Two wealthy Oahu homeowners face fines for doing unauthorized construction work on oceanfront state land to improve long-standing amenities for their residences.

The cases pursued by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources involve one homeowner who rebuilt a pier extending into Kaneohe Bay and another who replaced concrete stairs onto a beach at Diamond Head.

DLNR’s board is scheduled to consider fining both property owners close to $15,000 or more at a meeting this morning.

Both cases involve the thorny issue of using of public land for private-property amenities.

DLNR has an existing no- tolerance policy prohibiting construction of such things. However, the agency generally allows such structures, if they were built before modern prohibitions, to remain in use if they meet criteria that include having no discernible negative effects on public shoreline access, beach use, other recreational resources and adjacent property.

In the two cases under review, the homeowners asked DLNR for easements to permit the structures they intended to improve, but then did the improvement work without approval.

Since then one homeowner removed their unauthorized improvements rather quickly after being told by DLNR to do so, while the other has been unwilling for over two years and has questioned the applicability of DLNR rules.

In the uncontested case, Corine Hayashi, daughter of late local hotel developer Herbert T. Hayashi, wanted to replace lower steps of a concrete staircase onto Diamond Head beach that had broken off.

According to DLNR, no record has been found to show an initial construction date for the stairs that provide convenient access to the beach from the home built in 1967, though an easement granting use of a beach access path to the stairs has existed since 1957.

Hayashi, who heads a company that owns the 8,649-square-foot mansion perched on 1.8 acres and valued at about $10 million, sought an easement for the stairs in December 2019.

DLNR expressed initial support, but in February 2020 informed Hayashi that the absence of a recorded easement over a neighboring homeowner’s property prevented the agency’s approval.

A year after that, DLNR learned that contractor Sea Engineering Inc. was rebuilding the bottom end of the staircase, which involved excavation of the beach to pour a foundation with metal bar reinforcements.

“There was no authorization from the board or (DLNR’s) Land Division regarding the utilization of state lands at the subject location,” Barry Cheung, an agency district land agent said in a report for DLNR’s board.

On March 4, DLNR Director Suzanne Case notified Hayashi and Sea Engineering in writing that the work, including excavation on the beach, wasn’t permitted, and demanded that the area be returned to its prior condition.

Sea Engineering informed DLNR on March 12 that it had complied with the agency’s order.

DLNR now recommends to its board that Hayashi and Sea Engineering pay $13,465 as a fine that includes a $5,000 base fine, $465 for administrative enforcement costs and $8,000 for the eight days between DLNR’s order and compliance.

In the other case, a family that in 2017 bought a $1.8 million oceanfront home on Springer Place fronting Kaneohe Bay sought permission from DLNR in 2018 to obtain an easement for a pier extending from their property onto submerged state land.

Piers extending from residential property are common in Kaneohe Bay, and according to DLNR, most have no effect on beach resources because of the bay’s coastal geology.

However, DLNR in May 2018 informed the homeowners — David, Jennifer and Deandrea Pham — that the agency couldn’t approve the easement because the city Department of Planning and Permitting had issued a violation notice to the Phams because the home’s 160-foot-long retaining wall near the shoreline had been built without necessary approvals including an environmental assessment and a shoreline setback variance.

Nine months later DLNR learned that the Phams had rebuilt the pier, which DLNR said dates to the late 1950s, with replacement pilings and new decking. The Phams, who operate a construction company, also were adding what they described as a storage room on the pier above the bay, which is part of a state conservation district.

The agency notified the Phams that they were subject to a $15,000 fine plus up to $15,000 for each day the violation persists.

Deandrea Pham, in a February 2019 response email, apologized for not getting permission to “renovate” the dock and for causing an “inconvenience.” Pham explained that she and her parents felt they had to make improvements because someone had an accident walking on the old pier, which was a safety hazard.

Pham also let DLNR know that her family removed the storage room, which they thought was permitted since their neighbor has a storage structure on his pier. Photos submitted by Pham show the neighbor’s storage structure on land.

“Please let me know what the next step is and if there is anything I can do to amend the situation,” Pham said in the email.

After DLNR followed up with the Phams last year as they were completing what the city estimates to be a $2 million overhaul of their residence, Jennifer Pham said they believed DLNR rules allowed their pier improvement as “minor repair” work to an existing structure.

“If we had misinterpreted the rules … we sincerely apologized for the misinterpretation and herein wish to apply for an after the fact permit,” Pham told DLNR in September.

Jennifer Pham also let the agency know that removing the pier would represent an “undue hardship” because the family would have no other means to access their boat.

DLNR does not regard the pier improvement as minor repair work, as the previously existing pier deck and pilings were replaced by what appears to be a shorter and wider pier. The agency also noted that a nonconforming structure shall not be reconstructed if it is demolished or destroyed to an extent that exceeds 50% of its replacement cost.

The agency recommends fining the Phams $15,000 plus a $1,000 administrative fee, and giving them one year to resolve the wall violation with DPP.

DLNR also recommends that the Phams be prohibited from using the pier until they resolve the wall violation, and that the pier be removed if the Phams don’t apply for an after-the-fact conservation district use permit within a year, but only after correcting the wall violation. If those conditions aren’t met, DLNR recommends that the pier be removed and that the Phams be assessed a fine of $1,000 per day if they don’t do that.