Last January; the Westin Maui hotel was under siege. Hurricane `Iniki had begun a process of beach erosion that was aggravated by high winter swells along the Ka’anapali Coast. The hotel had sandbags placed along the edge of the beach, but almost immediately waves washed them away. The hotel’s walkway along the shore was being undercut by high surf. According to hotel managing director Steve Shalit, surging waves were threatening to undermine the swimming pool and a wing of the hotel itself.
On January 8, Goodfellow Bros., at the hotel’s request, brought bulldozers, cranes, and boulders to the site. Over the next few days, 3,350 cubic yards of rock fill were piled to a height of eight feet along the newly eroded scarp fronting the Westin.
Authorization for the emergency work was issued not by the county planning director or his designate – as the law requires – but by Richard Haake, managing director for Maui County.
By summer, the boulders were removed and the sand appeared to have returned. But the circumstances that led to the emergency work in the first place are certain to recur – if not this winter, than another. Westin’s “emergency” was, in fact, the result of altogether predictable and well-understood forces.
‘Potential for Catastrophe’
After the work was under way, Brian Miskae, the county planning director, notified Shalit of the steps that would be required to bring the emergency work into compliance with county SMA rules. Among other things, the Westin would have to submit a “written application, information, and documentation … within ten calendar days” of the date the emergency authorization was given. Also, Miskae wrote, “You should understand that the work you are doing is not to be considered permanent. If it is shown that your work is negatively impacting other sandy shorelines, you must take immediate mitigative measures to correct such impacts.”
On January 15, Shalit responded, providing Miskae with, among other things, a chronology of events.
“Hurricane ‘Iniki,” Shalit wrote, eroded 12′ – 18′ of beach shoreline in September 1992. It should be noted that this event depleted the normal summer beach build-up which acts as a natural barrier to winter ocean activity.
“On Wednesday, January 6, at 7:00 AM, high surf had eroded another 6′-10′. The grassy area preceding the ocean had eroded. Many coconut palms were into the ocean. Drop-offs from grass to beach were 3′-5′.
“Wednesday’s weather forecasts called for high surf driven by strong westerly winds, rain and high tides due to a full moon. This caused us to contact the county office and to investigate our options and the proper procedures to protect our property.
“The county office referred us to Goodfellow Bros construction who was contacted at approximately 10:30 AM Wednesday morning, January 6. They responded in one hour… Three possible options were identified after a site survey.
“The Westin Maui then informed its ownership and county officials that further erosion was expected and that we required the authorization to proceed.
“Richard Haake inspected Westin Maui’s shoreline late Wednesday afternoon and verbally gave approval to take emergency protective action…
“The Westin Maui authorized Goodfellow Bros. construction, with county approval, to begin a sandbagging operation which was completed at 1:00 AM. The high tide at 3:30 AM not only removed the sandbags but caused further erosion of 6′-8’.
“Thursday morning it was collectively determined that the resort was at high risk due to:
“A. A sandbag repair… did not hold;
“B. A forecast of continued high surf for five days and deteriorating weather…
“C. We had a security/safety hazard for residents and visitors in both beach and the county-required beach walk;
“D. Potential for catastrophic property damage was great due to the fact that the Tuesday/Wednesday nightly high-tide erosions of 16′-20′ brought us within 25′ of our Sound of the Falls pool, 20′ of our main pools, and 25′ of the Villa pools. This, coupled with poor weather forecasts, put us at grave risk of long-term damage to our structure.
“E. Given those options, the decision was made with state and county approval to proceed with the measures that were taken…”
‘Significant Concern’
State and county officials may have concurred with the decision. The Westin’s neighbors most assuredly did not.
The Association of Apartment Owners of The Whaler on Ka’anapali Beach took strong exception to the Westin’s new wall.
In a letter to Miskae dated January 13, 1993, Robert E. Rowland, attorney for the Whaler owners’ association, noted the irregular channels by which the work had been authorized. Under Planning Commission rules, Rowland stated, “the Planning Director or his designee is the county official authorized to issue a special management area emergency permit. [It] is questionable whether Mr. Haake is truly the planning director’s ‘designee.’”
Then, too, Rowland noted that, again contrary to county rules, the emergency permit contained no “parameters or guidelines as to what work can actually be undertaken, the extent of any work, or any time limitations for when the work is to be completed… We were surprised that such guidelines were not included in the emergency permit since our past experience in these types of situations have involved the county actually issuing a citation and seeking fines against owners who during other severe storms have caused one or two truckloads of rocks to be deposited on their beachfront property in an effort to preserve their landscaping or structures. In the instant situation, it is our understanding that the Westin has dumped several tons of rocks over a three-day period which have amassed a rock structure approximately thirty feet in width, ten feet in height, and running the entire length of the Westin property.
But procedural irregularities, significant though they might be, were not central to the concerns of Rowland’s clients. Rather, he stated, “Our client has serious concern that the placement of such a substantial mass of rock could materially alter and potentially adversely impact the natural tidal flows, beach accumulation, and the otherwise natural coastline caused by normal tidal flows.”
Several individuals living near the Ka’anapali also wrote Miskae, expressing their fears that the boulders along the Westin’s shore would cause their own beach to erode. One neighbor, a resident at the Whaler, told Miskae that the hotel’s problems were of its own making, inasmuch as parts of the hotel were built further seaward than plans called for and encroached upon the shoreline setback area.
‘No Worse an Impact’
To meet the requirements imposed by Miskae, the Westin hired K.E. Robinson, an engineer based in North Vancouver, British Columbia, to evaluate the impact of the “emergency rock fill placement.” Robinson’s report was submitted to the county on January 27.
Robinson found that, “Because the rock fill has been placed with a reasonable outer slope (i.e., about 2 horizontal to 1 vertical), it should have no worse an impact on beach development than a more permanently designed revetment.” But, he continued, “Because there is insufficient total volume and depth of recently placed rock, a major storm could more easily displace this rock, redistribute it and continue to erode behind the rock fill.”
The impact to adjoining properties “should be insignificant over the short term (up to a year),” Robinson wrote. “Only during a severe storm, or after significant beach degradation, would the base of the rock fill be exposed and the rock perform its function of protecting The Westin Maui property. At that time adjacent properties may experience beachfront degradation, but over the short term it would not be any worse than if The Westin Maui rock was not there…”
“There is a small possibility of some back eddying erosion at either end of the rock fill,” Robinson found. “At the south end this is unlikely due to the shape of the shoreline flaring toward Hanakao’o Point. On the north side, Whalers Village, this could occur during a severe storm event from due west or slightly northwest” that is, the same direction as the January storm.
A Softening Stance
In light of Robinson’s report, Miskae ordered the Westin to redistribute the rock fill at each end to prevent back eddying on adjacent property. This was to have occurred by February 12. Also, the Westin was to submit a report by a qualified professional confirming that the work had been done “in a timely and good workmanlike manner.”
On February 9, Shalit sent a hand-written note to Miskae, noting that Robinson was unavailable but that, in any case, Robinson had said in his earlier report that it was not likely that back eddying would occur on the adjoining properties.
Miskae responded to Shalit in a stinging letter dated February 15. Miskae took note of the fact that “Mr. Robinson has indicated that the risk of eddying is ‘insignificant’ and has a low probability of occurrence. But, he added: “I must remind you, Mr. Shalit, that the very large surf you experienced in early January also had low probability of occurrence but it still happened.”
He continued: “I told you that if there was any possibility of sand erosion or migration resulting from the construction of your wall it must be remedied immediately. According to your consultant there is a possibility so I must again insist that you remedy the situation immediately regardless of any additional cost to you.
“You are at present in breach of the Coastal Zone Law due to non-compliance with the stated conditions in my letter of January 28, 1993. If you do not take immediate steps to comply with the conditions you will be cited and we will not hesitate to take legal action against you.”
Three days later, Miskae was notified by The Westin’s new lawyer that henceforth, all correspondence concerning the Westin wall should be directed to him. The lawyer was David Nakamura, whose law partner is the husband of Mayor Linda Crockett Lingle. Since that time, the county Planning Department’s stand appears to have softened considerably.
Deleted Conditions
By the end of February, Miskae had received Robinson’s supplementary report on erosion of neighboring land. Under an agreement that he, Shalit, and Nakamura arrived at in a meeting February 17, the Planning Department would take no action against the Westin until a county engineer was able to review the Robinson report.
On February 24, Miskae notified Nakamura that Lloyd Lee, the county’s chief of engineering, “is in agreement with the findings that the remedial redistribution of rocks at the ends of the temporary erosion control structure is not immediately necessary.” Still, Miskae reminded Nakamura, the Westin would need to submit a certified shoreline and a complete SMA application for a permanent structure, as well as continue regular biweekly monitoring of sand at several points along the beach.
Adjoining landowners, however, continued to voice their objections. Rowland, representing the Whaler owners, pointed out to Miskae the difficulty that the Westin would have in establishing a certified shoreline. In a letter dated March 3, Rowland told Miskae that it was his understanding that, “Your office has evidence that the certified shoreline of the Westin Hotel property … may have been established in a location where the soil and vegetation … was artificially and improperly deposited and grown by the owners…”
On April 12, Nakamura notified Miskae that the Westin would be removing the wall and would not seek a permit for any permanent structure. By June, the rock fill was being hauled away, leaving a near-vertical scarp separating the hotel grounds from the sandy beach.
‘Guest Safety’
“I need your help!” wrote Shalit to Miskae on June 1, 1993. “Given the drop off from sidewalk to beach, we are concerned over guest safety.”
While the rock fill was in place, the slope from beach to hotel grounds had been gradual. With the rock removed, the scarp was once more fully exposed. To reduce the danger, Shalit proposed planting a naupaka hedge as a temporary solution until the shoreline is recertified.”
On June 7, Miskae went along with the proposal. “This office would offer no objection to the planting of naupaka along the makai border of the shoreline sidewalk,” with two conditions: First, that the hedge “would be to stabilize the slope created by the removal of the temporary shoreline erosion structure,” and second, “that the naupaka would not be allowed to grow any further makai than the current toe of the slope.”
Postscript
In mid-June, the Westin Maui applied for a certified shoreline that would fix the seaward boundary of its land along the same boundary that existed prior to Hurricane ‘Iniki. State rules allow property owners to reclaim land lost to storm action, provided they assert their claim within one year of the event.
Publication of the application appeared in the OEQC Bulletin of September 8, 1993, and notification of its approval appeared in the September 23 Bulletin. According to Steve Lu of the Division of Land Management, agents from state and county offices, as well as the private surveyor, agreed on the placement of the shoreline based upon evidence as to where the shoreline existed in October 1991.
As a result, the seaward boundary of the land on which the Westin Maui sits (land owned, by the way, by the Campbell Estate) once again extends some 40 feet makai of the hotel’s shoreline promenade – the same one which, last winter, was virtually at the water’s edge.
Volume 4, Number 6 December 1993