board surfing, swimming and throw-netting are popular activities in this area.

             The backshore is zoned residential and is completely developed with sin-
             gle-family dwellings. The eastern 3,500 feet of the beach is 20 to 30 feet wide,
             has adequate lateral access, and no shore protection structures. This is the
             area shown in Figure 5-17.

             The 2,500 feet of shoreline at the west end of the beach is completely pro-
             tected, primarily with vertical seawalls, but there are some rock revetments.
             The beach sand is almost completely gone from this sector, and lateral access
             is restricted.

             Based upon evidence in the aerial photos and shoreline observations, it
             appears that the predominant sand transport is toward the east. If this is the
             case, the shoreline just east of the protected area will erode, as the littoral cur-
             rent suspends and transports the first available beach sand. If this occurs, the
             seawalls will continue to spread eastward along the beach. This has been the
             pattern over the past several years.

             This beach area has good public access to the shoreline and is a fairly popular
             recreational area. It is the only beach easily available to residents (easy park-
             ing) between Ala Moana Park and Sandy Beach.


             5.5 Waianae District


             5.5.A. Maili Beach (Figures 5-18 to 5-19)

             Maili is a contracted form of maili'ili, which means "lots of little pebbles." It is
             a long stretch of shoreline extending from Maipalaoa Stream on the south to




                                                     -23-











                 LEGEND:
                         On shore features (Iots, buildirigs, roads)
                         Vegetation line as of February iWe
                         Beach too as of February 1988
                         Shore Protection
                 S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                         S 3ft seawalls
                         R - Revehymu
                         0 - Other

                 1, 1. N: Legal status of shore protection
                         L    LegaJ
                         I - illegal
                         N    Nonconfom-JrQ
                                                                                                     -@100













                                                                                                        Kahala Avenue
                                                                                                         r-  r--iI'ED

                                                                                                                                    Lj


                                                                                                                                      U


















                                                                                                                                            NOTE:
                                                                                                                                            Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                            Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation line
                                                                                                                                                   ter analy
                 'The preparation of this report was financed in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                        compu           sis of the CItys set of February 1988 aerial phc
                 amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                 Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                            Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 19M as
                 through the Office of State Planning. State of Hawaii."                                                                    August and September 1990.










                LEGEND:
                        On shore features (Iots, buildings, roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February 1988
                        Beach too as of February 1988
                        Shore Protection
                S, R. 0: Type of shore protection
                        S = Seawalls
                        R - Revetmer"
                        0 - Other

                L, 1. N* Legal status of shore protection
                        L   Legal
                        I  Illegal
                        N   Nonconforrning








                                                         Mail! B*each Park


                                                                                                                                             '4rrin-vto,


                                                                                                                                                                                                 439a00




                                                                            438C)OO



















                                                                                                                                       NOTE:
                                                                                                                                       Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City
                                                                                                                                       information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                OThe preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                    computer analysis of the Ckys set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                        Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                August and September 1990.










                LEGEND6
                        On shore features (Iots, buildings, roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February 19M
                        Beach toe as of February 1988
                        Shore Protection
                S, R. 0: Type of shore protection
                        S - Seawalls
                        R - Revetments
                        0 = Other

                L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protect
                        L   Legal
                        I  Illegal
                        N   Nonconforming
                                                                                                                        4






                                                                                              j













                                                                                                                                        41
                                                                                                                                           4-   AA
                                                                                                                                                                                              00
                                                                              111>100

















                                                                                                                                        NOTE:
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City i
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the Chy's set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                         Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aerl
              I through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                 August and September 1990.






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline A4anage?nent Plan


           Maili'ili Stream on the north, a distance of 7,000 feet. Recreational activities
           include diving, board surfing, and swimming.

           At the south end of the sector, there is a 500-foot-long outcropping of lime-
           stone, with no sand beach. North of the outcropping, there is a 1,500-foot-long
           residential area, consisting of single-family dwellings and one condominium,
           the Maili Cove. The remaining 5,000 feet of coastline is Maili Beach Park.
           Park facilities are limited to comfort stations and parking lots.

           The two ends of the sand shoreline (the northern 3,000 feet of the park and
           the south end of the residential area) are subject to chronic, severe erosion.
           Over the past 40 years, the vegetation line has receded from 22 to 100 feet at
           these locations.

           At present, there is an extensive beachrock or limestone outcropping at the toe
           of the beach along the entire residential area. The shelf limits the recreational
           potential of this area, since it makes access to the water difficult. It should,
           however, eventually help to stabilize the shoreline against erosion. The beach
           becomes more narrow to the south, the house lots become shallower, and the
           last four houses are located close to or on the vegetation line, with two of them
           protected by vertical seawalls.

           The central part of the beach accreted over the past 40 years, with the vegeta-
           tion line in front of the condominium moving 70 feet seaward.

A          5.5.13. Mauna Lahilahi Beach (Figure 5-20)
           Mauna Lahilahi ("thin mountain") provides recreational opportunities for
           diving, pole fishing, board surfing, and swimming. It is a 2,000-foot-long
           beach, located just south of Lahilahi Point. The beach was either stable or
           accreting from 1949 to 1977, but then eroded severely between 1977 and 1988,
           probably due to the effects of Hurricane Iwa in 1982.

           At the north end of the beach, there is a 400-foot residential sector, and houses
           have been built on three of the six lots. There is presently no shore protection
           in place, but the houses are either at, or close to, the vegetation line. In the
           center of the beach, the highway is close to the beach crest. A public park is
           located at the south end.


           5.5-C. Makaha Beach (Fig1ge 5-21)

           Makaha Beach is approximately 3,300 feet long, and is bounded on each end
           by a rocky shoreline. It is a renowned surfmg beach, rich in legends, and also
           provides recreational opportunities for diving and swimming.










              LEGEND:
                      On shore features (Iots, buildings, roads)
                      Vegetation line as of February 1988
                      Beach too as of February 1988
                      Shore Protection
              S. R, 0: Type of shore protection
                      S - Seawalls
                      R - Revetments
                      0 - Other

              L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                      L    Legal
                      I = Illegal
                      N    Nonconforming














                                                                                                                         Farrington Highway



                                                                                                                       N
                                                                                                                         a     h
                                                                                                                               @flahl
                                                                                                                        e TV Pa





















                                                                                                                                  NOTE:
                                                                                                                                  Lot lines and roads shown on this amp are taken from the CRY a
                                                                                                                                  Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
               'The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                computer analysis of the City's set of February 1988 aerial phot
               amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
               Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                    Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 aer
               through the Offilce of State Planning, State of Hawaii."                                                           August and September 1990.










                LEGEND:
                        On shore features (Iots, buildings, roads)
                        Vegetation line as of February 19M
                        Beach too as of February 1 WS
                        Shore Protection
                S, R, 0: Type of shore protection
                        S - Seawalls
                        R - Revetments
                        0 - Other

                L, 1, N: Legal status of shore protection
                        L - Legal
                        I - Illegal
                        N    Nonconforming










                                                                                                                         Farrington Highway-
                                                                                             --7
                                                                                      TL- 7   --T----,
                                                                                                 i        r                                               414kM
                                                                                                                                                               a
                                                                                                                                                                      Pal*
                                                              <





























                                                                                                                                        NOTE:
                                                                                                                                        Lot lines and roads shown on this map are taken from the City e
                                                                                                                                        Information System (GIS). Structure locations, vegetation lines
                "The preparation of this report was financed In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as                     computer analysis of the Cltys set of February 1988 aerial phot
                amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                Service, Nabonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,                          Seawalls and revetment locations are based upon the 1988 ae
                through the Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.'                                                                 August and September 1990.






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline A4anage?nent Plan


            The northern end of the beach is zoned for residential and apartanent use, the
            southern end for residential, and the central section is dedicated to park use.

            The north end of the beach has eroded 20 feet over the past 10 years, and the
            apartment building separating the north residential area from the public
            park, now protrudes seaward of the adjacent vegetation lines. During much of
            the year it acts as a groin, isolating the north sector of the beach. This sector is
            800 feet long, with 450 feet developed and 350 feet still vacant. The developed
            area is protected, except for one house, by vertical seawalls.

            This sector has extensive beachrock outcroppings at the toe of the beach, and
            the beach is "perched" between the outcropping and the vegetation line. It
            consists of poorly-graded sand with a high percentage of rubble. The existing
            shore protection is located well back from the perched beach.

            Makaha Beach Park is located along the central 1,500 feet of the beach. The
            beach in this area varies greatly between summer and winter seasons due to
            the variation in wave climate. In addition to the seasonal trends, there may be
            longer cycles of erosion/accretion, and in recent years the beach has been
            eroding. The public bath house at the park has been repeatedly damaged by
            large winter surf. At one time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was investi-
            gating the feasibility of shore protection in this area. Lately, some considera-
            tion has been given to realigning Farrington Highway to allow the beach to
            fluctuate naturally.

            The backshore of the southern 1,100 feet of the beach is zoned residential and
            is fully developed. The variation in beach conditions between a February 1988
            photograph and a June 1989 site visit indicates that the summer sand trans-
            port is to the north. In June 1989, only the first three houses next to the beach
            park were fronted by a sandy beach. Along the remaining 900 feet, the beach
            had been cut away to the point that the shoreline consisted of a five-to
            ten-foot-high limestone shelf with only a narrow strip of sand behind. Two
            houses in the group are protected by vertical retaining walls, but they have no
            apparent effect on the littoral processes.


















                                                    -25-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan



           6. ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY APPROACBES


           6.1 Retaining "Status Quo!(40-Foot Setback)

           Advantages

           In some specific cases, retention of the existing 40-foot setback is the most
           rational alternative. For example, there are at least three circumstances in
           which the existing 40-foot setback may be considered appropriate: where there
           are rocky shorelines, where the predictability of future erosion is determined
           to be relatively slow, and where the area is already fully developed and
           committed to shoreline protection.

           Maintaining status quo also has two other overall practical advantages:

               a.   It is relatively easy to administer and enforce. This is an advantage
                    which should not be discounted, since without effective monitoring
                    and enforcement, the most well-intentioned beach preservation strat-
                    egy will not produce the desired results.

               b.   It provides a degree of predictability to those purchasing and
                    attempting to develop or redevelop shoreline properties. The 40-foot
                    shoreline setback is an accepted restriction on shoreline properties. If
                    setbacks varied from property to property, the restrictions might not
                    be as widely-known or acknowledged.

           Disadvantaves

           The primary disadvantage is also found in its basic simplicity. No explicit
           rationale has been found for the 40-foot restriction, and there is no evidence
           that specific beach erosion dangers were taken into consideration in establish-
           ing the setback. The City and other counties have always had the option of
           increasing the setback, but none has ever succeeded in doing so, perhaps
           because of the great diversity in beach conditions and in the lack of technical
           data and available expertise in the past to measure and rationally respond to
           these diversities. An additional factor on Oahu was public opposition, sup-
           ported by legislative action [i.e. Bill No. 7-90, an Interim Development Control
           Ordinance for increased shoreline setbacks), which resulted in the filing of the
           Bill by the City Council after a small, vocal group of North Shore residents
           opposed it because of what they saw as a decrease in property values and
           infringement on property rights.








                                                  -26-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


            6.2 Increasing Shoreline Setbacks

            Advantages

            The advantage of increasing shoreline setbacks for areas where there is
            long-term, chronic erosion of sandy beaches or where cyclical storm damage
            causes severe erosion is that this would provide a site-specific method of beach
            preservation. Some degree of subjectivity would be inherent in this alterna-
            tive, but it is a regulatory approach and therefore flexible enough to respond to
            changing conditions or new data inputs as they are made available. An
            increased shoreline setback would accomplish the basic regulatory concern in
            all existing policies and programs for beach preservation: ensuring that
            structures are built far enough away from the shoreline to allow for natural
            beach processes to take place. It would, in that sense, promote the essential
            policy objective explicitly expressed in all Federal, State, and City policy doc-
            uments and regulatory controls preserving a public resource of great value,
            and scarcity, in those areas where the probability of loss of the resource is
            high.

            Disadvantages


                a. Nonconformities

                    When a regulatory control is changed, the inevitable result is the
                    creation of additional nonconformities. These may be either noncon-
                    forming structures or nonconforming uses or both. "Nonconforming"
                    means that the structure or use, at the time it was built or estab-
                    lished., complied with all regulations in effect at that time, but no
                    longer does. While a nonconformity is not illegal, the creation of non-
                    conformity imposes burdens on agencies responsible for administering
                    and enforcing regulations and on the property owner whose structure
                    or use no longer conforms to current regulations.

                    Agencies, when nonconformity is created, must monitor future actions
                    for compliance with restrictions on these uses and structures. Often,
                    especially with older structures and uses, it is difficult to ascertain
                    what regulations precisely applied at the time the structure was built
                    or the use established.

                    The property owner, while allowed to continue the use or structure.,
                    faces limited options in the future. Basically, if the structure is
                    destroyed (by more than half its replacement cost), it cannot be rebuilt
                    unless it conforms to current regulations. There are also restrictions
                    on repairs, alterations, and additions, and if a nonconforming use is
                    discontinued for a period of time, it cannot be reestablished.




                                                  -27-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Mame?nen t Plan


                    Oahu's regulations for nonconforming uses and structures are essen-
                    tially the same as established in all jurisdictions and are designed
                    with the same theory in mind. If policy-makers determine that a pub-
                    lic good is served by changing the rules, and the rules are subse-
                    quently changed, then the theoretical objective is to eventually force
                    conformance to the new rules and to discourage the continuance of
                    uses and structures which no longer conform. While this is not a
                    well-understood theory by the average property owner, the theory
                    itself is sound.

                    In practice, however, the existence of nonconforming uses and struc-
                    tures causes hardship, expense, misunderstanding of public objectives,
                    and resentment of governmental regulation.

                    Increasing shoreline setbacks will create new nonconforming condi-
                    tions; specifically, it will make a number of structures, including
                    dwellings, nonconforming, because they are built within the new,
                    enlarged setback area. It should be noted that the structures - legally
                    built - are legally permitted to remain, but the restrictions on
                    replacement, etc., described above will apply.

                    This particular disadvantage in increasing shoreline setbacks, or in
                    any other regulatory change discussed, cannot be fully resolved. There
                    are, however, two critical criteria which should be considered within
                    this context:

                       (1) The "change in rules" should clearly serve the greater public
                            good and be formulated in a fair and equitable manner, not,
                            for example, rewarding a select few at the expense of the
                            majority.

                       (2)  The degree of nonconformity created, relative to the public
                            purpose achieved, should be relatively minor. (This, of course,
                            is not easily determined, but it should be seriously considered
                            in any change to regulatory controls.)

               b. The "Taking" Issue

                    Government is prevented from taking private property for public use
                    without paying just compensation by the Fifth Amendment. In gen-
                    eral, a land use regulation must pass two tests to avoid a taking. It
                    must substantially advance a legitimate government interest, and it
                    must not deny a property owner an economically viable use of his or
                    her land. It is important to note that the question in a taking issue is
                    not just the legitimacy of the government's interest; it must be deter-




                                                 -28-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Managanen t Plan


                    mined that the means chosen by government actually does
                    "substantially advance" its legitimate interest.

                    Regulatory strategies, specifically an increase in shoreline setbacks,
                    may raise the taking issue, since it might be argued that prohibiting
                    development on a portion of the private beachfront property is tanta-
                    mount to a physical occupation, or taking, by government and that
                    just compensation for the increased setback area is therefore due. On
                    the other hand, if it is shown that the increased setback substantially
                    advances the government!s legitimate interest, e.g. preserving a valu-
                    able, but limited public resource, then no taking has occurred, and no
                    compensation is due.

                    It is not possible to predict the outcome of a taking challenge in con-
                    sidering increased setbacks on Oahu's beaches, because the issues
                    from case to case will differ and will almost always be complex. It is
                    possible to consider patterns which have evolved on the taking issue
                    by examining recent (1989-1990) court rulings in other states. The
                    following is a summary of some rulings which are relevant to this
                    particular regulatory strategy for beach preservation, drawn from the
                    "Land Use Law and Zoning Digest."

                        a.  In New York, an agency's action to identify certain areas as
                            11coastal erosion hazard areas" was deemed not to be a taking.
                            The court stated that the identification of certain areas as
                            coastal erosion areas did not create a basis for challenge of the
                            regulations as unconstitutional and that the action of identify-
                            ing these areas, standing alone, did not constitute a taking.
                            (February 5, 1990)

                            Simply identifying an area as subject to erosion and loss is not
                            apparently subject to serious legal challenge, and it is a
                            widespread practice among coastal states. (Refer to the
                            description of Florida's beach preservation program in Section
                            4.) There must, of course, be a credible technical basis for the
                            action.

                        b.  A New Jersey court ruled that special restrictions on the
                            development of land determined to be "a unique ecologically
                            sensitive area," did not constitute a taking. The court ruled
                            that there was a rational basis for the more stringent regula-
                            tions, because the area was ecologically sensitive and that
                            measures fairly designed to bar unsuitably intense develop-
                            ment were justified. (June 13, 1989)





                                                   _29-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan


                            In coastal states, sandy beaches can certainly be reasonably
                            classified as unique and ecologically sensitive areas, much as
                            certain urban areas can be singled out for special restrictions
                            because of their scenic, cultural, or historical uniqueness. The
                            measures to substantially advance the legitimate governmen-
                            tal interest, however, must be fairly designed.

                        C.  in a case in New Hampshire, the denial of a variance for con-
                            struction of a house on wetlands was upheld, even though the
                            denial left the owner unable to make "profitable use" of the
                            land. (February 6, 1989)

                            In a statement on the taking issue, the court held that in cases
                            where the proposed use of the property is deemed "injurious to
                            the public," the test is whether the regulation thwarts the
                            owner's substantial, justified expectations and whether the
                            burden is unreasonably onerous. (It should be noted that there
                            was legislation in place which strongly expressed a public
                            policy of wetlands protection.)

                            In this case, the owner was prevented from realizing a profit
                            from the construction, but not from maintaining status quo.
                            The court did not support a taking claim based solely on the
                            investment risks taken by the property owner in the face of
                            regulatory impediments,

                            Degislative intent, strongly expressing a public interest, is a
                            necessary ingredient in avoiding a taking claim. The regula-
                            tory means of achieving the intent, of course, must be fairly
                            drawn and substantially advance this public interest. The sec-
                            ond test, depriving a private property owner of the economi-
                            cally viable use of his or her land, does not automatically
                            mean that a property owner may purchase land when it is
                            subject to special public interest, and then successfully pursue
                            a taking claim because of restrictions placed upon the land to
                            protect that public interest.

                        d.  An unconstitutional taking claim was lost in Indiana and,
                            while it did not affect beachfront property, the findings in the
                            case succinctly express considerations in the taking issue:

                                (1) The court stated that a land use regulation does not
                                    effect a taking if it substantially advances a legitimate
                                    state interest and does not deprive an owner of eco-
                                    nomically viable use of his property.

20



                                                   -30-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline A4anage?nen t Plan


                               (2) The court noted that whether a regulation deprives an
                                   owner of economically viable use of his property
                                   involves consideration of the owner's invest-
                                   ment-backed expectations, the diminution of land's
                                   value, the extent of interference with the land's pre-
                                   sent use, comparison of the property as a whole with
                                   the portion encumbered by the regulation, and the
                                   nature and character of the interference.

                               (3) The court stated that the test is essentially whether
                                   the government has regulated to an extent that the
                                   owner has been effectively deprived of productive use
                                   of his or her property.

                    Two other aspects of this particular case are relevant to beach preser-
                    vation strategies, from a regulatory standpoint: the private property
                    action proposed involved land on which there were archaeological
                    sites, and a mitigation plan had also been proposed by the government
                    agency challenged on the regulatory restrictions.

                    The court held that protecting a legitimate state interest, e.g. the
                    archaeological sites, was valid and that the end was served by means
                    of the regulatory device employed in this case, and the mitigation
                    plan. It also stated that regulations need not accomplish "all possible
                    ends" in attempting to further the governmental interest.

                    While the specter of a legal challenge to any change in existing shore-
                    line regulations aimed at preserving Oahu's beaches is real, and it
                    may be considered "disadvantageous," it is by no means a legitimate
                    obstacle to pursuing regulatory change. A challenge based on taking is
                    not easily won when a clear public interest is carefully, and substan-
                    tially, advanced by a change in regulatory controls.


           6.3 Prohibiting Shoreline Protection Structures

                    AdvantaL,es

                    Seawalls and revetments are the most commonly used shoreline
                    protection structures on Oahu. Some of them were erected legally and
                    some, approximately 41 percent within the study area, were illegally
                    constructed. (Illegal structures are those constructed after 1970
                    without a permit.) In addition, approximately 30 percent of the
                    structures were legal at the time they were constructed, but are now
                    nonconforming. They could not meet current standards and
                    regulations.






                                        1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


                        There is a      consensus among sources that this common form of
                        protecting     private, beachfront property is not the preferred
                        alternative. According to Shoreline Protection in California, the
                        following scenario is likely to occur:

                             "For beaches subject to continued erosion, bulkheads (seawalls) do not
                             provide a long-lived permanent solution, because eventually a more
                             substantial wall is required as the beach continues to recede and larger
                             waves reach the structure. While seawalls may protect the upland, they
                             do not hold or protect the beach which is the greatest asset of shorefront
                             property. In some cases, the seawall may be detrimental to the beach in
                             that the downward forces of water, created by the waves on striking the
                             wall, rapidly remove sand from the beach."

                        Ironically, the shoreline "protection" structure, designed to protect the
                        owner's considerable investment in beachfront property is itself
                        sometimes destroyed by the natural forces continually at work,
                        including wave and wind action or severe storms. According to the
                        Hawaii Shoreline Erosion Management Study, a common cause of
                        failure is inadequate design and the structure may be lost or severely
                        damaged. The property protection intended is not achieved, and an
                        unintended but long-term negative effect is inflicted on the chief
                        11value" of the investment itself - the adjacent beach.

                        Within this context, the advantage in prohibiting shoreline protection
                        structures on vulnerable Oahu beaches is clear. In the technical sense,
                        they are often ineffective in protecting the private interest anyway,
                        and they are often a contributing factor in the loss of a valuable public
                        resource.


             Disadvantages

                        The disadvantages are equally clear. The public and private impacts
                        of creating nonconforming structures are discussed in Section 6.2
                        above. Prohibiting new shoreline protection structures, as of a certain
                        date, would render all existing structures nonconforming.

                        Broad, indiscriminantory prohibition would not only create a greater
                        degree of nonconformity, but would not always create a better beach
                        preservation environment. There are certain areas which are already
                        fully committed to shoreline protection structures. Prohibiting them in
                        these areas would not accomplish anything positive toward preserving
                        the adjacent beach.

                        Alternatives to a broad-brush attack on shoreline protection structures
                        erected by private land owners, would be to:





                                                            -32-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Managanent Plan


                        a.  ease regulatory restrictions on other types of structures, e.g.
                            small, open structures which would facilitate sand entrapment
                            without damaging the natural processes at work in the area;

                        b.  controlling the design and uniformity of seawalls in areas
                            where the beachfront is already heavily developed and fully
                            committed to this type of protection (thereby protecting adja-
                            cent property owners and the beach itself); and

                        c.  selectively targeting certain areas where the beach is vulner-
                            able, but no major commitment has yet been made, for a pro-
                            hibition strategy.

                    Areas where these alternatives can and should be exercised on Oahu
                    are discussed more fully in Section 8.

            6.4 Increasing Minimum Lot Areas for Residential Shoreline
                  Properties

            This regulatory approach has been considered in the past and was evaluated
            in this follow-up study, but was rejected because the disadvantages appear to
            outweigh any advantage to be obtained at the present time.

            The advantage in increasing minimum lot areas for residentially-zoned
            shoreline parcels would be to avoid creation of narrow, shallow lots where
            even the existing 40-foot shoreline setback imposes a significant development
            constraint. Current residential zoning (R-5 and R-3.5) would permit lots of
            5Y000 and 3,500 square feet on the shoreline, respectively. Small-lot subdivi-
            sions on the shoreline create obvious hardships for individual owners, espe-
            cially if setbacks were to be increased for beach preservation. This situation
            then promotes more requests for "variance" from regulatory controls or
            encourages illegal shoreline protection measures by individual property own-

            ers.


            On the other hand, most areas within the study area are already fully devel-
            oped. While there are small pockets of opportunity left in certain areas., the
            major advantage to creating larger-lot subdivisions is largely lost. To prevent
            smaller-lot development at this point in time would require either "spot rezon-
            ing" action, which is not considered a desirable regulatory approach, or large
            area-wide rezonings which would undoubtedly create a number of noncon-
            formities. (See Section 6.2 above.)

            Because the benefit to be gained does not appear to outweigh the problems
            created, this alternative is not considered feasible.





                                                  -33-






                                    1991 Oahu Shoreline AUnage?nent Plan


             6.5 Creating a Beach Preservation (Overlay) District

             This is an alternative which has also been discussed in the past and which has
             ample precedent in existing regulatory controls aimed at "preserving" a certain
             resource, e.g. historic, cultural, or scenic, on an area-wide basis. For example,
             Article 7. of the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) contains special district regula-
             tions for seven areas of Oahu, in addition to regulations governing feder-
             ally-established Flood Hazard Districts.

             In some cases, the regulations are an "overlay" on existing zoning require-
             ments, and in others they supplant and supersede underlying zoning. In each
             case, they are tailored to control a specific concern or concerns within the area
             selected.


             Advantages

                      In general, the advantage to using an "overlay" approach is that spe-
                      cific concerns can be more easily addressed than in the more tradi-
                      tional, broad-brush approach contained in a zoning ordinance. Leg-
                      islative intent and objectives specifically focused on the problem, the
                      public concern, can be expressed in a manner which property owners
                      within the area can more easily identify with and support.

                      For example, to carry out a beach preservation strategy in this
                      approach would mean establishing an "umbrella" Beach Preservation
                      District with broad intent and objectives under which site-specific
                      11precincts," or beach sectors could then be established. The diversity of
                      Oahu's beaches and differing objectives would most likely require sev-
                      eral established sectors.

                      Within each sector, specific concerns could be addressed in the fashion
                      most appropriate for that sector. Setbacks could be established, guide-
                      lines for the most appropriate type of shoreline protection structure (in
                      terms of type and uniformity in design) could be incorporated, and
                      other regulatory matters, such as treatment of illegal seawalls, could
                      also be included. The regulatory flexibility available under an overlay
                      district approach is an attractive advantage.

                      Another advantage is that an established regulatory mechanism
                      already exists for this approach. It is a tested means of preservation
                      and control and one for which there already exists precedent and
                      administrative experience at the City level; for example, "overlay"
                      controls have been administered for sometime in Special Districts
                      such as Waikiki and Chinatown.






                                                     -34-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan



           Disadvantages

                    Despite the obvious advantages to adapting an existing regulatory
                    mechanism to the beach preservation objective, creating a new
                    "District" would still mean adding an additional layer of regulation to
                    the shoreline. While it may be possible to streamline or even merge
                    this type of regulatory approach with the Shoreline Management Area
                    and Shoreline Setback regulations, it would still mean a new set of
                    11rules" governing property owners with beachfront parcels.

                    As noted above, this is an approach which has been fully tested and
                    has been shown to work. However, creating special district regulations
                    has never been an easily accomplished task. The intent and public
                    objectives of such a district must be carefully drawn and specific regu-
                    lations within the district must be thoughtfully and equitably con-
                    structed to carry out those objectives. A great deal of public input and
                    discussion has preceded the establishment of each of the existing spe-
                    cial districts and the same type of education and outreach would be
                    required for a beach preservation district.

                    Finally, this approach is regulatory and would not in itself provide for
                    the type of non-regulatory strategies, such as beach replenishment,
                    which may actually be required for effective long-term preservation;
                    they could be addressed, however, if an Improvement District were
                    established. Elsewhere it was noted that other studies have
                    recommended exploring the possibilities of using an Improvement
                    District in which public and private monies would be used to pursue
                    non-regulatory strategies. Ideally, a combination of the regulatory
                    (overlay district) approach with the Improvement District
                    (assessment) approach could be used to more effectively accomplish
                    the objective; however, this hybrid approach would likely be difficult
                    to achieve without a long-term investment in and commitment to both
                    the funding required and the need for public consensus.


           6.6 Increasing Monitoring and Enforcement Efforts

           There is a generally negative public perception about governmental monitor-
           ing and enforcement efforts in the past. While this perception is unfortunate,
           it is not entirely unfounded. The high percentage of illegally-built seawalls
           within the study area is one manifestation of an inconsistent effort in this
           regard.

           On the other hand, there have been and continue to be a number of serious
           restraints on monitoring and enforcement within shoreline areas in general
           and along the beachfront specifically. As has been noted previously, without a



                                                  -35-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan


            solid technical data base, taking into account the fragility and diversity of our
            beaches, regulators lacked a basis for vigorous enforcement. The lack of
            coastal engineering expertise was another, continuing obstacle.

            Staff shortages and a lack of commitment in public expenditures specifically
            directed toward monitoring and enforcement, as opposed to policy
            formulation and regulations development, are other reasons why there has
            often been a vague, ineffectual link between beach preservation policy and
            actual enforcement of regulatory controls created to pursue preservation.

            Finally, overlapping jurisdictions, the complexity of the existing regulatory
            regime, and differing priorities among the various levels of government agen-
            cies involved do not aid, and probably actually impede, enforcement efforts.

            In recent years, some significant progress has been made to strengthen moni-
            toring and enforcement. For example:

                        a.  The technical data base has been greatly improved, giving
                            regulators a more comprehensive framework for both the for-
                            mulation of preservation controls and a technically solid basis
                            for enforcing existing regulations. This base includes the data
                            gathered and mapped as a result of the Oahu Shoreline Study
                            and the City's seawall inventory. Computerized mapping
                            capabilities have also greatly contributed to data-gathering
                            and analysis efforts.

                        b.  The administrative approach to enforcement (commonly
                            referred to as the "civil fines system"), as opposed to attempt-
                            ing to prosecute violators through criminal courts, has
                            increased the effectiveness and speed of the enforcement
                            effort. This system is now used for building and zoning viola-
                            tions and violations within the Special Management Area. It
                            is also now being applied to the enforcement of Shoreline Set-
                            back violations.

            The remaining problems are in large part a function of inadequate funding
            specifically focused on this area of concern. Until that commitment is made,
            enforcement is likely to lag far behind policy intent. Monies will be needed to
            recruit a larger, technically-qualified staff, to maintain and increase the tech-
            nical data base, to monitor public and private development within the setback
            area, and to administer a civil fines system.

            Within the scope and context of this study, micreasing monitoring and
            enforcement efforts is not really an "alternative," in the sense that there are
            other rational options. Regardless of the beach preservation strategies




                                                  -36-



  1                             1991 Oahu Shoreline Managemen t Plan
  I       selected, if they cannot be effectively enforced, the objective will not be
  I        achieved.
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I

  I



  --A











  -4












                                                 -37-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline management Plan



            7. NON-REGUILATORY PRESERVATION STRATEGIES

            There are a number of traditional non-regulatory methods of beach preserva-
            tion which are common in other states and which are explored in general in
            this Section. It should be noted that not all of these may be appropriate for
            Oahu, that the specific method selected would depend on the nature of the
            erosion problem and quantifiable characteristics of the particular beach sector,
            and that non-regulatory strategies are considered a supplemental tool to be
            used with regulatory controls.

            Methods for stabilizing a beach and controlling erosion can be categorized as
            structures which impede waves and protect erodible materials, or an artificial
            supply of sand to replenish the sand loss from erosion, with or without struc-
            tures. In both cases, the objective is to reduce the rate of beach loss.

            One of the principal advantages of governmental planning/funding of
            non-regulatory methods is that separate protection for small sectors of ero-
            sion-prone beaches, e.g. to protect individual beach lots within a larger eroding
            area is difficult, costly, and often ineffective, or even damaging. Comprehen-
            sive action which takes into account the loss process over the full length of the
            eroding beach sector or sectors is more effective and economical in the
            long-run.

            Seawalls and Revetments

            These are the shore protection structures of choice on Oahu at the present
            time. They provide protection on the upper part of the beach, fronting back-
            shore residential development, and serve as a substitute for natural protection
            processes. Beach lot owners have resorted to this type of "armoring of the
            shore" by erecting wave-resistant walls of various types, often vertical walls of
            stone.

            A revetment is also a structure which armors the beachfront against wave
            action with one or more layers of rock or concrete. Revetments serve the same
            purpose as seawalls, but tend to dissipate wave energy with less damage to
            the beach than waves striking vertical walls.

            Groins

            A groin is a barrier-type structure which extends from the backshore into the
            zone of littoral transport (sand movement). Groins can, in some cases, reduce
            the rate of sand loss and the rate of beach recession. The basic purpose of a
            groin is to intercede in the sand movement and to gather sand on the shore;
            however, this is done at the expense of the adjacent downdrift beach unless
            the groin is filled with sand to its "trapping" capacity. It is often necessary to



                                                  -38-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan


           artificially fill the area between the groins with sand, ensuring a supply to
           downdrift beaches.


           Breakwaters

           Breakwaters, on- or off-shore barrier-type facilities, also slow or eliminate
           wave action and thus provide protection for the area behind them. An offshore
           breakwater, for example, stops wave action and creates a calm water area
           between it and the beach. However, breakwaters can have both beneficial and
           detrimental effects on the beach. Because of the lack of wave action, sand is
           deposited and builds seaward toward the breakwater. The buildup serves as a
           further barrier, completely damming the sand and depriving downdrift
           beaches of new sand. Breakwaters are more often used for navigation pur-
           poses, e.g. preventing sand from entering a navigation channel, than for
           small-sector beach preservation. In those cases, sand is often mechanically
           transferred e.g. by piping it, to replenish areas needing it.

           Beach Replenishment/Renourishment

           The barrier-type structures can be effective in certain circumstances, but most
           references agree that the preferred method of protection should be as similar
           as possible to natural ones. In general, and where practicable, the type of
           beach protection provided by nature (natural processes unhampered) is the
           best strategy. This strategy call, for rebuilding of the vulnerable beach artifi-
           cially, simulating natural processes. For stability of the beach, sand from other
           sources is periodically added to compensate for deficiencies in the natural
           supply. This is considered most economical for long stretches of sandy beaches,
           because the increase of supply benefits the entire beach sector.

           Beach dimensions, including height and width of berm and characteristics of
           the sand required for beach slopes, can be determined and the replenishment
           program is then designed to withstand erosion sources of a specified degree of
           severity; however, there are occasions when structures must also be provided
           to maintain a specific beach shape, or to reduce overall replenishment
           requirements.

           The combination of beach replenishment with protection structures can be
           costly. According to Shore-Protection in California, by Sacramento's Depart-
           ment of Navigation and Ocean Development: "In each case, the cost of such
           structures must be weighed against the added benefits they would provide.
           Thus, measures to provide and keep a wider protective and recreational beach
           for a relatively short section of an eroding shore would require excessive
           nourishment without supplemental structures such as groins to reduce the
           rate of loss of material from the widened beach. A long, high terminal groin or
           jetty is frequently justified at the downdrift end of a beach restoration project
           to reduce losses of fill into a submerged canyon."



                                                  -39-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline A4anage?nent Plan


           Vegetation is also used to increase sand volume and reduce the rate of erosion.
           Root systems help bind the soil and provide protective cover for bare sediment.
           Plant varieties suitable to Oahu's beach environment include Beach Naupaka
           and Sea Grapes, among others. Re-vegetation of a sandy beach, like sand
           replenishment, is not a permanent solution, since it will help slow the rate of
           erosion, but not prevent it.

           In Hawaii, all of the non-regulatory (structural and non-structural) methods
           described above have been used with varying degrees of success. Groins are
           not used today in residentially-developed beachfront areas, because of over-
           lapping jurisdictions and permit problems. (For a more detailed description of
           these, a recent reference is Hawaii Shoreline Erosion Management Study,
           Volume 1.) Table 1. is adapted from this study and illustrates preferred
           preservation strategies for certain types of beaches and sun-unarizes basic
           cost/benefit considerations.

           Section 5. of this report describes the physical characteristics of each beach
           sector comprising a management plan. Section 8. presents specific
           recommendations, regulatory and non-regulatory, for each beach.





































                                                 -40-






                                              1991 Oahu Shoreline Managemen t Plan





                                                               Table 1.


                   FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE SHORE
                                    PROTECTION/STABILIZATION MEASURE:

                      FACTOR               PREFE11ABLE (1)              SUITABLE (2)            NOT SUITABLE (3)

                GeologicaVPhysical Shoreline Features



                Case 1: Extensive          Beach nourishment         Offshore structures       Seawalls
                sandy offshore & beach                               Groins Buried
                area                                                 structures
                                                                     Revet3nents


                Case 2: Sandy beach        Beach nourishment,        Offshore structures       ...
                but limited offshore       Beach fill with           Grains Buried
                sand supply                structures                Structures
                                                                     Revetments Seawalls


                Case 3: Rocky              Seawalls                  Revetanents Beach fill    Offshore structure,
                shoreline area                                       with structures           Groins Buried structures
                                                                                               Beach nourishment



                Benefit versus Cost

                Case 1: Protection vs. relocation              Consider cost of protection measure versus value
                                                               of existing improvements or land

                Case 2: Total cost vs. benefits                Consider initial construction cost! plus long-term
                                                               maintenance costs over desired lifetime

                Case 3: Intangible costs & benefits            Consider public safety, convenience, aesthetics,
                                                               social well-being



                Adapted from Hawaii Shorelirw E?wion Management Study, Volume I, June 1989

















                                                                   -41-






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nen t Plan




            8. RECOMMENDATIONS


            8.1 General

            This Section discusses two types of beach preservation strategies, which would
            form the basis of a regulatory and a non-regulatory plan to prevent further
            loss of Oahu's public beach resources.

            The first type of strategy is considered short-term, relatively cost-effective, and
            of relatively low impact in terms of dealing with the public resource/private
            property conflict.

            The second type of recommended strategy would employ longer-term, poten-
            tially more costly means of preserving Oahu's beaches. In some cases, the
            impacts on private ownership of lands adjoining threatened beaches could also
            be more severe. In all cases, long-term strategies will require more time to
            implement, a potentially greater investment, and a lasting State/City com-
            mit3nent to beach preservation.

            Short-Term, Cost-Effective, Low-Impact Strategies.

                a. Eliminate the 20-foot shoreline setback, which is now permitted
                     under certain conditions.


                    Rationale:

                    While the original intent of permitting a 20-foot shoreline setback,
                    under certain conditions, was most likely to provide relief to small or
                    severely-impacted lots, the rationale for continuing to do so is not
                    convincing. The objective should be to prevent the creation of lots
                    where accommodating a minimum 40-foot setback imposes use and
                    development problems. Relatively speaking, eliminating the 20-foot
                    setback and requiring a minimum 40-foot setback should not cause
                    severe impacts, since the latter, larger setback has been established in
                    a majority of cases. It should also be noted that the counties have
                    always had the authority under State statute to increase setbacks
                    even beyond the standard 40 feet. Platted lots created prior to the
                    elimination of the 20-foot setback could still be reviewed under the old
                    rule.

               b. Require a minimum 3,000 square feet buildable lot area for resi-
                     dential beachfront properties.







                                                    -42-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Man!se?nen t Plan


                   Rationale:

                   The purpose here is to further and more directly address the inappro-
                   priate creation of residential lots where even the existing shoreline
                   setbacks impose a "hardship" on future use and development. This re-
                   quirement would effectively prohibit the creation of small, shallow lots
                   in the future and ensure that shoreline setbacks, in combination with
                   other zoning and building requirements, can be realistically met. A
                   "buildable area" would exclude the established shoreline setback, the
                   front, side and rear yards required in the zoning district, any applica-
                   ble street setbacks, and easements.

               C.   Prohibit a shoreline setback "credit" for property owners who acquire,
                    through land court and/or consolidation and resubdivision, accreted
                    shorefront land.


                   Rationale:

                   The objective here is to prevent what has become a fairly common and
                   ultimately destructive practice by beachfront property owners. In
                   areas where there is substantial accretion occurring, an owner will
                   acquire, by means of land court action or subdivision/consolidation or
                   both, the accreted land. The shoreline and 40-foot shoreline setback
                   area is then moved seaward onto the accreted land, giving the owner
                   not only more total lot area but more buildable area beyond the origi-
                   nal shoreline setback. Since erosion/accretion is a natural, inevitable
                   cyclical process, eventually the accreted land erodes. The result is the
                   placement of structures within the original setback area and the
                     crease of negative impacts from these structures on natural beach
                   processes. In these cases, not only is a public resource damaged, but
                   the private structures are also endangered.

               d.   For new developments on vacant land, or redevelopments which
                    result in a higher unit count (e.g., more than replacing one existing
                    single-family residence), require a minimum setback of 60 feet; this
                    increased setback would apply, for example, to Cluster Housing and
                    Planned Development Housing.

                   Rationale:

                   This approach would provide an opportunity for avoiding some of the
                   past negative impacts of residential developments and man-made
                   interference with natural processes on remaining beaches. The appli-
                   cation of increased setbacks to vacant land would not create noncon-
                   formities and, in those cases where development or redevelopment
                   would result in increased residential densities, the trade-off, an



                                                  -43-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nen t Plan


                     increased shoreline setback for increased density, should meet the test
                     of substantially advancing the public interest. The opportunities for
                     applying increased setbacks on vacant land are relatively limited in
                     most beach sectors; however, the probability of redevelopment on large
                     beachfront lots in the future is high. The potential impacts of
                     increased densities on the adjacent beach resource make preservation
                     strategies even more important than they have been in the past.

                e.   Create a mechanism for "grandfathering" illegal shoreline protection
                     structures, if they meet specific, established technical engineering
                     and design standards.

                     Rationale:

                     The existence of numerous seawalls constructed without permits, and
                     without assessing impacts on adjacent properties, is a major concern
                     in future beach preservation efforts. It is also a problem probably
                     without a totally satisfactory solution from either the public or private
                     viewpoint, but it is one which should be immediately addressed.
                     Forced removal of existing illegal (41 percent) structures may present
                     both legal and practical difficulties, especially in those areas where
                     some form of structure is needed to protect private property. Granting
                     after-the-fact permits is also an alternative, but not a particularly
                     desirable one. If, on the other hand, the public interest can be met by
                     the establishment of sound engineering and design standards for pro-
                     tective structures, and if the illegal structures meet or can be modified
                     to meet these standards, then there would be some benefit in granting
                     them nonconforming ("grandfathered") status. It should be noted that
                     the restrictions on enlargement or replacement would still apply and,
                     in the case of destruction, a new structure would have to conform to
                     all current regulations. While this approach would not solve the prob-
                     lem and cannot undo the damage done, it would at least bring some
                     element of administrative and engineering/design control to what has
                     obviously become a large, uncontrolled problem.

                L    Prohibit the use of vertical seawall structures in areas where this
                     form of "protection" is not wide-spread and where future seawall
                     requests are probable; require buried revetments, or allow some
                     other, more benign, form of private property protection, without
                     complex permit requirements.

                     Rationale:

                     The impact of vertical seawalls in the "hardening" of Oahu's beaches is
                     well documented. At the present time, in addition to the high number
                     of illegal seawalls, permit processes appear to encourage rather than



                                                   -44-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manageinent Plan


                    discourage this type of shoreline protection, even when it may prove
                    ultimately destructive to the beach as a whole and when there may be
                    better alternatives. In areas where the beach is relatively free of verti-
                    cal seawalls, other means of erosion protection should be required
                    instead. Finally, if the permitting processes are to work for long-term
                    beach preservation (not inadvertently against), then some effort must
                    be made to streamline approvals for the preferred type of protection
                    structure as an incentive to private owners. In particular, small
                    retaining walls, open work fences, or other types of benign structures
                    to reduce the rate of erosion should be allowed without lengthy review
                    or costly application requirements.

               g.   Strengthen criteria for granting shoreline setback variances, specifi-
                    cally by requiring stricter standards for proving "hardship."

                    Rationale:

                    The legal necessity of having some form of fair and equitable "relief'
                    for property owners has previously been discussed and it is not sug-
                    gested that variances not be allowed. However, it has also been noted
                    that the availability of the variance procedure inherently weakens
                    regulatory controls designed to preserve public beach resources. Rela-
                    tively speaking, the standards for obtaining a zoning variance, e.g.
                    showing that a "hardship" exists and therefore the applicant should be
0                   allowed to vary the zoning ordinance requirements, are stricter. (It
                    should also be noted that these standards are traditional, found in
                    most zoning ordinances and have withstood various tests.) Appropri-
                    ate amendments should be made to ordinance and/or rules to incorpo-
                    rate this more stringent criteria for "hardship." Variances within the
                    shoreline setback area should not be granted unless all criteria are
                    met.

               h. Apply established administrative enforcement procedures ("civil fines
                    system") to violations within the shoreline setback area.

                    Rationale:

                    As noted elsewhere, a strong, consistent monitoring and enforcement
                    effort is needed to carry through any selected beach preservation
                    strategy. In Florida, for example, beach preservation programs and
                    regulatory controls are monitored and enforced by both field inspec-
                    tors and coastal engineers, and stiff fines are assessed for violations.
                    Without a commitment to this aspect of beach preservation, govern-
                    ment loses credibility in attempting to implement its strategies, and if
                    the public perception is that enforcement is weak or nonexistent, then
                    proliferation of illegal shoreline structures can be expected to con-



                                                  -45-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


                    tinue. The administrative enforcement system is now widely applied
                    to zoning, building, and Shoreline Management Area violations and
                    procedures are well-tested. Further, application of the enforcement
                    system to the Shoreline Setback Area has been authorized by State
                    statute. The necessary ordinance and/or rule amendments should be
                    made to establish the fine system for shoreline setback violations and
                    the appropriate administration mechanism should be put into place.

           Long-Term Strategies

                a.   Amend the Land Use Ordinance (Article 7.), or the Special Manage-
                     ment Ordinance, to create a Beach Preservation District. Certain en-
                     dangered beach sectors, those subject to chronic, long-term erosion or
                     episodic and severe erosion, would be subject to this "overlay" type of
                     regulation. Objectives would be established for each sector selected
                     and specific regulatory requirements would be developed to deal with
                     the problems common to that sector. These could include: the need for
                     increased setbacks; special engineering and design features desirable
                     for protective structures; prohibitions on certain types of structures or
                     building practices; and non-regulatory strategies, such as beach re-
                     plenishment or revetments.

                    Rationale:

                    The advantages of a district, overlay approach to beach preservation
                    are discussed in detail in Section 6. of this report. To summarize, it
                    would provide a site-specific means of controlling uses and develop-
                    ment which might adversely affect beach preservation in the selected
                    sector. It would provide a means of dealing with both short-term,
                    immediate problems, and anticipated long-term impacts. Creating the
                    Beach Preservation District regulation, the umbrella control itself,
                    would be a relatively simple task. General intent and objectives are
                    fairly straight-forward. Developing specific regulations for distinct
                    and variable sectors within the District would likely require consider-
                    ably more time, expertise, and consensus among the community
                    directly affected. One major advantage is that the basic approach has
                    been used before to preserve historic, scenic, and cultural public
                    resources and that there is administrative experience in implementing
                    this regulatory approach. It should also be noted, however, that the
                    creation of a Beach Preservation District overlay would differ from
                    other districts in that non-regulatory strategies would be needed to
                    ensure that long-term objectives are met. These would include beach
                    replenishment/renourishment, revetments when appropriate and
                    other improvements requiring an investment of public or pub-
                    lie/private monies. While either the Land Use Ordinance or the Spe-



                                                   -46-






                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nen t Plan


                   cial Management Ordinance could be amended in this regard, the
                   latter is considered the most appropriate vehicle for the overlay
                   approach to properties within the Special Management Area. The
                   focus of the amendment would be to include a review of all shorefront
                   developments in selected beach sectors, including single-family
                   dwellings.

               b. Adapt the existing Improvement District approach to vulnerable
                    beach sectors. This would require public/private "fair-share" cost
                    assessments and a carefully-drawn consensus among those affected.

                   Rationale:

                   The potential of this approach, and its drawbacks, have been dis-
                   cussed elsewhere in this report. Without some form of funding, the
                   non-regulatory, structural strategies which will be needed to preserve
                   a beach sector cannot be realized. The difficulty in the Improvement
                   District approach is determining the beaches which would benefit
                   most from the approach, the fine line between public and private ben-
                   efit, and the fair-share assessment for those private owners who
                   indeed benefit most from the improvements. Overall, the strategy
                   merits consideration, since it does represent a well-tested and tradi-
                   tional means of funding public improvements to shared resources.

              C.    Establish and fund a recruitment and training program for profes-
                    sional monitoring and enforcement staff to ensure that Shoreline
                    Management objectives, in general, are being met, and that Shoreline
                    Setback/Beach Preservation strategies are actually being imple-
                    mented.


                   Rationale:

                   As has been noted previously, changes in State statutes and the con-
                   clusions of other studies indicate a trend toward asking the counties to
                   assume monitoring and enforcement responsibilities for beach preser-
                   vation and other coastal regulatory matters. This is considered logical
                   and a progressive step in prioritizing State-wide concerns and in
                   focusing in on the specific problem of resolving public resource/private
                   ownership conflicts of Oahu's beaches. However, it has also been noted
                   that monitoring and enforcement efforts have in the past fallen short
                   of policy goals. More State funding should be earmarked specifically
                   for finding and training personnel who can carry out the counties'
                   responsibilities in this regard. The commitment must come from both
                   levels of government and must be approached in a more vigorous and
                   consistent effort than has been displayed in the past. There is no evi-
                   dence to suggest that the lack of funding for policy plans, programs, or



                                                 -47-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan


                    even regulatory controls have contributed to the loss of a public
                    resource in this instance. Rather, the most serious problem appears to
                    be the lack of capability to follow through on stated consensual goals
                    in a specific, realistic manner. Even if the regulatory regime were not
                    to be changed (as recommended above), beach preservation goals could
                    still be achieved to a large extent if existing regulations were effec-
                    tively enforced. This will not happen without a properly trained pro-
                    fessional staff or without funding support directed to this need.


            8.2 Beach Sector Recommendations


            WAELUA DISTRICT


            8.2.A. Mokuleia

            Shoreline protection structures in much of this area are not vertical rock walls,
            but are made of materials such as railroad ties and timbers, and function more
            like retaining walls than seawalls. The area also has many illegal seawalls
            and limited public access.

            Mokuleia is an important, popular sandy beach providing opportunities for
            multiple recreational activities. It should be given high preservation priority.

            Recommendations:

                (a) Retain existing shoreline setback of 40 feet, but prohibit all future
                     seawalls and require revetments instead;

                (b) Prohibit shoreline setback "credit" on accreted land; and

                (c) Rrovide periodic sand replenishment and revegetation.


            8.2.13. Kawailoa

            Papailoa and Laniakea Beaches

            Some erosion is occurring in this area and there are many illegal seawalls. It
            is likely that these beaches will become future problem areas, e.g. similar to
            what has occurred at Ewa Beach, and it can be expected that there will be pri-
            vate property owner requests in the future for vertical walls as erosion contin-
            ues.













                                                  -4&





                                 1991 Oahu Shoreline Manmement Plan


           Recommendations:

               (a) Retain existing 40-foot shoreline setback, but allow seawalls only
                    when an existing dwelling unit is endangered; and

               (b) Give preference to revetments instead of seawalls, when the former is
                    feasible.

           Chun's Reef

           This is an area where shoreline protection has been placed close to other
           structures along the beachfront. Illegal or nonconforming seawalls are the
           predominant protection structures in this area. The vegetation line is accret-
           ing at the present time, and there is a danger that the inappropriate use of
           accreted land will become a problem in the future.

           Recommendations:

               (a)  Retain existing established 40-foot shoreline setbacks, except for new
                    development on vacant land, or redevelopment which increases unit
                    count, in which case, an increased setback of 60 feet should be
                    required.

               (b)  Prohibit owners from "adding" accreted land to the shoreline setback
                    area, either by land court action or subdivisiorVconsolidation.

           Kawailoa #1

           Since the concerns for this beach sector are essentially the same as those for
           Laniakea Beach, the recommended future strategy is the same as well.

           Recommendations:

               (a) Retain existing 40-foot shoreline setback, but allow seawalls only
                    when an existing dwelling unit is endangered; and

               (b)  Give preference to revetments where feasible.


           KOOILAULOA DISTRICT


           8.2.C. Sunset (Sunset Beach and Sunset Point)

           These beaches are characterized by a number of scattered shoreline protection
           structures, many of which are illegal. Beaches are also subject to severe storms
           and cyclical wave damage.





                                                 -49-






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Managanent Plan



            Recommendations:

                        (a) Restrict the type of future shoreline protection, e.g. prohibit
                            vertical seawalls; and

                        (b) Establish engineering and design standards for existing pro-
                            tection structures, so that illegal structures may be
                            "grandfathered," provided they meet the standards.


            8.2.D. Waialee


            Kaunala Beach

            This is an area where definite erosion is taking place and where new residen-
            tial development has also occurred. It is likely that this will become a
            "problem" beach in the future.

            Recommendations:

               (a) Prohibit vertical seawalls as a form of shoreline protection in the
                    future; and

               (b)  Require buried revet3nents, landward of the certified shoreline, with
                    replanting of native vegetation.

            Pahipahialua Beach

            This is not considered a high-quality beach for active water sports, but has
            value in terms of view planes and open space, and is a potential problem area.

            Recommendations:

               (a) Retain existing 40-foot shoreline setback; and

               (b) Allow revetments as the protective structure preferred whenever fea-
                    sible.


            8.2.E. Malaekahana

            This is one of the largest stretches of sandy beach within the study area with-
            out shoreline protection structures. It is also an area where accretion and resi-
            dential development may become serious future concerns.

            Recommendations:

               (a) Prohibit shoreline protection structures;






                                     1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nen t Plan


                 (b) Prohibit owners from crediting accreted land to the shoreline setback
                      area; and

                 (c)  Since no major nonconformities would be created, increase shoreline
                      setbacks from 40 to 60 feet.


             8.2.F.  Laie Beach

             This is an accreting beach where future subdivision and redevelopment under
             R-5 zoning is probable.

             Recommendations:

                 (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area; and

                 (b) Prohibit owners from crediting accreted land to the shoreline setback

                      area.



             8.2.G.  Laniloa Beach (Laniloa #1)

             This is a fairly stable beach at the present time, but with numerous illegal
             seawalls. The proliferation of seawalls will eventually have a negative impact
             on what is now a relatively undisturbed sandy beach.

             Recommendations:

                 (a)  Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area, but require removal
                      of all illegal seawalls and prohibit seawalls in the future; and

                 (b)  Require revetments, rather than seawalls, if some form of shoreline
                      protection is adequately justified.


             8.2.H.  Kokololio Beach (Kokololio #1)

             This is characterized as a stable, but accreting beach where future subdivision
             and residential development is likely.

             Recommendations:

                 (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area; but

                 (b) Prohibit seawalls as a means of shoreline protection.






                                  1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan



            KOO11AUPOK0 DISTRICT


            8.21 Kailua Beach

            As noted previously, this is a high-quality, popular beach which is subjected to
            cyclical erosion and accretion. There are numerous illegal and nonconforming
            seawalls in the area and no revetanents. This is a dynamic beach area, with
            major sand movement, and should be given high priority in preservation
            strategies.

            Recommendations:

                (a)  Retain existing 40-foot setback for existing developed lots, and those
                     lots redeveloped at current density; but

                (b)  Prohibit shoreline setback credit for accreted land; and

                (c)  Require increased setbacks (60 feet) for new developments and rede-
                     velopment which increases residential density (this area can be
                     expected to be redeveloped in the future, because of large lots and
                     residential zoning).


            HONOLULU DISTRICT


            8.2.J. Portlock

            This is an area where little can be done to restore the beach, because of past
            actions. It is also an example of the proliferation of shore protection structures
            in response to on-going erosion.

            Recommendations:

                (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area, but monitor build-
                     ing permits for the rebuilding of existing seawalls; and

                (b)  Ensure that all future shoreline protection structures meet uniform
                     and sound engineering and design criteria.


            8.2.K.  Kahala

            This is a popular sandy beach where both erosion and accretion has occurred.
            Further erosion is likely, because of seawalls built to the west. The beach is
            stable now, and heavily used. Some redevelopment, perhaps at higher resi-
            dential densities, is also possible. The proliferation of individual seawalls will
            likely result in future beach loss.




                                                   -52-






                                   1991 Oahu Shoreline Manage?nent Plan



            Recommendations:

                (a) Prohibit vertical seawalls and require buried revetments;
                (b) Require increased setbacks (60 feet) for new developments on vacant
                     land or redevelopment which would increase density; and

                (c)  Prohibit shoreline setback credit for accreted land.


            WAUNAE DISTRICT


            8.2.L. Maili Beach

            This is a beach subject to accretion, and the inappropriate use of accreted land
            should be prohibited.

            Recommendations:

                (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area, but prohibit shore-
                     line setback credit for accreted land.


            8.2.M. Mauna Lahilahi Beach

            While this is not a relatively high-quality beach, its monitoring is important in
            terms of preserving adjacent existing and planned public beach parks. Inap-
            propriate shoreline protection structures could have negative effects at both
            ends of the beach sector.

                (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback area; but

                (b) Give priority to the preservation of lateral access in the review of any
                     shoreline structures, especially seawalls; and

                (c)  Give preference to revetments when feasible.


            8.2.N.   Makaha Beach

            There  are numerous illegal seawalls and other shoreline structures at the
            south  end of this beach and it is a prime example of how vertical seawalls
            adversely affect beach processes. Its value as a surfing site justifies a high pri-
            ority for preservation.









                                                    -53-






                                1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan



           Recommendations:

               (a) Maintain existing 40-foot shoreline setback, but prohibit any future
                   shoreline protection structures, unless they are placed on top of or
                   behind the seasonally exposed limestone bench or ledge.






                                                1991 Oahu Shoreline Alanagement Plan



                                                                TABLE 2.
                             SUMMARY OF BEACH SECTORS AND RECOMMENDED
                                                PRESERVATION STRATEGIES


                      Sector          Backshore Zoning Access                            Conditions & Strategy
                Mokuleia                  Open           R-7.5       Good       High quality, priority beach; no "credit" for
                                          Houses         R-5                    secreted land; replenish and revegetate.
                                          Apts.          AG-2
                                          Park           P-2

                Papailoa &                Houses         R-5         Good       Erosion, future problem area; seawalls only
                Laniakea                                                        if dwelling endangered.
                Chun's Reef               Houses         R-5         Good       Vegetation line accreting, 60-foot setback for
                                                                                new development; no credit for accretion.

                Kawailoa #1               Houses         R-5         Good       See Laniakea above.

                Sunset Beach              Houses         R-5         Good       Severe storm & wave damage; prohibit vert-
                                          Highway        P-2                    ical seawalls; "grandfather" some structures
                                          Parks

                Sunset Point              Houses         R-5         Poor       Same as Sun       Beach.

                Kaunala Beach             Open           R-5         Good       Erosion, future problem area; prohibit
                                          Houses                                vertical seawalls; require revetments &
                                                                                replanting.
                Pahipahialua              Open           R-5         Good       Potential problem area, but not as high qual-
                                          Houses                                ity as others; allow revetments when feasible.
                Malaekahana               Houses         R-5         Good       High quality, future problem area; prohibit
                                          Park           P-2                    shoreline protection & accreted land credit;
                                                                                require 60-foot setback
                Laie Beach                Park           P-2         Good       Aocreting beach; prohibit credit for accreted
                                          Houses         R-5                    lands.
                IAnHoa #1                 Houses         R-5         Good       Relatively undisturbed; prohibit seawalls &
                                                                                remove illegal structures
                Kokolollio #1             Open           P-2         Good       Accreting beach; prohibit seawalls.
                                          Houses         R-5

                KaHua. Beach              Houses         R-10        Good       High quality, dynamic; prohibit credit for ac-
                                          Park           P-2                    creted land; 60-foot setbacks for new units.
                Portlock                  Houses         R-10      Marginal     Largely lost; monitor rebuilding of seawalls
                                                                                & establish new design criteria.
                Kahala                    Houses         R-5         Good       Future erosion likely; prohibit vertical
                                                         R-7.5                  seawalls; 60-foot setbacks for new
                                                                                developments.
                Maile Beach               Houses         R-5         Good       Subject to accretion; prohibit credit for
                                          Apts.          A-2                    accreted lands.
                                          Park           P-2
                Mauna Lahilahi            Park           P-2         Good       Important due to public beach parks; give
                                          Houses         R-10                   priority to lateral access.
                Makaha Beach              Apt.           A-2         Good       Priority site; prohibit future structures
                                          Houses         R-10                   unless 2roE!2rly Elaced.






                               1991 Oahu Shoreline Management Plan



           REFERENCES:

           Politics of Shore Erosion: Westhampton Beach, Joseph M. Heikoff, 1976, Ann
               Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Afichigan

           The Cost of Environmental Protection: Regulating Housing Development in the
               Coastal Zone, Dan K. Richardson, 1976, New Brunswick, N.J. Center for
               Urban Policy Research, Rutgers

           Shore Protection in California, Department of Navigation and Ocean
               Development, 1976, Sacramento, California

           Oahu Shoreline Study, Part 1. and Part 2., Sea Engineering, Inc., 1989

           Hawaii Shoreline Erosion Management Study, Volume I. and Volume II.,
               Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc. and DI-IM, Inc., 1989

           The Beaches of 0ahu, John R. K. Clark, 1977, The University Press of Hawaii

           "Land Use Law and Zoning Digest," American Planning Association (Various
               1989 and 1990 Issues)



































                                              -56-




                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 1
                                         3 6668 00000 8195
                                                                                                 1