-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
THE ABILITY OF MINORITY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO ENGAGE
IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: CASE STUDY OF THE PLEASURE POINT
SEAWALL PROJECT
By
Matthew Salvatore Marino
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2014
i
© by Matthew Salvatore Marino. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Matthew Salvatore Marino
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
__________________________
Dr. Martha L. Henderson, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
iii
ABSTRACT
The Ability of Minority Stakeholder Groups to Engage in Coastal Zone Management
Decisions In Santa Cruz County, California: Case Study of the Pleasure Point Seawall
Project
Matthew Salvatore Marino
Santa Cruz, CA is located roughly 60 miles South of Half Moon Bay and San
Francisco along the Northeastern coastline of Monterey Bay in central California.
Pleasure Point is an extension of land located between the Santa Cruz Harbor to the
Northeast and Capitola Village to the Southeast. Within the past century, Pleasure Point
has experienced significant coastal erosion and subsequent loss of property. In recent
decades, the threat of increasing coastal erosion rates has become a significant concern.
El Niño weather events have been responsible for significant amounts of damage, and are
primarily responsible for the majority of coastal erosion. In recent years, East Cliff Drive
along Pleasure Point has eroded closer to catastrophic failure. As Santa Cruz became a
surfing community, the County of Santa Cruz began marketing surfing to tourists.
Surfing was used by the County to attract vacationing tourists to enjoy the iconic carefree
lifestyle of sand, sun and surf. In recent years the County has moved to redevelop the
landscape and image of the Pleasure Point community. The Pleasure Point Seawall
Project was the result of nearly a decade of debate between the County and local surfers
within the community who strongly opposed the seawall project. This is a case study of
the Pleasure Point Seawall Project, and the ability of surfers to engage within coastal
zone management decisions in Santa Cruz County. Future environmental changes will
include significant sea level rise and increasing storm severity, frequency, and resulting
damage to property. This seawall project represents a socially constructed landscape that
allows temporary financial gains for few individuals at the expense of resources held in
trust for the general public. As a result of the seawall project, the landscape surfers
constructed over a century of daily use has been significantly manipulated, reimagined
and redeveloped by the County.
iv
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
Chapter 2: Literature Review
El Niño and La Niña
Surfing Within Coastal Zone Management
International Surf Break Protection
Surf Break Co-Management
8
8
12
17
21
Chapter 3: Surfer Stakeholders in Santa Cruz County, CA
Pleasure Point Surfing History
Surfing Iconology and Landscape
First Surfers of Santa Cruz, CA
Social Construction of the Surfing Experience
Surfers Experience Coastal Development
Surfers Become Social Commodities
Reimagining Surfing Within Local Culture
Climate Change and Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Protection and Armoring
Policy Prescriptions for Ecological Resilience
Reconfigure State-Local Integration of CZM
Anti-Armoring Policy Adoption
Initiate Ecosystem-Based Coastal Zoning
Reverse “Burden of Proof” for Taking Littoral Property
38
43
47
55
63
66
68
71
72
73
76
76
77
78
78
Chapter 4: Case Study Method: Pleasure Point Seawall Project
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Special Conditions
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Construction
Substantial Issues of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project
80
91
101
107
Chapter 5: Pleasure Point Seawall Project Case Study Interviews
Public Access
Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s)
Government Agency
Tourism
Water Quality
Wave Quality and Consistency
El Niño and La Niña
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Failure
111
118
120
122
124
127
130
135
144
Chapter 6: Conclusion
148
Bibliography
154
v
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1
103
Figure 2
136
Figure 3
137
Figure 4
140
Figure 5
143
Figure 6
145
vi
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dr. Martha Henderson for her patience, guidance and unwavering
encouragement throughout my research. I also want to thank the faculty and cohort of
The Evergreen State College and the Master of Environmental Studies graduate program
for creating an atmosphere and academic environment that facilitates progressive
thinking and creativity. I also want to thank the countless local surfers of Santa Cruz for
allowing me access into their protected local community, and for their encouraging
support of this research. I am also grateful for the consistent support and encouragement
from family and friends.
vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Coastal erosion has become a clearly significant threat for coastal property and
public beaches within Santa Cruz County. Large storm events that produce significant
wave events have caused significant damage to coastal areas. Major El Niño events
within recent history have resulted in lasting impacts to coastal dependent natural
resources and public access along the coastline of Santa Cruz County (County).
Significant economic losses due to property damage and impacted civic infrastructure
resulting from El Niño events along the West Coast have been well documented. El Niño
events of 1982-83 and 1997-98 raised significant awareness to weather pattern changes
we expect to see with a changing climate.
Significant wave events reached their peak during the highest tides of the 1982-83
El Niño winter, and caused significant and unprecedented loss of property along the
California coastline. Many coastal homeowners chose to protect their property from
further erosion by placing large granite boulders (riprap) on the fronting public beach.
Extensive riprap placement has fragmented the public beaches between boulder fields
and represents a significant public safety hazard. Although significant wave events during
the El Niño season of 1997-98 did not coincide with the highest tides of the year,
resulting property damage still exceeded $550 million (Storlazzi, Willis & Griggs, 2000).
Beach loss results directly from riprap placement on public beaches, and indirectly from
sea level rise over time. Public land fronting any coastal armoring structure will
ultimately be submerged under increasingly rising tides.
1
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 as
a result of the significant need for the strong protection of physical, biological and natural
resources within coastal zones. The CZMA of 1972 clearly highlights the importance of
ecological, cultural, historical and aesthetic values of the coastal zone. Guidance within
the Act was directed to reducing the loss of “living marine resources, wildlife, nutrientrich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space
for public use, and shoreline erosion” that has been caused by “population growth and
economic development” (Chasis, 1985; Coastal Zone Management Act). In response to
the Coastal Zone Management Act, the State of California enacted the California Coastal
Act in 1976 as a response to widespread privatization of California’s 1,100-mile coastline.
The California Coastal Commission was established as a State Agency to uphold the
California Coastal Act of 1976. By 1970, less than one-quarter of California’s coastline
was legally available to the public for access and recreation (Cardiff, 2001)
Understanding the impacts of protecting private property and roadways along the
California coastline has become a significant question for Federal and State agency
coastal zone managers and land use planners. Several public beaches have been destroyed
by coastal development projects in California, and minority stakeholder groups who
utilize the local landscape are disproportionately affected. Surfers represent a unique
minority stakeholder group that is dependent on waves as a limited natural resource. The
complete loss or degradation to culturally significant surf breaks has raised significant
questions surrounding the protection of threatened surf breaks. Surf break protection has
emerged as a significant component of coastal zone management (CZM) and existing surf
2
break management literature is discussed. In order to understand the management and
protection of surf breaks, it is critical to understand surfers and the history of surfing.
This thesis research was designed to understand the ability of minority
stakeholders to effectively engage in coastal zone management decisions in Santa Cruz
County, CA. Minority stakeholders in the coastal zone may be grouped by many
variables. This thesis identifies surfers as a marginalized and underrepresented minority
stakeholder group within the public policy process. The goal of this thesis is to identify
constraints and limitations within the coastal zone policy process that significantly affects
the ability of surfers as minority stakeholders to effectively engage within the public
process of the California Coastal Commission and Santa Cruz County (County).
Surfing was introduced to the North American continent in 1895 by three
Hawaiian princes in the area of Santa Cruz, CA. Southern California surf breaks became
increasingly popular during the decades between 1920 and 1960. As the population of
Southern California rapidly increased, surf breaks became significantly crowded and
polluted in the wake of coastal development. Important revolutionary advances in
technology and surf equipment occurred in the Santa Cruz area during the late 1960’s and
1970’s. Wetsuits allowed surfers to access surf breaks further north in colder water
without significant risk of hypothermia, which effectively enabled surfers to access the
cold waters of Santa Cruz during winter months when high quality waves break with
power and consistency. Leashes further enabled surfers to maintain contact with their
surfboard and allowed many less experienced surfers to surf breaks that exceeded their
ability. Consequently, the number of surfers in the water has steadily increased within the
coastal zone of Santa Cruz County as a result.
3
As surfing became increasingly popular in the Santa Cruz area, the County
became further reliant on surfing to sell their unique tourism industry. Iconic images of
surfers on Santa Cruz beaches became trademark symbols of tourism in Santa Cruz. Both
the City of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz began actively marketing their
community as a surfing destination. Hotels and restaurants marketed surfing within
building architecture and design, and views of the surf breaks in Santa Cruz became
increasingly expensive and sought after. The County has been reliant on their strong local
surfing community as a significant attraction for tourists. In recent years however, the
County has moved to redevelop the image of Santa Cruz. While surfing has been
commercialized and marketed by the County, there has been little discussion within
County and California Coastal Commission documents that address potential impacts to
surf breaks or the surfing community from approved development projects.
Surfers represent a difficult user group to research because they utilize specific
coastal areas more regularly than other stakeholder groups, are directly exposed to the
marine environment for extended periods of time, and frequent specific surf breaks either
early in the morning or during evening hours. Many surfers are attracted to the
experience of being immersed within the marine environment and escape the stress and
fast pace of modern society. Surfers have their backs turned away from societal
development, and many are reluctant to trust agency involvement or engage in the
established public policy process. As our climate changes, surfers will experience
increasing threats from coastal development pressures and the resulting loss of coastal
access.
4
This research was focused within Santa Cruz County, CA because of the rich
surfing history and deep cultural significance of surfing within the community. Santa
Cruz has avoided heavy development pressure until recently, and is currently
experiencing a surge in financial investment within the local real estate market. Located
within the federally protected Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the Santa Cruz
shoreline is protected by the strongest marine protection policies of any State within the
United States. Strong environmental protection however, has been unable to address
ongoing coastal armoring and seawall construction. Santa Cruz, CA represents a highly
complex socially constructed coastal landscape facing intense redevelopment pressures
that have failed to include surfers as a valued stakeholder group.
A case study was used to understand the complexity within coastal management
oversight of seawall proposals. The Pleasure Point Seawall Project represents a widely
disputed seawall project that relied on unproven technology, public funding, and special
conditions that allowed the permit to be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
The seawall project at Pleasure Point was chosen for this case study because the local
surfing community had formally opposed the project for the duration of the planning
process. In addition to formal opposition by surfer stakeholders, the Commission had
previously denied the project, and later approved it with special conditions that have not
been enforced. The Pleasure Point Seawall Project resulted in significant drilling into the
existing bluff face, and encased roughly 2,000 feet of coastal bluff along East Cliff Drive
under multiple feet of rebar and textured concrete.
My research methods were qualitative and founded within a snowball method to
identify and engage surfers, and participant observation. Semi-structured and open-ended
5
interviews were conducted with local surfers, non-government organizations, and agency
staff. Agency staff interviews represent the California Coastal Commission, City of Santa
Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, and the former Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency.
A total of 50 interviews were audio recorded and transcribed to identify and group
emerging themes from transcripts.
Significant bluff failures along the East Cliff Drive and the imminent threat to
utilities located under the roadway were the primary foundation supporting the Pleasure
Point seawall project. The County did not meaningfully consider alternatives to the
seawall project, and special conditions to provide conformity to the California Coastal
Act of 1976 were not enforced by the County for the California Coastal Commission.
Three private homes are located seaward of the roadway, and raise significant concerns
of whether private development benefited from the publicly funded seawall project.
Climate change and associated weather phenomena include increasing significant
wave events, coastal erosion rates, and significant damage to coastal property. Coastal
property owners in California have constructed the coastal landscape to be largely
armored against the unrelenting force of the Pacific Ocean. Sandy beaches and iconic
bluffs of Santa Cruz will increasingly be lost to seawalls and coastal armoring efforts to
protect property as sea level rise continues to accelerate. Seawalls and coastal protection
projects in Santa Cruz have significantly altered the coastal landscape and degraded
sensitive near shore ecology within the County without meaningfully exploring coastal
planning alternatives.
This thesis research and case study are founded in a pragmatic perspective to
understand coastal zone management decision-making that impact surfers as a significant
6
minority stakeholder group. This research also contributes to a better understanding of
political ecology and environmental justice from the perspective of surfers as a
significant minority stakeholder group in coastal Santa Cruz County. The Pleasure Point
Seawall Project case study is founded in the perspectives of cultural geography and the
coastline of Santa Cruz County as a socially constructed landscape.
7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
“The Ability of Minority Stakeholder Groups to Engage in Coastal Zone
Management Decisions in Santa Cruz County, CA: Case Study of the Pleasure Point
Seawall Project” is founded on existing literature that identifies significant participants in
Coastal Zone Management. The intertidal zone where waves break along the shore are
utilized by surfers, wildlife, and tourists who seek the shores of Santa Cruz, California.
Coastal management practices have been put into place to minimize conflicts between
numerous coastal user groups and sectors of economic infrastructure. Surfing breaks are
important to many coastal communities. Incorporating surfing in coastal management
decisions is a relatively recent phenomenon (Lazarow, 2007; Nelsen, Pendleton, &
Vaughn, 2007; Scarfe et al., 2009). Coastal management considerations regarding surf
break co-management is essential because there are many cases where surfing breaks
have been either altered or destroyed as a direct result of coastal development and
construction (Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009). Six contributing factors that are connected
systematically to surfer engagement within this literature are El Niño, Federal and State
Coastal Zone Management (CZM), surfers, climate change, research methodology and
case study interviews.
El Niño and La Niña
Literature about El Niño has made clear that major storms during El Niño weather
cycles cause significant property loss and damage to civic infrastructure along the
coastline of California. Between January and March of 1983 the U.S. West Coast
experienced a series of unusually severe storms, and was shown by Earle, Bush, and
8
Hamilton (1984) to be within the months of the historic 1982-83 El Nino winter, which
caused significant damage to coastal areas. Unusually large waves were again
documented during the major 1997-98 El Niño, when the states of Washington and
Oregon experienced 20 large storms with deep water significant wave heights measuring
over 6 m for 9 hours or longer (Allan & Komar, 2000). Before the El Niño of 1997-98
was documented, Ruggiero et al. (1996) had projected the 100-year significant wave
height to be 10 m. This 100-year projection was exceeded November 19-20 of 1997, and
changed the conventional parameters that projections are based upon. The storm track of
this particular storm was directed at the PNW, while typical El Niño years had been
characterized by storms directed to the south between central and southern California
(Seymour, 1996). Immediately following the El Niño of 1997-98 was a similar, though
more severe La Niña pattern.
Wave data from buoys positioned off the coast of Oregon and Washington was
analyzed by Allan & Komar (2002) and found both winter wave heights and wave
periods had steadily increased during the previous 25 years, which represents the duration
of buoy monitoring at these locations. Average deep water significant wave height values
from October through March have been increasing at a rate of 0.042 m/yr., or an increase
of 1 m during the past quarter century (Allan & Komar, 2002). Most importantly, the
wave heights of the year’s strongest storms showed a 50% increase in significant wave
height, from about 8 m to 12 m. The greatest wave height increases were found for
Washington, Oregon, and Northern California, respectively.
While negligible wave height increases were found for central and southern
California over the 25-year period, it is important to recognize that the occurrences of
9
strong El Niño and La Niña weather patterns affected the direction of storm paths as they
approached the U.S. West Coast, and also their intensity (Allan & Komar, 2002). As
predictions of extratropical storm track and intensity becomes increasingly unpredictable
and damaging as a result of El Niño and La Niña weather phenomenon, risk of erosion
and flooding to coastal communities also increases.
Extratropical storms are low-pressure cyclonic systems that develop at midlatitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, and are identified by a counterclockwise rotation
(Allan & Komar, 2002). Warm and humid air from the Tropics is mixed with cooler air
carried down from the Arctic by the polar jet stream and develops regions of unstable
conditions (Davis & Dolan, 1993). Few extratropical storms ever produce hurricane
strength winds, however, their influence is often significantly more widespread, affecting
lengths of the coastline up to 1,500 km (National Marine Consultants, 1961; Davis &
Dolan, 1993). Inter-annual variability of North Pacific storms was shown by Allan and
Komar (2000) to closely follow the East Pacific (EP) Teleconnection Pattern and the
Southern Oscillation.
Measurement of westerly wind strength and jet stream position, which are both
important for the formation of storms, are provided for by the EP index (Allan & Komar,
2002). A positive EP value represents enhanced westerly winds and the jet stream
directed toward the Washington, Oregon and Northern California; while a negative EP
value indicates a pronounced split-flow configuration of the jet stream, resulting in
reduced westerly winds across the eastern North Pacific (Climate Prediction Center,
1999). The significant increase in storm frequency and intensity from 1997 through 1999
was shown by Allan and Komar (2000) to correspond to an increase in EP values. The
10
frequency of storms that affected the California coast was almost entirely dependent on
the occurrences of El Niño compared to La Niña; with El Niño conditions producing
significantly increased storm frequency (Allan & Komar, 2002). Certain storms during
these years were significantly more powerful than others, and caused significant damage
to coastal property in California.
The California coast experienced a significantly higher number of impacting
storms during January and February 1998 as the jet stream progressively shifted south,
which is consistent with previous El Niños (Allan & Komar, 2002). During these months,
the Aleutian Low continued to expand and deepen to eventually reaching 16 mb below
normal and covering the entire U.S. West Coast. A very deep Aleutian Low and above
normal Hawaiian High atmospheric system yielded a strongly positive EP index during
the 1997-98 El Niño. The storm of November 19-20 1997 initiated the pattern of
unusually intense storms to follow through the winter. Between November 17th and 18th,
the storm developed rapidly, experiencing a pressure drop of 30 mb, traveling more than
1700 km, and moving at a rate of 70 km per hour during the initial 24-hour period.
Storms characterized by significantly rapid development and pressure drop have been
referred to as “explosive” storms, or as a “bomb” (Sanders & Gyakum, 1980). Compared
to the formation of ordinary storms, development of explosive storms is poorly
understood and have been relatively uncommon in the Eastern Pacific, which further
demonstrates the extreme character of this storm (Uccellini, 1990; Strange, Graham, &
Cayan, 1989).
11
Surfing within Coastal Zone Management
Literature focusing on the protection of surfing areas and specific surf breaks is
increasingly recognized as an important component of CZM (Oram & Valverde, 1994;
Buckley, 2002; Lazarow, 2007; Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009; Fletcher, Bateman, &
Emery, 2011). Many coastal development projects have resulted in the degradation of
wave quality, or complete loss of surfing resources altogether. A dredging project to
deepen the estuary channel at Mundaka, Spain significantly reduced the wave quality by
removing the sediment budget (Liria, Garel, & Uriarte, 2009). In 1966 the Army Corp of
Engineers closed access to all marine activities at Dana Point, California to construct a
boat harbor and mile-long jetty, completely eliminating one of the best surf breaks in
Southern California, known within the surfing community as Killer Dana (Oram &
Valverde, 1994). At Manu Bay, Raglan, New Zealand the construction of a boat ramp
resulted in a loss of up to 100 meters in potential wave length, and increasing user
conflict between surfers and boaters (Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009).
Surf breaks are limited and complex natural feature within coastal environments,
and have significant economic, social, cultural, and spiritual value for local and extended
communities (Lazarow, 2007; Taylor, 2007; Peryman, 2011a). While the popularity of
surfing has continued to increase, surf break management is only beginning to be
understood and incorporated into coastal management (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Formal recognition of surf breaks within policy documents is currently only
acknowledged by the State of Hawaii, USA, the State of New South Wales, Australia,
and New Zealand (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
12
Surf break management requires a multi-faceted systems approach of surf break
identification, mapping, policy provision, environmental impact assessment, integrated
management, site monitoring, and ongoing evaluation (Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009).
Incorporating surfers within the formal management of surf breaks represents an
opportunity to develop a potentially beneficial relationship between a unique stakeholder
group and managers who may benefit from accumulated local knowledge of surf breaks
(Peryman, 2011a). Protecting surf breaks has become an area of increasing focus for
international CZM policy discussions.
The University of Hawai’i has conducted the majority of historical research
addressing the complex foundation of surfing (Walker, 1974; Walker & Palmer, 1971;
Walker, Palmer and Kukea, 1972; Dally, 1989; Dally, 1991). Surfing and coastal
management were also related within a historical context at the University of Hawai’i.
Most literature discussing surfing and coastal management has been published in recent
years. Of the 63 scientific surfing papers identified by Scarfe et al. (2003), nearly all were
published within the past decade. Scarfe, Healy and Rennie (2009) reviewed the scientific
literature encompassing surfing and coastal management and found 162 research-based
surfing publications, further supporting evidence that surfing has recently been a rapidly
growing focus of interest within coastal management literature. Rising interest within
scientific literature can be attributed to a need for scientifically based research addressing
environmental awareness and concern within surfing communities that often result from
coastal management decisions and projects.
Understanding the physical dynamics of surf breaks and the parameters needed to
produce high-quality surfable waves was researched by additional scholars at the
13
University of Hawai’i. Early research of surfing breaks in Hawai’i assessed bathymetric
charts, aerial photography, and other techniques to isolate key mechanics of surf breaks
and highlight the importance of peel angle (Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009). As scientific
research analyzing surfing breaks increased in Hawai’i, coastal managers and land use
planners in surfing intensive countries began to question social and economic value of
surfing in their community. Most of the recent surfing research related to coastal
management has been attempting to generate increased knowledge for designing artificial
surfing reefs (ASR) in connection with the Artificial Reefs Program (ARP) of New
Zealand, and additional research at the University of Waikato (Andrews, 1997; Hutt,
1997; Mead, 2001; Moores, 2001; Sayce, 1997; Scarfe, 2002; Splendelow, 2004). Surfing
wave dynamic research at the University of Waikato has introduced new techniques for
quantifying specific parameters of surfing breaks.
Natural surfing breaks have been analyzed to predict how varying artificial
surfing break models would respond to swell dynamics and sediment flow. Current
scientific methods used to model surf break wave dynamics include numerical wave
modeling, coastal geomorphology hydrographic surveying, and photogrammetry (Scarfe,
Healy and Rennie, 2009). Artificial surfing reefs have allowed substantial insight into
how waves break within different environmental conditions, and how surfers value
different wave characteristics depending on the skill of the surfer, different styles of
surfing, and board preference.
Several artificial surfing reefs have been constructed with varying degrees of
success or failure. Artificial surfing reefs have been marketed and sold to coastal
communities that are experiencing coastal erosion hazards from wave energy.
14
The construction of artificial surfing reefs should be considered the continuation of surf
break degradation and another threat from development pressure and economic
exploitation of the shoreline by redevelopment. Notable attempts to build artificial
surfing reefs have taken place in El Segundo, California (Borrero, 2002; Borrero &
Nelsen, 2003; Mack, 2003, Moffat & Nichol Engineers, 1989), Cable Station, Western
Australia (Bancroft, 1999; Pattiaratchi, 2000, Pattiaratchi, 2002; Pattiaratchi, 2007),
Narrowneck, Gold Coast (Aarninfkof et al., 2003; Black, 1999; Black, Hutt, & Mead,
1998; Hutt et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2007; Turner, 2006), Mount Maunganui, New
Zealand (Black & Mead, 2007; Mead, Black, & Hutt, 1998; Mead, Black, & Moores,
2007; Rennie & Makgill, 2003; Rennie, Mead, & Black, 1998; Scarfe & Healy, 2005;
Scarfe, 2008) and Opunake, New Zealand (Black et al., 2004; Tourism Resource
Consultants, 2002). Each of these artificial reef projects have resulted in mixed success,
however, each artificial reef has provided a unique opportunity to advance the design and
methods of reef construction for future application. Mead, Black and Moores (2007)
present significant advances in technological design, construction methods and land use
planning since the first rudimentary attempt in California. While artificial surfing reef
research focuses on how physical parameters affect breaking waves, questions assessing
socioeconomic impacts of surfing have also been raised.
Representing surfers as a unique user group, and understanding their particular
demographic has been challenging for multiple reasons. At many locations worldwide,
surfers compete for a finite number of waves at any given break where multiple factors
align to produce high quality waves. Antisocial behavior between surfers is a product of
regular users (locals) protecting their surfing location from anyone who is not considered
15
local (Scarfe, Healy & Rennie, 2009). Different surfing breaks have strikingly different
social norms. Hawai’i has provided an excellent case study location for researching
localism because large numbers of international surfers choose the Hawaiian Islands as
their winter home. Political questions of hierarchies in the water and localism at surfing
breaks were raised by Ishiwate (2002) in the seminal case study of surfing breaks in
Hawai’i. Although surfing originated in Hawai’i, cultural identities associated with
surfing and beach culture are widespread.
Australia is characterized by some of the most high-quality waves in the world.
Shifting cultural ideologies have been changing in Australia from a culture based on
traditional images of bush pioneers to a surfing and beach intensive culture (McGloin,
2005). Cultural changes within society have moved surfers from beach users into
commodities that business interests may profit from sales of lifestyle clothing,
accessories and constructed identity (Lanagan, 2002). Bancroft (1999) determined that
more than 16% of the Western Australian population identified as surfers. In 2001
McGloin (2005) estimated that Australians represent 2 million surfers. Recent estimates
by Lazarow, Miller, and Blackwell (2007) identify the global population of surfers to be
between 18 and 50 million people.
Limited research has been conducted identifying the economic impact of surfing
within a given location, however, quantifying economic benefits of surfing become
significantly important when a surfing break is under threat from coastal development
projects. In the United Kingdom for example, Dyer and Hyams (2001) found that even
though conditions are cold and wave quality is relatively poor, a significant number of
people identify as surfers and little research has questioned the economic impact of
16
surfing in the UK. Information detailing the economic value contributed by beach
recreation was determined by Lew and Larson (2005) to be critical when making
informed policy decisions regarding coastal zone management.
International Surf Break Protection
Specific literature has improved the understanding of international surf break
protection fundamentals and the most current approaches to appropriately managing
popular surfing breaks. Establishing surfing reserves has been the primary international
mechanism for protecting acknowledged surfing breaks. The Bells Beach Surfing
Reserve of Victoria, Australia was designated by the State Government of Victoria in
1973, and became the world’s first surfing reserve for the purposes of recreation, surfing,
and conservation (Surf Coast Shire, 2010). Bells Beach has been demonstrated to be a
successful example of the surf reserve management concept and has benefited
significantly from the protection provided by having the status of surfing reserve (Farmer
& Short, 2007). Success of the management at Bells Beach has largely been attributed to
the efforts of community volunteers in restoration projects that target coastal ecosystems
within the reserve (Fox, 2011). Maroubra Beach, Sydney, Australia became the world’s
second surfing reserve in 2006, and was created through the National Surfing Reserve
(NSR) voluntary organization, which was created in 2005.
Literature shows that the NSR organization has functioned primarily to identify,
nominate, and dedicate surfing reserves within Australia (Farmer & Short, 2007). Surf
breaks must meet certain criteria before being considered for NSR status. Surf breaks
must consistently produce high-quality surfing conditions, considered sacred by local
surfers, and that the surfing beach has had an extended history of recreational use by both
17
local and national surfing communities (Short & Farmer, 2012). Formal dedication
ceremonies and signage that identifies a surf break as a NSR are important features along
with the development and implementation of a Local Steering Committee (LSC) who is
responsible for localized management (Short & Farmer, 2012).
Research by Short and Farmer (2012) indicate that communities and local
councils have continued to show acceptance and support for the NSR management
approach. A total of 12 NSR had been identified and dedicated within the literature as of
March 2012 with more dedications expected throughout the next few years (National
Surfing Reserves, 2012). The NSR program has progressed further and expanded to
develop a three-tiered reserve hierarchy to recognize Regional Surfing Reserves (RSR),
NSR, and World Surfing Reserves (WSR) (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). While there
have been no RSR dedications documented within the literature so far, the program has
identified and formally dedicated four WSR locations. The four currently existing WSR
locations include Manly Beach, Australia; Ericeira, Portugal; Malibu, California, USA;
and Santa Cruz, California, USA (Save the Waves Coalition, 2012). In order to meet
objectives of increasing awareness of surfing break value to local and extended
communities, the local surfing community needs community involvement, environmental
protection and surfing amenity standards to achieve WSR status (World Surfing Reserves,
2011).
Literature regarding State Law shows that in 2010 the State of Hawai’i passed a
senate bill and executive order to identify, dedicate and protect the breaks of Waikiki and
the North Shore of Oahu as two Hawai’i Surfing Reserves (HSR). The HSR model is
based on Australia’s NSR model, and seeks to achieve three goals of (1) “formal
18
worldwide recognition of the sites as surfing areas that have quality surf and significant
cultural, historical, recreational, and competitive sports value;” (2) “recognition of the
long and close relationship between surfers and the ocean;” and (3) “promoting the longterm preservation of Hawaii surfing reserves for recreation and competitive surfing”
(Edwards & Stephenson, 2014; A Bill for an Act, 2010). Donations are directed to
Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to provide forms of
markers and signs that identify HSR locations, however, reserves do not receive direct
funding (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Literature within the policy shows that reserves
are identified by DLNR as historic landmarks, and receive assistance in collaborative
efforts between federal, state and island county cooperation to identify, nourish beaches,
and protect reserves from degradation (A Bill for an Act, 2010). Community involvement
within the HSR structure differs from the NSR model, as a path for community
involvement may not be directly provided other than a way to provide financial
contributions. Future efforts to include HSR locations as WSR sites may facilitate
community involvement and provide a more collaborative management platform for
surfing reserves in the State of Hawai’i (Short & Farmer, 2012; Edwards & Stephenson,
2014).
Literature indicates that New Zealand has also taken action to protect and manage
the countries high quality surf breaks, and maintain the island’s recognition as a quality
surfing destination (Morse & Brunskill, 2004). While the surfing population is lower than
both Australia and Hawai’i, surfing is shown to be a popular sport in New Zealand and
recent estimates have placed the number of resident surfers at over 145,000 individuals
(SPARC, 2009). New Zealand’s Resource Management Act (RMA) of 1991 is the
19
primary environmental legislation of the country, and is founded on an integrated
framework to sustainably manage surf breaks as a component of New Zealand’s natural
and physical resources. A three-tier hierarchy has been developed, similar to Australia’s
NSR model, effectively establishing a “national-level government, regional councils, and
territorial authorities (district and city councils)” (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). The
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) is a national-level policy document that
functions under the RMA (1991) to sustainably manage New Zealand’s coastal
environments, and requires regional councils and territorial authorities to regard the
NZCPS in appropriate planning documents. Important planning documents found within
the literature and noted under the NZCPS are regional policy statements, regional plans
and district plans (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Literature demonstrates that both surfers and surfing organizations showed a
significant response to the NZCPS (1994) when they identified the protection of surf
breaks a coastal management issue, and subsequently surf breaks were included in the
NZCPS (2010) (Department of Conservation, 2008). Specific protection of 17 unique
surf breaks of national significance was granted under the NZCPS (2010), and all other
surf breaks were granted general protection as an integral component of the natural
character of the coast, and as a unique natural feature within the coastal environment
(Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Records show that local authorities must be proactive about incorporating surf
breaks into policy towards regional and local-level planning initiatives, as councils were
provided no specific guidance, and as the methodology behind the initiative was to
improve with future research and application (Department of Conservation, 2009).
20
Existing literature indicates that many local coastal managers and authorities who are
considered experts in their field lack expertise and fundamental understanding of surf
breaks and surfing in general (Peryman, 2011b). Knowledge gaps of coastal managers
regarding surf breaks and surfer stakeholder groups may be greatly reduced by
incorporating surfers into the management process, as surfers represent a valuable source
of information and expertise. Establishing formal protection for surf breaks, raising
awareness and promoting the value of surfing has greatly been the effect of the surfing
community’s interest in promoting surfing interests within coastal management (Scarfe,
Healy & Rennie, 2009). The future management of surf breaks has been shown in the
literature to represent a unique opportunity for integrated management between the
surfing community and local authorities to improve the effectiveness of conservation and
sustainability objectives (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Surf Break Co-Management
Existing literature indicates that coastal managers have to determine what may be
considered a positive outcome of surf break management at a particular location. Each
surfing reserve is unique and experiences different levels of use and environmental
pressure. Specific management objectives have been shown to vary between surfing
reserves depending on what types of pressures are present (Short & Farmer, 2012).
Research has shown that positive outcomes need to be determined and adapted to
accommodate specific local management issues at each surfing reserve site in order to
increase effectiveness and reduce stakeholder conflict (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Collaborative programs for the co-management of surf breaks have been shown to
21
offer a unique opportunity for local surfing communities to effectively assist local coastal
management authorities, and be directly involved in the management and conservation of
surfing resources (Peryman, 2011a). Integrated coordination between varying levels of
government, stakeholders, non-consumptive user groups, and local communities have
been shown to create complex co-management opportunities (Christie & White, 1997;
Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). While co-management does not have a generally accepted
definition, the term describes within the literature range in degrees of power sharing
arrangements for collaborative decision-making by both state agencies and local
community stakeholder groups (Berkes, 2009). Surf break co-management is considered
within the literature to be a new concept within CZM approaches; however, the NRS
approach in Australia offers an existing example of effective surf break co-management
(Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). A case study of the Auckland and Otago regions of New
Zealand were compared by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) to identify significant
components for surf break co-management success. The following questions were
designed by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) to “identify key ingredients for successful
surf break co-management”:
1. What are the potential levels of involvement by surf break users in comanagement initiatives?
2. What do surf break users consider the purpose of surf break management?
3. What should be the role of local authorities in surf break co-management?
4. What is the most suitable type of approach to surf break co-management?
Online user surveys and qualitative interviews with identified stakeholders
comprised the primary research methods of Edwards and Stephenson. The type of
22
approach for co-managing surf breaks was the primary focus of Edwards and Stephenson
(2014). Online user surveys used by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) were limited in the
fact that users included in the literature were only individuals who had access to the
Internet and wished to be involved. Two types of approach were identified within coastal
management literature. The first is a surf break co-management approach similar to the
NSR management in Australia, and the other includes various surf break interest groups
and individuals as stakeholders in larger and more widespread coastal co-management
initiatives and objectives (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Recent research of surf break
co-management options has been based on findings from relevant literature reviews,
survey results, and semi-structured qualitative interviews (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Surf break co-management research methods used by Edwards and Stephenson
(2014) were primarily based upon an online survey of surfers that use specific surf breaks,
and qualitative interviews in order to compare two regions of New Zealand. Both surveys
and interviews were completed within a four-month period for both locations. Existing
research has not accounted for significant variability within the frequency of use
throughout different seasons. Existing surf break co-management research has not
adequately accounted for the fact the most advanced surfers who prefer the largest waves
may not be present during months with the most surfers in the water.
Literature by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) is significantly founded within
online surveys to better understand surfer perceptions toward surf break management.
Surveys and questionnaires presented on popular surfing Internet sites have been notably
effective when identifying unique user groups of those who regularly access specific
websites (Davidson & Tolich, 2003). This type of web approach has been identified as a
23
self-selected web survey by Couper (2000), and utilizes an invitation portal on popular
websites where web users can voluntarily take the online survey. There are significant
limitations to voluntary based online survey, however. Online surveys make analysis only
possible for the total number of respondents rather than an accurate representation of surf
break users, and have been identified as an example of a non-probability survey approach
(Edwards & Stephenson, 2014) Other limitations identified by Couper (2000) note that
represented web populations are often significantly different than the target population or
user group. Surf break users who do not access computers, do not follow online surf
forecast websites, and surfers who do not choose to voluntarily participate in the survey
are effectively excluded from invitation based online survey methods (Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014).
Combinations of open-ended and pre-coded questions were adopted from
Sarantakos (2005) by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) to represent both qualitative and
quantitative data from a semi-standardized questionnaire. The survey designed by
Edwards and Stephenson (2014) was intended to take roughly 15 minutes to complete,
and was comprised of 26 survey questions intended for surfers who were familiar with
the local surf break at two separate locations (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Until
recently there has been no available information or data regarding particular surf break
user groups, other than surf club memberships (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Surf
break users have been defined within the literature as the NSR definition, which includes
“any person who interacts physically with the surf for recreation. It includes bodysurfing,
bodyboarding, surfboarding, surfskiing, surfboating, all forms of life saving and
lifeguarding but excludes all surf interaction powered by wind and machines” (National
24
Surfing Reserves, 2012; Farmer & Short, 2007; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Limited information exists of past interview techniques with surf break users,
however, identifying and engaging key stakeholders is increasingly important because of
their potential involvement to meet surf break co-management goals. Interview sampling
methods used in existing research is limited to only a few studies, though has been
important to learn from previous studies and build upon existing peer-reviewed methods.
Edwards and Stephenson (2014) adopted purposive sampling and snowball sampling
methods from Sarantakos (2005) to identify, locate and increase the range of research
participants. Surf break management is regarded as a new field of coastal management
interest, and has a limited number of experts that can be drawn upon for surf break
management research (Scarfe, Healy, & Rennie, 2009). Purposive sampling methods
(Sarantakos, 2005) were applied by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) to locate and
interview participants within particular stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder groups include regional councils, district councils, the Department of
Conservation, boardrider clubs, surfing organizations, surf lifesaving groups, and coastal
environmental groups. Participants of the purposive sampling method may present
inherent bias because they may be surfers themselves, therefore these participants are
asked to answer questions from the perspective of their associated stakeholder group and
not of their personal view. It should be noted that while Edwards and Stephenson (2014)
conducted their study in New Zealand, exact stakeholder group names differ within the
literature in other countries, though similarly functioning stakeholder groups likely exist
and should be identified as the same.
25
Snowball sampling (Sarantakos, 2005) has been used in previous studies to
increase the range of interview participants because knowledgeable and experienced surf
break users are difficult to isolate and locate. Allowing key stakeholder participants
involved in the purposive sampling interviews to comment on who may provide valuable
and necessary information relative to the research objectives is a method that has proved
useful in other studies of small and secretive societal subgroups (Sarantakos, 2005).
Interviewing methods for surf break management research have not been well
established, though Edwards and Stephenson (2014) utilized a semi-structured interview
technique from Sarantakos (2005) to generate a series of previously prepared open-ended
questions designed to act as a guide for the interview process. Transcriptions of the
interviews were thematically coded by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) to isolate
emerging key themes, and comments by participants were used to increase the breadth
and clarity of research discussion and results.
Literature about culturally significant surfing breaks demonstrates all
geographically distinct breaks are uniquely individual with each having distinctive
physical and social characteristics. Research by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) and
Short and Farmer (2012) establish the foundation for why each surf break should be
understood to clearly form objectives and desired outcomes of future surf break
management decisions. The primary purpose of surf break management for surf break
users is overwhelmingly to preserve the physicality and wave of the surf break (Peryman,
2011a; Short & Farmer, 2012; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). While it isn’t unexpected
for surf break users to generally refer to surf break protection and conservation as
primary objectives of surf break management, other aspects of management such as
26
hands-on action, education, and management approaches are not well understood from
previous research (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
What specifically surf break protection involves is also unclear from surf
break user research. There is also a proportion of surf break users who value other
objectives of surf break management, however, the specific objectives have not been
clearly determined within the literature (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). The majority of
surf break management research has been conducted within the past 15 years, and the
recent emergence of the field may be responsible for the ambiguity among surf break
users in previous studies (Corne, 2009; Scarfe, Healy, & Rennie 2009; Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014).
Research that demonstrates effective and practical application of surf break
management is limited despite increasing interest and recognition of surf break protection
within coastal management literature (Oram & Valverde, 1994; Buckley, 2002; Lazarow,
2007; Scarfe, Healy, & Rennie, 2009; Fletcher, Bateman, & Emery, 2011; Peryman &
Skellern, 2011). Conflict scenarios that arise at surf breaks have been identified within a
review of surf break management peer-reviewed literature by Scarfe, Healy, and Rennie
(2009) as an area of management that has not been well documented. Other than to
provide general protection, approaches and objectives of surf break management have not
been well established (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). The process of surf break
protection is considered in a state of evolution, and surf break management initiatives
will develop both a clearer purpose and what the purpose involves to effectively reach
desired goals (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
27
Promoting the values of surfing to the wider community has been emphasized as
an important method for increasing awareness and consideration of surf breaks during
decision-making processes that may affect a surf break (Lazarow, 2007; Scarfe, Healy, &
Rennie, 2009;; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). An initial challenge of surf break comanagement within the literature is educating both surf break users and others who may
not directly use surf breaks for surfing, but possibly embrace the cultural values of
surfing culture within the community. The NSR approach to surf break management was
highlighted by Short and Farmer (2012) to increase cultural awareness and social value
within the community.
Dedications ceremonies, signage and plaques that serve to commemorate and
educate visitors has been shown in the literature to increase shared awareness in the wider
community, and raise the collective value of surf breaks within the community (Short &
Farmer, 2012). Support for promoting wider recognition of the overall value of surf
breaks as a significant objective of surf break management was found by Edwards and
Stephenson (2014) in 50% of interviews and only 5% of online surveys, suggesting the
greater surfing population is largely unaware of the value associated with promoting
surfing’s cultural importance compared to people who are directly involved in surf break
decision-making and management.
Surf break management has been said by some researchers to contradict some of
the core values of surfing culture by promoting more surfers at existing surf breaks. The
literature shows that surfers have a long history of protecting surfing locations from
becoming exploited, over-crowded, and maintaining elements of an underground society
(Young, 2000; Lanagan, 2002; Peryman, 2011a). The desires of local surfing
28
communities must be understood and respected when surf break co-management plans
are considered to be a possible method of coastal management (Scarfe,Healy, & Rennie,
2009; Peryman, 2001a; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). An important initial challenge is
described within the literature as educating and informing surf break users of the inherent
value to the surf break co-management approach (Edwards & Stephenson 2014).
Surf break user participation has been shown to be limited to the voluntary
interest by the user groups that are participating in co-management initiatives and
objectives (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Research by Scarfe, Healy, Rennie (2009) and
Peryman (2011a) have indicated that surf break users have valuable knowledge of surfing
breaks, and the role of surfing communities has played a significant role in promoting the
interests of surf break protection and conservation. The findings of Edwards and
Stephenson (2014) were consistent with previous studies with respect to user knowledge
of physical parameters of a surf break; however, interest from some users to become
involved with co-management initiatives was limited to a voluntary effort. Communitybased management approaches in previous studies have concluded that a key challenge to
management efforts has been the encouragement of individuals to participate in volunteer
based actions (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Berkes, 2009; Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014). Encouraging prominent figures within the local surfing culture to
become surf break co-management advocates has been hypothesized within the literature
to generate greater social momentum and support.
Established and respected surfers within a local surfing community have been
identified within past research to represent strong leaders and encourage participation of
the greater population of surf break users, as past co-management initiatives have been
29
successful largely as a result of championed voluntary leadership (Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014). Successful establishment of the NSR program in Australia was found
by Farmer and Short (2007) to create forward momentum and support within the surfing
community by a small number of surfers who were committed to surf break protection. In
a similar situation, community based surfing interest groups and committed individuals
were responsible for surf breaks being included in New Zealand’s NZCPS (2010)
(Peryman, 2011b). Edwards and Stephenson (2014) also found results from their survey
and interviews that strong leadership from local surfers and surf organizations was a
necessary component of successful surf break management initiatives and to motivate
participation. Promotion of surf break initiatives was shown by Edwards and Stephenson
(2014) within their interviews, when respondents emphasized that specific individuals
had promoted initiatives that included organized beach clean ups, constructing coastal
walkways, and surfing lessons for disadvantaged youth.
Literature demonstrates that local authorities have a significant role in surf break
management programs in New Zealand and Australia because both countries have taken
steps to place surf breaks within a national level policy framework. The United States
does not recognize surf break reserves within state or national policy. Locations with
WSR status may benefit from other methods that New Zealand and Australia have used
to address surf break management beyond creating formally recognizing surfing reserves.
Edwards and Stephenson (2014) reported that four interview participants commented on
the importance of identifying culturally significant surf breaks, and the establishment of
reserve monitoring programs as “crucial next steps in providing for the protection of surf
breaks” (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Research by Scarfe, Healy and Rennie (2009)
30
also outlined a framework for approaches to surf break management, including actions of
identifying surf breaks, provisions to local and national policy, and ongoing monitoring
programs. While policy provisions have proved difficult and expensive to establish
within the literature, surf break users may voluntarily establish monitoring programs as a
valuable component of surfing reserves.
Surfing reserve initiatives have commonly provided maps identifying the location
of each named surf break, however, these maps provide no information regarding the
relative values, physical intricacies, or cultural significance of each break (Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014). Establishing more information of specific breaks has been identified
within the literature as benefitting efforts to protect surf breaks. In New Zealand, the
Policy Statement approach offers recognition and protection for identified surf breaks,
however, little statutory weight has been established as a result (Auckland Regional
Council, 2010).
Survey results from council leadership in New Zealand indicated that respondents
supported local authorities and state agencies to take a “back room” approach to surf
break management. A “back room” approach represents a management situation where
surfers wish to continue self-managing “surfing specific issues such as over-crowding
and etiquette” (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). While Edwards and Stephenson (2014)
found that some survey and interview participants were reluctant to support council or
agency involvement in the management of surfing breaks, local authorities may act as
important co-management facilitators. Councils or agencies have been shown in previous
studies to drive the initial process of surf break management by becoming proactive in
organizing and establishing surf break user committees (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
31
Sharing of power in co-management initiatives in the literature should be viewed as a
goal or result rather than an initial approach (Berkes, 2009). Agencies have been found to
offer support in previous studies through initial guidance and help to facilitate surfing
reserve committees as a way to provide drive and momentum for a co-management
approach. As greater support and organization becomes established through user
committees, previous research has indicated that local authorities may step back into
supporting roles that continue to be involved as a background oversight, which has been
established as fundamental to reinforce effective co-management initiatives. (Christie &
White, 1997; Berkes, 2009; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Edwards and Stephenson (2014) found support among surf break users for local
authorities to be involved in management initiatives. Survey results from Edwards and
Stephenson (2014) showed that users supported local authority involvement to maintain
access, organize beach clean ups, and monitor water quality with support of 75%, 86%,
and 92%, respectively. While different surf breaks have been shown to have different
management objectives, research in New Zealand shows that surf break users expect
local stewardship councils to be proactive in solving problems that periodically arise.
Roles and expectations of stewardship councils, agencies and surf break users need to be
clearly defined and delineated for positive outcomes and established objectives to be met
(Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Surf breaks have been shown to be geographically localized within the literature,
whereas nearly all surf breaks are physically and socially unique compared to other
nearby surf breaks regardless of how close in proximity they may appear. A local
approach to surf break management was found to be most beneficial by Edwards and
32
Stephenson (2014) for the Auckland and Otago regions of New Zealand. It has been
unclear from the literature, however, whether local surf breaks would benefit from a
wider regional co-management initiative. Depending on the geographical region, wider
coastal management issues such as hazard mitigation, fisheries, mining, alternative
energy and shipping have been identified within the literature as potentially
overshadowing surf break co-management objectives (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Literature regarding wide-scale and regional co-management initiatives have
shown significant problems in successfully engaging and including community level
interests, which effectively distances local interests from regional management programs
(Christie & White, 1997; Maliao, Pomeroy, & Turingan, 2009; Edwards & Stephenson,
2014). Local communities have been shown to be more likely to be motivated, to become
involved, develop a sense of ownership for their local surf break, and work towards longterm goals that are founded upon community-based management methodology if efforts
are directed toward local scale issues (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998; Nickerson-Tietze,
2000; Maliao, Pomeroy, & Turingan, 2009; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). For surf
break co-management to be effective, it is important for local authorities to understand
the desired objectives of the local surfing community, and to define what type of
approach to surf break co-management best suits the specific location.
An integral component of the NSR and WSR structure in the literature is the
establishment of a management committee and local stewardship council (Edwards &
Stephenson, 2014). Surf break users, local authorities, state agencies and other
stakeholders are shown to be represented as a function of management committees, and
allow surf breaks and surf break users to be represented throughout formal decision-
33
making processes (Short & Farmer, 2012). Management committees have been found to
give users a sense of permanent recognition for their surf break, which leads users to be
more willing to engage in co-management initiatives. Clear representation of surfing
interests is also established through the creation of management committees and local
stewardship councils, eventually giving surf break users substantial consideration during
coastal planning and management (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Requirements needed
for the formation of management committees and local stewardship councils have been
identified as the identification of suitable participants, committee or council elections
through public meetings, and clearly outlining the purpose and role or the organization,
whether it is advisory or regulatory (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Wider coastal management initiatives were not found be in ineffective by
Edwards and Stephenson (2014), however, the importance of addressing coastal issues at
a local scale and including the involvement of local stakeholders and interest groups was
emphasized. Engaging the local surfing community in initiatives that target specific surf
breaks for co-management objectives has determined within the literature to be the most
effective means of producing results that may improve access, reduce user conflicts, or
finance the construction of new facilities (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Region wide
coastal management and local surf break co-management initiatives can be engaged
simultaneously, though it is important for both management perspectives to recognize the
intentions of each other for both to be as effective as possible, and to address issues that
may arise in the future (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
Studies within the literature have shown that surfing reserves of both NSR and
WSR status have been increasingly supported by surfing communities who want to
34
protect and conserve their local surf breaks. The NSR model has been shown to offer an
established transferable model for organizations of surfers who seek to meet the
established criteria of formal site nomination, selection, and dedication (Short & Farmer,
2012; Edwards & Stephenson, 2014). Save The Waves organization has established a
clear criteria for achieving WSR status, which has enabled the significant surfing
communities of Malibu and Santa Cruz, CA to become dedicated as WSR sites and
achieve global recognition for their unique natural and cultural resources.
Eight critical components for successful surf break co-management have been
identified by Edwards and Stephenson (2014), and may be transferrable to other surfing
reserve co-management initiatives worldwide: 1). A clear statement of purpose, scope,
desired outcomes, roles, and expectations; 2). A local surf break or surfing area focus; 3).
A supporting policy framework that provides for surf break identification, policy
provision, and monitoring; 4). Strong leadership from within the surfing community; 5).
Support from within the local surfing community – including an understanding of the
value of surf break management; 6). Local authority support – establishing a supporting
policy framework, proactive engagement with the surfing community, logistical and
financial support; 7). A clear pathway to achieving protection/statutory recognition of a
surf break; 8). A management committee involving local surf break users, local
authorities, and other stakeholders, including coastal experts, coastal interest groups and
community representatives. The methodology behind the WSR format following the
established Australian NSR format is that the developed model has enabled local
managers to maintain a consistent platform for surfing communities to voluntarily initiate
and engage in co-management opportunities (Edwards & Stephenson, 2014).
35
Existing literature about El Niño event impacts on coastal property and civic
infrastructure demonstrates that climate variability and weather phenomena present
significant risks for coastal Santa Cruz County. Research regarding increasing climate
variability along the shoreline of California presents a growing concern for private
property owners and coastal communities as sea level rise continues to accelerate. The
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 initiated new research about Coastal Zone
Management as a unique focus of coastal related literature. Research about the effects of
certain coastal zone management decisions and resulting adverse impacts to minority
stakeholders has been an emerging focus within published literature. Literature within
recent years has addressed surfers as a significant minority stakeholder group in certain
coastal zone areas, who have experienced documented degradation or complete loss of
culturally significant landscapes.
I chose to use a controversial case study that involved a seawall project designed
to fix an actively eroding bluff face because it is representative of many popular and
highly developed regions of the California coastline. A semi-structured and open-ended
interview method was chosen and developed based on previous studies by Edwards and
Stephenson (2014), Corne (2009), Berkes (2009), and Bancroft (1999). Stakeholder
interviews were founded on a “snowball” method, which was selected to develop trust
and motivation to engage between the group of participants and researcher.
Existing literature about engagement between surfers as minority stakeholders in
coastal zone management decisions and the regulatory agencies that oversee the public
policy process identify this relationship as an important area of future research. Literature
by Edwards and Stephenson (2014) and Short and Farmer (2012) present significant
36
limitations of survey based research methods, and present opportunities for new research
founded within interview based case studies founded in principles of political ecology,
environmental justice and cultural geography.
37
Chapter 3: Surfer Stakeholders in Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Cruz, California is located on the northern shore of Monterey Bay in central
California between San Francisco to the north, and Monterey to the south. Swells
generated by powerful storms in the South and North Pacific Ocean have time to organize
into long period, or low frequency swells by the time they reach Santa Cruz area surf
breaks. The surf breaks of Santa Cruz have a long history of public use and systematic
privatization by property owners along the urbanized coastline. Surfers in the Santa Cruz
area have historically represented a unique stakeholder group that has systematically
experienced the direct effects of political ecology upon the landscape, and environmental
injustice within coastal zone management (CZM). The coastal landscape of the Santa
Cruz area continues to be constructed in the vision of private wealth, political power, and
insistent land use planners. The artificial coastline has come to symbolize expansive
ecological disruption and environmental injustice experienced by surfers as a significant
minority stakeholder group.
Santa Cruz is a geographically significant location in the international history of
surfing. Surfing was introduced to the mainland of North America, and to somewhere
outside the Hawaiian islands for the first time on the beaches of Santa Cruz. Three
Hawaiian princes, Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole, David Kawananakoa, and Edward
Keli’iahonui were staying in the San Lorenzo Valley in Santa Cruz, and on July 20, 1885
the three princes rode waves off of Main Beach. The Santa Cruz Daily Surf wrote in 1885
“they had redwood logs cut to slabs from the Grover Lumber Mill in the San Lorenzo
Valley, in Santa Cruz. Then the brothers shaped them into surfboards” (Hickenbottom,
2009). First growth redwood trees were cut into slabs from which the three princes
38
carved boards fifteen feet long, and weighing more than one hundred pounds each.
Surfing was not documented again in Santa Cruz for eleven years, until the
weekly edition of Santa Cruz Surf wrote in the summer of 1896 “the boys who go in
swimming at Seabright Beach use surfboards to ride the breakers like the Hawaiians”
(Hickenbottom, 2009). Social and spiritual connections between Santa Cruz and the
Hawaiian islands have existed since the three princes surfed Main Beach, though soon
after, Santa Cruz surfers would begin traveling to Hawai’i to surf and return to Santa
Cruz to continue building this cultural legacy that continues today.
One of the first Santa Cruz surfers to surf in Hawai’i was Dorothy Becker, who
was photographed in the summer of 1915 surfing waves at Canoes surf break at Waikiki
Beach on Oahu’s south shore. She wore a one-piece swimsuit and cap of the era, and
gives credence to the position that one of the first Santa Cruz surfers to surf in Hawai’i
was a woman. Few women were known to take part in surfing during this time period.
Sam Reid was a legendary Santa Cruz surfer to bridge the connection from Santa
Cruz to Hawai’i. Born in 1909, Sam Reid was a tremendously prolific waterman,
lifeguard, and ocean swimmer. Reid moved to Oahu’s south shore at age 19 in 1928, and
became a highly skilled surfer while developing lasting friendships with the famous
Kahanamoku brothers. He won the surfing championship at Waikiki beach against local
Hawaiian surfers in 1928 and 1932, which at the time was equivalent to the world
championship. Reid learned to speak Hawaiian and was highly regarded by local
Hawaiian surfers. His half-mile surfboard paddling record was set in Hawaii and stood
from 1931 to 1955. In 1950 Reid returned to Santa Cruz, saying the surf in Santa Cruz
was “equivalent to places in Hawai’i”, and declared the area from Cowell’s Beach to
39
Steamer Lane as “the perfect surfing spot” (Hickenbottom, 2009). Reid established the
1,000-yard swim championship in Santa Cruz, which eventually became the Santa Cruz
Lifeguard Championship.
Surfers were prominent and dominant iconic figures on the beach during this time,
surfing not only for their own enjoyment, but also for the enjoyment of everyone visiting
the pier and along the beach. Even when not surfing, SCSC members were a prominent
stakeholder group along the shale cliff at Cowell’s Beach. Surfers would gather there to
socialize, eat, drink, and throw parties with friends. Many SCSC members traded their
surfboards for military uniforms after the outbreak of World War II, which became a
defining event that would transform the era of tranquility in Santa Cruz.
Surfers are drawn to Santa Cruz, CA because many factors align to create a
unique socially geographic location. The surfing culture of Santa Cruz is deeply rooted in
traditional Hawaiian boardriding, dating back more than a century. When the three
Hawaiian princes “had redwood logs cut to slabs from the Grover Lumber Mill in the San
Lorenzo Valley” (Hickenbottom, 2009) and shaped traditional Hawaiian surfboards to the
dimensions used by Hawaiian royalty, surfing culture began an iconic legacy in Santa
Cruz. The earliest surfboards shaped by the Hawaiian princes were significantly different
than today’s most imposing examples of surf craft. Roughly a decade later, in the summer
of 1896, the boys who were swimming at Seabright Beach were using “surfboards to ride
the breakers, like the Hawaiians” (Hickenbottom, 2009). Surfers of this era would have
been arriving at the beaches with their surfboards by way of horse drawn carriage or
wagon. Over the course of the following few decades, notable surfers such as Dorothy
Becker and Sam Reid would return Santa Cruz surfers back to Hawaii and hone their
40
skills on Hawaiian waves with the help and guidance of legendary Hawaiian surfers.
Through the historical exchange between Hawaiian and Santa Cruz surfers, significant
friendships and guarded relationships were cultivated and developed.
Surfers were officially represented as stakeholders with the formal organization of
the Santa Cruz Surfing Club (SCSC) in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Club members purchased
a clubhouse in 1944 for $250, located behind the bathhouse at the wharf. The clubhouse
was an iconic emblem of the SCSC identity until 1952, when an act of vandalism
accidentally set the structure ablaze, and was subsequently acquired and moved by the
City of Santa Cruz. The SCSC clubhouse was significant to Santa Cruz surfing culture
because it established surfers as being permanently committed stewards of Santa Cruz
beaches, and built recognition for surfers as private property owning stakeholders.
Surfers were able to ride a large southwest swell from the outside peak of Cypress
Point, known as Outside Cowell’s, and ride between broken pilings and the main Santa
Cruz Wharf. The Santa Cruz Wharf prominently exists today between Cowell’s Beach
and Main Beach. Membership cards from the SCSC read, “Santa Cruz Surfing Club –
This is to certify that (name) is in good standing and is entitled to all rights and privileges
of this club” (Hickenbottom, 2009). Members of the SCSC were notable watermen that
were also lifeguards and iconic safeguarding figures within local beach culture and
greater Santa Cruz community.
In 1940 two members of the SCSC, Don “Bosco” Patterson and Lloyd Ragon
were part of the Santa Cruz lifeguard crew, and watched over the beaches of Santa Cruz
in addition to the massive outdoor swimming pool located off Main Beach, called the
Plunge. The iconic break of Steamer Lane was named after a surfing trip to Pleasure
41
Point. Duke Horan looked out and said “my God, they’re breaking out in the steamer
lanes” (Hickenbottom, 2009), referring to the traditional routes steam ships would use to
navigate in and out of the Santa Cruz wharf when delivering redwood to coastal ports and
wharfs. From Cowell’s Beach, outside set waves can be seen peeling off the outside reef
at Steamer Lane and outside Middle Peak. Both Steamer Lane and Middle Peak are
examples of large and powerful winter breaks that professional local surfers use to train
for other world-class big waves.
Many big wave surfers have grown up and developed their skills at the Middle
Peak of Steamer Lane in Santa Cruz. Lloyd Ragon was one of the first big wave surfers
of Santa Cruz, and recognized as the first person to surf at Steamer Lane. Ragon is also
remembered as riding the biggest waves of the era, which were remembered as measuring
12 to 15 feet at Middle Peak (Hickenbottom, 2009). Not many people surfed during the
early years, and those who were drawn to surf Santa Cruz’s cold waves epitomized
feelings of great friendship and shared respect within beach culture. Santa Cruz is
represented by two distinct and independent surfing cultures located to the geographical
east and west of the community. Breaks along West Cliff Drive and East Cliff Drive are
known as the Westside and Eastside, respectively. A third unique surfing area and culture
is referred to as “Midtown” within the surfing community. Midtown is the geographic
area located near the San Lorenzo River mouth, and is descended upon by both Eastside
and Westside surfers in addition to the midtown locals when the river mouth or harbor
entrance develop extended sandbars.
42
Pleasure Point Surfing History
Large bluffs line the breaks of Pleasure Point, and have historically been a place
where surfers would congregate, camp out, watch other surfers, and throw community
parties. One of Pleasure Point’s earliest surfing families was the Van Dyke family, of
whom most surfed, and were an iconic Pleasure Point dynasty. They lived on Devines’
Pastel Court, and are seen in images as early as 1953 at the base of the cliffs at 38th
Avenue, posing in front of large balsa wood longboards (Hickenbottom, 2009). Ted
Pearson and Pat Curren were two local Pleasure Point surfboard shapers from the 1950’s,
and in 1957 built boards together as Pearson-Curren Surfboards. Their truck could be
seen parked in front of Gene and Betty Van Dyke’s home on 34th Avenue, with the
driver’s side door painted with Curren’s name first, and the passenger side door painted
with Pearson’s name first. Boards shaped at Pleasure Point in this era were made
primarily from balsa wood, and a few were shaped right on the beach at 38th Avenue.
Boards were shaped using drawknifes and hand planes, before the boards were glassed
using fiberglass cloth and resin in the garages, kitchens, and front rooms of many
Pleasure Point homes (Hickenbottom, 2009).
One of the first wetsuit jackets can be seen being worn by Betty Van Dyke in an
image from 1957 on the bluff top at 38th Avenue after she had finished riding empty
waves at the inside break of Pleasure Point (Hickenbottom, 2009). Her wetsuit jacket was
given to her by Jack O’Neill on one of his early trips to Pleasure Point. Jack O’Neill is a
“California icon”, a highly influential surfing pioneer and is widely regarded as having
invented the first modern wetsuit specifically designed for surfing. In 1957 Jack O’Neill
was first developing his wetsuit business in San Francisco, CA, and in 1959 he opened
43
his Surf Shop in Santa Cruz, which continues to function today as the corporate
headquarters for O’Neill. As with much of surfing back in this era, O’Neill Wetsuits was
a family operation, with Jack’s brother Bill overseeing the wetsuit manufacturing
component of the operation. Camping on the cliff at 38th Avenue was commonplace for
surfers of the 1950’s. When Jack O’Neill would visit Santa Cruz prior to moving from
San Francisco, Jack and his family were remembered by the Van Dyke’s to have slept in
sleeping bags next to campfires directly above the beach. Surfers camping on the bluffs
would have been awoken by the sounds of perfectly peeling point break waves under the
growing warmth of the sunrise. On waveless afternoons when the swell was weak or tide
too high, surfers would enjoy acoustic jam sessions atop the bluffs overlooking 38th
Avenue cove, and share a few cold brews with their friends.
Jack O’Neill’s shop on 41st Avenue was the location where he had his showroom
in addition to his surfboard and wetsuit manufacturing shop. O’Neill’s logo was designed
by Northern California surfing legend Jim Foley, which continues to be significantly
emblematic for the greater Santa Cruz community. Soon after Foley made O’Neill’s
signature logo, the name was simplified from the Surf Shop to O’Neill’s. Present-day
O’Neill, Inc. maintains their legendary and iconic presence in Santa Cruz from the same
building they have owned since 1959. The O’Neill building is easily recognizable today
by Foley’s logo above the font door.
Images from 1960 depict a transforming surfing culture, where nearly all surfers
traded their heavier balsa boards for new lighter weight foam models, which entered the
surfing scene during 1958 and 1959. Foam boards were easily shaped to a surfer’s
customized style, were significantly lighter weight, and offered the surfer greater
44
maneuverability both paddling and riding waves. Joel Woods was one of the earliest
shapers who used power planes to “mow” foam blanks into surfboards at the O’Neill
manufacturing shop located on 41st Avenue. The first shapers hired by O’Neill when the
shop opened in 1959 were Mike Winterburn and Jim Foley. O’Neill had the advantage of
blowing his own foam blanks using a combination of toxic chemicals and letting them
expand in concrete molds on site at his shop.
Johnny Rice is a Santa Cruz shaping legend, and one of the most prolific shapers
in California history, creating custom surfboards for more than five decades. In 1954
Rice apprenticed under the late shaping legend Dale Velzy in Southern California,
learning the art of wood plank construction, shaping, and hand tool maintenance
(Hickenbottom, 2009). After highschool and on weekends, Rice would meet with Velzy
at his shop located in Manhattan Beach to hone the time-honored craft of shaping balsa
surfboards.
The Hook one of the most popular surf breaks within the Pleasure Point area, and
is easily accessible at the end of 41st Avenue. Several challenging sections of the wave
and the fast-breaking long rides characterize The Hook’s wave type. The Santa Cruz
Gremlin Society (SCGS) was a small surf club formed in 1961 and used The Hook as
their meeting place. The SCGS was the first formal surfing club to form since the Santa
Cruz Surfing Club was formed during the 1930’s and 1940’s (Hickenbottom, 2009).
Prominent SCGS members included Jim Phillips, Thomas Hickenbottom, Tony Mikus, L.
J. Harris, Ron Lindsay, Dick Lindsay, Gene Echeveria, and Denny Cox.
Access to The Hook had always been challenging because of the steep climb up
and down the muddy cliffs. During and after periods of rain made the climb increasingly
45
difficult, especially with a heavy surfboard under arm. Many surfers have fallen down the
cliff face at The Hook while attempting to enter or exit the surf break, with some
experiencing serious injuries. Before stairways were constructed at The Hook, surfers
would negotiate the steep descent using a fire hose that was tied to the cypress trees at the
bluff top. The waves at the Hook break on similar bathymetry to other breaks of Pleasure
Point, as the seafloor is rocky reef with a jagged shelf and filled in by sand depending
upon seasonal and annual sand availability. The Hook is the most easily viewed surf
break of the Pleasure Point area, and has been an iconic example of stylish surfing.
Through the 1960’s, additional official surfing clubs began to appear as a
recognized presence on the beaches of Pleasure Point. The Pleasure Point Surfing
Association (PPSA) formed in the early 1960’s, and was the most successful Santa Cruz
surf club in local competitions during this decade. In 1966 the PPSA won the annual
Norcal Club Invitational against rival teams from Santa Barbara and Pedro Point
(Hickenbottom, 2009). Club members also traveled to Hawai’i to ride some of the biggest
waves of the 1960’s era, in addition to being featured in several full-length surfing films.
From the mid 1960’s, surfing clubs have been emblematic and popular throughout Santa
Cruz, giving recognition and respect to standout surfers from every proceeding era.
In 1962 the West Wind Surf Club (WWSC) was started by Jerry Best, Vonnie
Slater, Ron Best, Craig Troop, Ken Edget, Jimmie Dinsmore, Barry Hanby, Gary Hanby,
Jimmy Miller, Ken Phillips, the Machado brothers, Robbie Davidson, Rick Carleen, Joe
Ayers, Joe Oster, and John McCombs, among others (Hickenbottom, 2009). Club
president and Yount Surfboards team rider David “D. A.” Adams was one of the top
46
riders from the Capitola area. Gail Yount was regarded as an excellent surfboard shaper
from the Santa Cruz area, and was also a WWSC member (Hickenbottom, 2009).
Surfboard shapers began to diversify in the 1960’s, and many different individual
shapers began to make a respected name for themselves around Pleasure Point. Doug
Haut is a legendary shaper who continues to shape from his Westside shaping room on
Delaware Avenue today. Haut originally shaped boards on the Eastside and opened his
first shop in 1965 on Portola Drive in Pleasure Point. During the first few years of
operation, Haut shaped with George Olson at his shop before moving on and shaping
alone. Doug Haut introduced his Haut Signature series in the 1960’s, which had three
stringers, pulled-in noses and thin rails for exceptional speed while maintaining a classic
look. With the introduction of his Signature series, Haut quickly began to attract a
following of surfers. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, his short boards were highly sought
after by some of the best and most discriminating surfers worldwide. Today Doug Haut
continues to shape both longboards and shortboards, and is one of the most popular and
well-respected surfboard craftsmen in Santa Cruz.
Surfing Iconology and Landscape
As surfing’s popularity increased from the introduction of surfing to North
America by three visiting Hawaiian princes in 1885, the sport’s character remained
relatively mysterious and rebellious to the non-surfing community of Santa Cruz. Early in
the nineteenth century, nationalistic patriotism and emerging romantic aesthetic theories
began to reach California’s cultural landscape (Flad, 2009). Santa Cruz was a place
sought out by not only surfers, but by writers, artists, travelers, and environmentally
47
conscious groups of people looking to escape increasingly urbanized areas. Santa Cruz
represented an oceanside community away from the increasingly fast paced lifestyle and
subsequent pollution that was becoming familiar in other coastal cities of California,
notably San Francisco and Los Angeles. Individuals looking to escape rapidly growing
urban centers have long been attracted to Santa Cruz for the abundance of healthful
minded people and expansive scenic qualities of northern Monterey Bay. As Santa Cruz
surfaced as a refuge for moral and theoretical direction within nature, popular surfing
beaches and local beachfront development accommodated new residents.
D. W. Meinig (1979b) argued in his essay on “Symbolic Landscapes” that certain
landscapes found within our nation “are part of the iconography of nationhood, part of
the shared set of ideas and memories and feelings which bind a people together” (Flad,
2009). Specific underlying themes in national culture can be constituted by using
significant artifacts and images chosen by Meinig. Recognition of symbolic value of
identifiable images by Meinig in his later essay “A Life of Learning” (1992) further
described how writers, poets, painters, and many others “try to capture in some way the
personality of a place, or other mystery of place in human feelings”. Our nation’s
understanding of itself and the conflicting values that continue to shape both social and
political policies and founded in images of landscape and nature.
California social and political culture has largely been formed from public
perceptions of the natural landscape. Environmental policies have been shaped by these
perceptions, in addition to political, economic and social policies within California (Flad,
2009). Our social representation of nature and associated discourse has historically
framed California’s ongoing narrative. Collective meanings and perceptions of the
48
California landscape have continued to change over time. Landscapes are composed of
not only what we see before us, but with what are represented in our minds and within
theoretical and creative iconology (Meinig, 1979a; Lowenthal, 1961; Meinig, 1992).
While landscapes representing nature is Meinig’s first conclusion, landscape also
represents “habitat, artifact, problem, wealth, ideology, history, place, and aesthetic”
(Flad, 2009). Descriptions of “the essence” and “the organizing ideas” that make relative
sense of what is seen within our landscape are founded in Meinig’s “The Beholding Eye”
(1979a). Surfers within the wide and expansive coastal landscape became the foundation
of a domesticated and continuously redefined national culture represented by artists,
writers, conservationists, scientists, and tourists (Flad, 2009).
From the earliest settlements along the coasts of California, a view of blue sea,
expansive ocean and wilderness became the foundation that shaped a new California
culture within the United States. Wilderness areas, and the vast wildness of California’s
coastline were consistent with how YiFu Tuan described values within the country;
believing that in wilderness “lay the ultimate source of health and well-being for a
nation… so long as there was wilderness, America, no matter how dire her mistakes in
world-making, could always be restored to health, gain new energy” (Tuan, 2002). Early
literature and artistic representations from the onset of American settlements along the
California coastline would transform the image of a wild and dangerous Pacific Ocean
into an iconic symbol of romance, independence and tranquil relaxation.
Transcendentalist movement writers, philosophers and artists had made their way to
California by the early-nineteenth century. Their view of the New World culture’s
49
spiritual core was based in the relationship between society and the wildness of nature
(Flad, 2009).
By the mid-nineteenth century, Californians were experiencing the modern era of
economic forces fueled by capitalism and increasing industrialization of society. Settled
landscapes were being created in the shadow of urbanization, and technological changes
in transportation and communication were disintegrating time and space as was
previously known (Flad, 2009). Large cities in California steadily increased in size and
population. Basic urban infrastructure of the time was put under increasing stress and
strain. The nation was entering a time of expansion and exploitation of natural resources,
to a common logic of our society being able to control and exploit nature for financial
profit. Air quality amongst California cities grew increasingly intolerable, and people
began to search for solace wherever they could easily retreat to it.
Landscape development changed the way in which the face of the land appeared
to society. Towering redwood forests that covered much of historic California were being
clear-cut and built upon. Thomas Cole saw a problem with the felling of ancient forests,
as “the ravages of the axe are daily increasing – the most notable scenes are made
desolate, and oftentimes with a wantonness and barbarism scarcely credible in a civilized
nation” (Cole, 1836; Meing, 1979a). Boundaries began to emerge amongst a landscape
that had formerly been seemingly limitless, while wilderness landscapes were
systematically domesticated and an intermediary landscape was considered of moral
value (Marx, 1964).
Affluent families from the emerging cultured class and European travelers found
the industrializing trends of American society to be rough and difficult to find relaxation
50
within. A philosophical narrative, which was distinctly American, identified the human
relationship with the natural world as a central theme of artistic accomplishment and
national pride (Zelinsky, 1973; Flad, 2009). Natural landscapes were sought out more
often than those of historical or cultural association by both American and European
travelers (Flad, 2000; Flad, 2001). Beauty and power were symbolic of natural
landscapes, which differentiated American culture from the Old World’s immoral
character, and it was this for which Americans would look to nature for their identity
(Huth, 1957; Mills, 1997; Flad, 2009).
Tourism of nineteenth-century America was a sign of the developing political
engagement and social value with nature. Poets, artists, essayists and architects
communicated with a growing middle class through their depictions of nature and in the
arts of refinement (Bushman, 1992; Myers, 1993). New landscapes accommodated new
leisure opportunities, which were becoming increasingly popular in California. Affluent
families and demographics began to spend more time along the California coastline
because their wealth afforded them the luxury of leisure and time to enjoy these activities.
Beach houses and coastal retreats were an early example of the development of coastal
tourism and the representation of nature as iconic landscapes during that time.
Throughout humanity, populations have turned to natural areas and constructed
wilderness for psychological and physical healing (Flad, 2009). Eighteenth and
nineteenth-century travelers throughout North America renowned the locations of
mineral springs, for they were the where entrepreneurs marketed the waters as the places
of beneficial spas (Sears, 1989; Corbett, 2001). Ocean waters have long been considered
therapeutic destinations because of the uniqueness of the sea salts within the water, but
51
also because of the pure and refreshing air. Tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases
were thought to be alleviated by spending time near the sea, and large demographics of
people who lived in populated cities began to migrate out of the increasingly
industrialized central valley and into coastal California.
Americans could morally justify the time and expense necessary to travel from
increasingly polluted cities for clean coastal air and mineral waters, which were available
a relatively short distance away from California’s urban hubs (Aron, 1999). Traveling to
coastal areas with resort communities would have assisted the social climb upward in
social hierarchy and status for many families profiting from California’s economic
upsurge. Social status and class would have been reason enough to make the effort to
reach the merging boundary of land and sea (Dulles, 1940). Santa Cruz was a public
space where private acts could be less controlled and where a transformative experience
occurred for many individuals and families who chose to recreate there.
Architecture of resort communities was designed around performance and display
to accommodate individuals and families who were in search of recreational pursuits
(Flad, 2009). While therapeutic benefits and relaxation were largely the draw for people
to visit the beach, the largest hotels boasted the expansive size of their amenities and
events to partake in. While many people attested to traveling to the beach for relaxation,
the overwhelming majority of visitors came to immerse themselves in social gatherings,
formal events, and to engage in social encounters. Beach homes and buildings were
adorned with carefully landscaped grounds, which became a parlor in the seascape (Flad,
2009). Competition for class status was performed in public space rather than in private,
and social spaces became a symbol of middle-class domesticity along the California coast.
52
Artists were attracted to the Santa Cruz coastline early on, just as other groups of
artists became enamored with painting mountains, prairies, river valleys, and other
natural settings. Coastal landscapes were perceived through Meinig’s aesthetic lens and
described in romantic terms of picturesque, beautiful and sublime (Meinig, 1979a; Flad,
2000). Cole argued that the most impressive and distinguishing aspect of American
scenery is its wilderness, and Meinig saw America’s national identity portrayed in
landscape through an ideological lens (Cole, 1836; Meinig, 1979a). A common
conclusion during early years was that the beauty of the mountains and coast of
California was of a character found only in America, and that the iconic magnificence of
the landscape was that of our country’s identity. Asher Durand advised fellow artists to
document the quickly disappearing wilderness areas of our country “yet spared from the
pollution of civilization” because he knew the encroachment of popularity and attraction
within wild landscapes and seascapes would profoundly change its very nature (Durand,
1855).
Like much of our wilderness areas, the Santa Cruz fell into the widespread
perception based in nationalistic identity (Miller, 1993). The coast of Santa Cruz was
represented by artists and writers who created an image of a uniquely American coastal
community, with a culture found specifically within our nation. Santa Cruz steadily
became a destination for annual travelers escaping summer heat and increasing pollution
of the time period within urban centers. Coal burning power plants and oil drilling within
California’s central valley fouled urban air quality and pushed those who could afford the
expense to seek coastal relief.
53
Southern California’s beaches were soon lined with oil drilling operations and
petroleum refineries, often times directly on the dunes that backed the beaches. Oil
companies constructed jetties and seawalls to protect drilling operations along the
beaches of southern California Santa. After drilling operations were completed, many oil
companies simply left derelict wells, piers and drilling waste on the beach and within the
surf zone. A surf break named Oil Piers just south of Santa Barbara took its name from
the abandoned piers that formed extensive sandbars (Westwick & Neushul, 2013). Santa
Cruz quickly became a popular northern destination for residents of Southern California
cities, offering cooler summer temperatures, abundant marine life, and freedom from
icons associated with urban pollution and environmental degradation. Santa Cruz became
an iconic coastal community by establishing a place where tourism took place and
families formed lasting memories of enjoyable vacations along the northern coastline of
Monterey Bay.
In establishing a location where vacationing tourist events occurred, Santa Cruz
constructed it’s own unique identity (Meinig, 1979a). Embedded within this identity of
Santa Cruz was an underlying romantic and idolized iconology of surfers who braved the
cold and often dangerous seas and appeared to effortlessly walk on water. While surfers
have historically been attracted to Santa Cruz for the consistency of high quality waves,
many tourists were attracted to Santa Cruz beaches to idolize and become enamored with
the rich surfing culture that had progressively developed.
54
First Surfers of Santa Cruz, CA
By the summer of 1885, large numbers of tourists from California’s Central
Valley were descending upon Santa Cruz to enjoy the expansive beaches and escape the
oppressive heat of the State’s interior (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). Hotels and boarding
houses were filled vacationing tourists, and businesses along Santa Cruz’s legendary
waterfront were capitalizing on the seasonal boom. The Neptune, Dolphin and Liddell
bathhouses were iconic main attractions for visiting socialites visiting the boardwalk and
waterfront areas of the city. Santa Cruz was linked both to the expansive State of
California and the United States in its entirety by 1880 with the completion of the South
Pacific Coast Railway. As the first rail car full of tourists stepped into Santa Cruz, it was
obviously apparent that summertime tourism would be a critically important aspect to the
city’s economic strength and overall identity.
July of 1885 was reported to have been exceptionally pleasant for beach-going
tourists by A.A. Taylor who edited the Santa Cruz Daily Surf publication. Afternoon
temperatures were in the high-70’s to mid-80’s, and the fog layer, which typically cools
the Monterey Bay area had been lifting before noon. On Monday, July 20, 1885, the
Santa Cruz Daily Surf printed a column in their early edition entitled “Beach Breezes” on
the second page, which detailed the previous weekend’s events. The warm temperatures
were of Sunday afternoon were cooled by a steady onshore breeze which reportedly
maintained good spirits amongst the people at the beach. The beachside promenade was
described as a “bright and moving picture of itself”, with each local streetcar carrying a
“full load to join the gay groups already on the sand.” Summer in Santa Cruz was in full
swing. More gentlemen and ladies were reportedly in the water this particular Sunday
55
than any day of the summer thus far. Tourists enjoying the afternoon at Main Beach were
initially entertained by an open-water swimming race between William and Irvine Jones
and a small theatrical group who performed a comedy routine from a miniature cart
pulled by a small donkey. Following this important weekend, tourists visiting Santa Cruz
would experience surfing in addition to traditional swimming races and street performers.
Surfing history was made that afternoon further to the east at the mouth of the San
Lorenzo River.
Three Hawaiian princes were students at St. Mathew’s Hall at the time, and spent
their summers in Santa Cruz. David Kawananakoa, Edward Keliiahonui and Jonah Kuhio
Kalaniana’ole were the nephews of King David Kalakaua who was a legendary surfer at
the long breaking waves along Waikiki Beach on the island of Oahu. The three princes
were adopted by King David Kalakaua and his wife, Queen Consort Esther Julia
Kapi’olani in 1884. King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi’olani were popular monarchs in
Hawai’i and adopted the boys, both because the couple was childless and because the
brother’s parents had died. The three brothers were Queen Kapi’olani’s nephews by
bloodline, and were the sons of ali’i, or royal families on the island of Kauai. They had
been educated at Hawaii’s most exclusive schools and were sent to Santa Cruz to be
prepped for the Hawaiian monarchy.
The princes were boarded at the Wilkins House, which is located at the
intersection of Pacific and Cathcart streets in Santa Cruz. Some surfing historians
hypothesize that the princes and their hundred pound surfboards were transported to the
San Lorenzo River mouth with ornate horse-drawn carriages, however, Dunn and Stoner
(2010) argue that it was more likely that the princes floated their boards down the San
56
Lorenzo River itself given the location of their residence on the river’s edge. The princes
would have encountered the river mouth as a popular beach for “surf-bathing” along the
waterfront of Santa Cruz (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). Safety measures had been placed at the
river mouth beach as early as the 1860’s, namely in the form of “life ropes” and “swim
lines”, which were thick ropes attached to tall poles on the beach and tied to an offshore
dock or anchor beyond the breaking waves. Life ropes and swim lines were established at
numerous locations along Santa Cruz’s Main Beach and Seabright Beach located just east
of the San Lorenzo River mouth. Safety ropes extending into the surf allowed people to
access the ocean while attempting to add some level of public safety from the
unpredictable nature of the Pacific Ocean.
The three princes had learned to surf at Waikiki from their uncle, and after
spending some time in California, had boards milled from local redwoods from which
they would shape traditional Hawaiian o’lo boards, which were reserved in Hawaiian
culture for use by royalty. The waves at the river mouth this day were reportedly
exceptional by those who were in the water. Roughly 30 or 40 swimmers were out in the
waves with the princes who had their traditional surfboards with them. While the
swimmers had never seen surfers actually surfing before, they were drawn to the energy
of breaking waves. The Surf reported that swimmers were “dashing and tossing, and
plunging through the breakers, going out only to be tossed back apparently at the will of
the waves and making some nervous onlookers feel sure that they were about to be
dashed against the rocks” (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). The ways in which people perceived
the beaches of Santa Cruz were changed to include the iconic presence of surfers.
57
The first account of surfing anywhere in the Americas was reported by The Surf
as the Hawaiian princes were enjoying the waves and giving exhibitions of surfboard
swimming as they had done so in their native Hawaiian Islands. The author of the article
interestingly named the princes in a way that the intended readers also knew the names of
the princes prior to the article, and that “surf-board” was used to describe the watercraft
as the Santa Cruz author was already aware that the culturally significant sport of surfing
was brought by the princes from Hawai’i. Santa Cruz journalist Ernest Otto was born in
1871 and remembered the surfboards that the princes rode were made of “solid redwood
planks and milled locally by the Grover Lumber Company. They were over 100 pounds
in weight and 15 feet in length” (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). Redwood has historically been a
valuable and culturally significant natural resource within the Santa Cruz region.
Several small timber companies were operating in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and
harvesting clear first-growth redwoods during the mid-1880’s. During the 1870’s and
1880’s, the redwood lumber industry peaked in Santa Cruz County and massive
deliveries of clear timber were being sent on rail and by ship around the World.
Shipments of sugar from the Hawaiian Islands arrived in San Francisco, where the
redwood lumber would replace the sugar as cargo for the return voyage. The actual
surfboards that the three princes carved in Santa Cruz were taken back to Honolulu with
them, and for the following 40 years or more, Northern California redwood was shipped
to Hawaii and was the primary material for surfboard construction in Hawai’i. Anyone
surfing in Honolulu between 1900 and 1950 would have likely been riding a surfboard
shaped from Santa Cruz redwood. Like much of the ancient groves of redwoods that no
58
longer exist today, details of the historic introduction of surfing by the three Hawaiian
princes to the Americas is largely forgotten within surfing literature.
Stories about the three princes surfing at the San Lorenzo River mouth have a
historic place within surf lore in Santa Cruz, however, intricacies and complexities from
this event have been left out of most historical accounts of surfing in California. Many
surfing historians from Southern California claim that George Freeth introduced surfing
to California from Hawai’i in the early 1900’s. Either the event in Santa Cruz has been
long dismissed as never happening, or it is stated that it was a chance event that failed to
have lasting historic or cultural significance (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). The experience of
observing how Hawaiian royalty rode waves at the San Lorenzo River mouth in 1885
significantly influenced the history of surfing as we identify with the sport today. Santa
Cruz has been an extremely important location for surfing’s rise to modern popularity
from the first wave successfully ridden along the coast California and the American
continents. People in Santa Cruz embraced surfing as a cultural sport, and continued to
surf after the princes had returned to the Hawaiian Islands.
In September of 1887 Prince Edward was send back to Hawaii from St. Mathews
after falling ill and died in Honolulu shortly after arriving from scarlet fever. Both David
and Jonah went on to become successful in their own right. David was the eldest of the
three brothers and became the immediate first heir to the King’s throne. The youngest
brother, Jonah, was second heir and was identified as Queen Lili’uokalani’s personal
favorite of the three princes. A small group of businessmen from America and Europe
overthrew the Hawaiian monarch with the aid of the U.S. military in January of 1893. On
January 17, 1893 Queen Lili’uokalani relinquished her royal throne to “the superior
59
military forces of the United States”, and the family’s long history of Hawaiian rule was
over (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). While power was taken from the monarchy, Prince Jonah
Kuhio Kalaniana’ole continued to push for local voice within politics.
Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole is deeply engrained within the memory of
Hawaiian history and culture. When he was 24 years old, two years after the monarchy
was overthrown, Jonah fought in a rebellion against the newly created U.S. supported
republic of the Hawaiian Islands. The advocate for Hawaiian independence was
sentenced to a year in prison for his involvement in the attempted revolution. At the same
time Prince Jonah Kuhio was serving time in prison, across the Pacific Ocean in Santa
Cruz, surfing was continuing to grow in popularity. In July of 1896 the weekly edition of
the Santa Cruz Surf observed “the boys who go in swimming at Seabright Beach use
surfboards to ride the breakers, like the Hawaiians” (Dunn & Stoner, 2010). While Prince
Jonah Kuhio was incarcerated in federal prison, Santa Cruz beach goers were locking into
a progressive surfing culture revolution that continues today. Prince Jonah joined the
Republican Party and in 1903 was elected to the U.S. Congress as a delegate from the
Territory of Hawai’i and served until he died in 1922 (Dunn & Stoner, 2010).
A Hawaiian state holiday was established to honor Prince Kuhio Kalaniana’ole’s
name, as well as the names of streets, beaches, highways, resorts, businesses and plazas.
A federal building in Hawai’i is also named after the Prince. A memorial chant is well
known through the Hawaiian Islands and was written in his honor. The chant is called
“Hui Hololio”, and pays homage to the life of a Prince who helped bring surfing to the
Americas, and importantly to the Santa Cruz community. The chant of Hui Hololio is:
60
This is the name song for Kalaniana’ole
Leader of the riders like the sea spray…
We call to thee, o answer
To your name song o Kalaniana’ole.
The San Lorenzo River mouth, Main Beach and Seabright Beach were easily
accessible to tourists who visited and stayed in Santa Cruz. As surfing became more
popular over the next five decades, surfers establishing unique colonies that spread across
Santa Cruz. Surfing breaks have historically been separated into the Westside, Eastside
and Midtown. Because Santa Cruz is located on the northern rim of Monterey Bay, the
coastline of the city is angled from west to east, with the Westside being more exposed to
powerful northwest swell. Cowell’s Beach and Steamer Lane are iconic surfing breaks
that are symbolic with the Westside. Surfers have been surfing these breaks since the
early twentieth-century, and on any given day throughout the year, tourists are able to
observe surfers in the water at these two locations. Around the same time as surfers were
sliding waves at Cowell’s on the Westside, surfers on the Eastside of Santa Cruz began
carving out their own identity at Pleasure Point and the Hook. It is important to note that
both Westside and Eastside locations are commonly referred to Steamer Lane and
Pleasure Point respectfully, however, there are countless other named breaks within these
two areas that are dependent on both tide and swell direction. What may seem like the
same break to a visiting tourist may in fact be multiple different breaks, each having its
own respected name and user group.
Visiting tourists were also drawn to these areas because of the beautiful soft sand
beaches and the tall sandstone bluffs that line the back beach and create a unique viewing
experience, much like a natural amphitheater. Tourists were drawn to these high bluffs
61
for their majestic views over the Pacific Ocean, which crashed at a safe distance below
for tourists to feel like they are on top of the ocean itself without the risk or danger of
actually nearing the edge of the sea. Tourists have long been attracted to these coastal
bluffs, both to enjoy the shade of the wind-sculpted cypress trees, and to enjoy the beach
life atmosphere, which was iconic with surfboards and surfers who were either surfing or
on the beach with their surfboards and friends. Viewers interestingly stood above the
surfers physically and metaphorically.
Surfers were considered to be jobless, unwilling to work, and of lower social
status than tourists who were wealthy enough to travel from larger cities and vacation in
exclusive beach cottages and hotels. Surfers often camped on the coastal bluffs and
appeared to be dirty individuals with salt crusted hair, while visiting tourists were well
groomed and elegantly dressed. Many vacationing tourists would mistake surfers as being
homeless, or living out of a van at the beach.
Coastal commerce around the Westside and Eastside of Santa Cruz also began
marketing surfers and surfing culture early on. Surf shops offered tourists opportunities to
purchase surfing apparel and to appear as a surfer when they returned home. Tourists
have also been able to easily rent a surfboard and purchase a lesson. In either sense,
tourists could return to their inland communities and associate with the many icons of
surfing that Santa Cruz has advertised for more than a century. As the popularity of
surfing increased, lightweight foam surfboards replaced the heavy boards made entirely
of balsa or redwood. Foam boards were also able to be mass-produced and affordable to
more people than ever. People who were not able to safely manage boards weighing up to
a hundred pounds were for the first time able to comfortably surf and associate with a
62
sport that was almost entirely exclusive to men, however there were notable women who
were excellent surfers; notably Dorothy Becker. Although vacations to the beaches of
Santa Cruz were considered to be an experience within a natural landscape, the coastline
had been constructed and regularly framed for social consumption.
As early as the mid-eighteenth century, the coastline of Santa Cruz and prominent
viewpoints where tourists could view the ocean from the safety of the surrounding
landscape had been located, relocated, socially constructed, and structured. Guidebooks
and tourist maps noted iconic scenes from viewpoints that artists and writers had
consecrated over time. Nearly all writers and artists who described the select scenes that
were visible from viewpoints used similar romantic rhetoric to describe the place and
local identity. The language used would continue to codify the seascape of Santa Cruz as
a nationalized and idealistic image of sand, sun, and surfing.
Social Construction of the Surfing Experience
Many locations in Santa Cruz have been created for the expansive views and
scenic amenities available along the Santa Cruz coastline. Ocean views have always been
a defining trait of the most exclusive and expensive restaurants, hotels, and private homes
in Santa Cruz. Development along the coastline has been focused largely on being as
close to the water as possible without regard for extreme storm conditions and sea level
rise. Hotels that have expansive ocean views identified the hotel’s identity, but also to
beautify it and enhance the assembly of a building within the oceanfront scenery for
visiting tourists (Blackmar & Cromley, 1982). From oceanfront developments and
constructed viewing areas, the stage was set for people to view the continuous movement
63
of the ocean and enter the natural seascape while remaining within the domesticated
safety of the constructed place.
Oceanfront hotels and businesses were social spaces that intertwined the
expansive essence of the Pacific Ocean with elegant interiors that linked the view of the
waves with social activity within a coastal retreat setting. Outdoor verandas and patios
made it possible for beachgoers to enjoy the essence of the ocean air and sea breeze while
remaining protected from undesirable elements, so that sitting under the protection of a
patio was sufficient rather than actually having to walk across hot sand under bright
sunshine. Importantly, constructed oceanfront areas were platforms and foundations from
which people could see and be seen within their social class while in Santa Cruz.
As tourists ventured away from oceanfront developments and hotel patios, places
from which ocean views were taken in were made easily accessible and given symbolic
names that characterized their iconic image. West Cliff Drive and East Cliff Drive
symbolized places where one could drive along an ocean-facing cliff and enjoy the
beauty of the expansive view. Along both of these cliff-top roads, extensive walkways
and bike paths attract countless people to enjoy unblocked views of the ocean. Countless
surf breaks line these cliffs and add another dimension to the experience of visiting these
locations. Along West Cliff Drive the surf breaks include Natural Bridges, Stockton
Avenue, Swift Street, John Street, Mitchell’s Cove, Saber Jets, Steamer Lane and
Cowell’s.
On the opposite side of town along East Cliff Drive the breaks visible from the
cliffs are the Harbor (Murch) Bar, Blacks, Sunny Cove, Santa Maria’s, 26th Avenue,
Little Windansea, Rockview, Sewers, Pleasure Point, 38th Avenue, The Hook, Shark’s
64
Cove, Privates, and Trees. Natural Bridges and Opal Cliffs identify the West and East
endpoints of Santa Cruz, respectively. Santa Cruz is unofficially named Surf City and
California’s Seven Mile Miracle after the North Shore of Oahu in Hawaii. Sea and surf
has continued to be marketed through the names of hotels, motels, and local businesses in
Santa Cruz.
One of the most dominant construction projects which has allowed for
unparalleled views of the ocean and surfers in Santa Cruz is the municipal wharf, which
is located just to the east of Steamer Lane and Cowell’s. Visitors have been able to drive
out onto the wharf for nearly a hundred years now, which has allowed residents and
tourists to feel as if they are easily able to be on the water. From the wharf, visitors can
shop and dine at restaurants while looking out across a short distance and watch the
surfers at Cowell’s Beach and Steamer Lane. Marketing surfing along the wharf and
downtown Santa Cruz has become mainstream and lucrative for businesses in Santa Cruz.
As Santa Cruz became known as the city with the most consistent surf in the
nation, numerous hotels established accommodations for thousands of visiting surfers.
Early in Santa Cruz’s history, visiting tourists would come and stay in the city for long
periods of time. Visitors would stay for weeks or months, which may have made up the
entire summer or “the season”. As times changed and it became easier to travel to Santa
Cruz, traveling tourists were accommodated by businesses that catered to day visitors and
weekenders, which became the source of the greatest income for local businesses. Surfers
come to Santa Cruz to stay for the weekend, or for good swell events when they occur.
Santa Cruz is protected from outer ocean condition by Monterey Bay, and thus has
surfable waves during winter months when exposed breaks are often dangerous and
65
unpredictable along the Pacific coast. It is common for groups of surfers to descend on
Santa Cruz’s hotels for a week or two during winter months when mainstream tourism is
generally at its lowest level of the year but the waves are at their best.
Non-surfers have always been the preferred clienteles for hotels in Santa Cruz
however, and competition between different establishments became intense during the
twentieth century. Many oceanfront hotels claimed to have more rooms with fancier
interior décor than others. Advertisements for many of these hotels showed the beaches
of Santa Cruz as clean and fun, often with images of surfers in the water just offshore.
Postcards of surfers and surf culture continue to be popular items sold at gas stations and
in the lobbies of restaurants and hotels of the Santa Cruz region.
Surfers Experience Coastal Development
Relationships of hotel buildings to the natural surroundings and the coastline were
as important as the buildings themselves in Santa Cruz. Many paths were constructed late
in the nineteenth century, which afforded access to scenic vista points where groves of
cypress trees shaded walkers and picturesque rock formations made passageways
romantically mysterious. Construction of roads to carry horse-drawn carriages along the
coastal bluffs was not as difficult as in other areas of the coastline, as the coastal bluffs
were horizontally level and made of softer stone that was easily graded. The coastal
bluffs of Santa Cruz were level in all but a few locations, making the delivery of lumber
and fixtures needed to build all the private homes and other structures along the bluffs
relatively easy. Narrower paths to more exposed outcroppings on steeper inclines allowed
coastal access for those who were drawn to a closer experience with the coastline.
66
Fishermen and surfers used well-worn narrow paths to the outer pointbreak reefs of Santa
Cruz. Many of the paths along Santa Cruz’s bluffs were undoubtedly created with
simplicity and comfort in mind. Many visitors from lavish estates in urbanized cities were
visiting the coastline for tranquility, cleanliness and relaxation. Railings and benches
were placed in a picturesque manner, which made the more scenic sections of the bluffs
safe and accessible for public benefit.
Homes were built along the bluff tops with the most expansive ocean views
possible. Gardens of flowers and lawns were laborious created in the mirror image of the
homes people remembered or desired. Soil and seeds were hauled in and thousands of
annuals and perennials were planted along garden paths and near benches and arbors.
Hotels and homes domesticated the coastline with libraries of picture books that were
brought into the coastal landscape itself. The ocean and coastline could be enjoyed
through proper reading, art and taste (Sweeting, 1996).
Santa Cruz’s beautiful beach houses and their attached verandas that look out
across the Pacific Ocean are the most identifiable features of the constructed coastal
landscape on the bluffs. These beach homes represent constructed pieces of
domestication amidst the raw energy and wild nature of the ocean. Beach homes along
the bluffs evoke romantic admirations that the beach homes themselves offer their
dwellers metaphoric safety. In a nearly mirrored way, it is evident that each weathered
location of a bluff top home adds a romantic luster to the ocean view, and it is clear how
fragile the constructed efforts of coastal developments amount to the unrelenting
processes of coastal erosion.
67
Surfers Become Social Commodities
As the iconic surfing image became a profitable in Santa Cruz, it was exploited by
the City and County of Santa Cruz, and the surfing industry as a whole. A constant
concern for the surfing industry, like any other industry, is balancing costs to income, and
increasing profits. Advertising offered a way to market surfing to inland America and
other demographics who don’t actually surf. To the Santa Cruz surf industry, image was
everything, and attention was directed to establishing a defined image of sun, sand and
surf within the landscape. Advertisements for the City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz
County have depicted images of surfers and surfing culture on the local shores for
decades.
Selected guidebooks, journals and magazines portrayed the image of surfing as
romantic, sexy and cool. Images of surfers were used in different publications to circulate
amongst the very clientele they were seeking to elicit. Surfers were transformed from a
small subculture who preferred to work in order to live near the beach and surf as much
as possible, to an objectified and exploited coastal user group. Surfing has been
transformed by the surf industry from an activity, which was discouraged and looked
down upon by society, to a recognized and respected sport that is encouraged as a
healthful activity. Surfing today is promoted as a lifestyle that promotes well-being, selfawareness and environmental consciousness.
Many innovations within the surfing industry occurred in Santa Cruz, and as a
result, the global surfing industry and the sport as a whole was transformed indefinitely.
Jack O’Neill is arguably the most famous icon in Santa Cruz surfing history. O’Neill is
credited with inventing the modern surfing wetsuit as we know it today, making it
68
possible for people to withstand the cold waters of Monterey Bay for long periods of time
without seriously risking hypothermia. In 1959, Jack moved his family from San
Francisco to Santa Cruz, like many surfers, because of the better weather and friendlier
surf on the protected north shore of Monterey Bay. Neoprene-lined bathing trunks were
his first step towards the modern wetsuit, which he developed to avoid “freezing his balls
off” while bodysurfing at Ocean Beach on San Francisco’s outer coast (Save the Waves
Coalition, 2012). Once in Santa Cruz, Jack developed long johns, short johns, wetsuit
jackets, and in the process developed a devoted following of surfers who greatly
benefited from his efforts. His timing couldn’t have been better, as in 1959 Columbia
Pictures’ Gidget became a phenomenon and exploded the surfing culture of California
into the 1960’s.
While most of surfing’s popularity was focused around the lifestyle and culture of
Southern California, notably Huntington Beach and Malibu, the surfing population of
Santa Cruz quietly grew into a dark and unpredictable force during the 60’s and 70’s.
With the increase in surfing’s popularity within the general public came surf shops,
manufacturers, surf clubs and advertised contests. In 1969, the night before one of the
largest surf contests in Santa Cruz history, local surfers pushed all of the scaffolding over
the cliffs at Steamer Lane in an effort to run the contest out of town. The following day as
the contest was scheduled to run, local surfers refused to clear the water as competitors
paddled out for the first heat of the day. Through the 1970’s, the parking lots at Steamer
Lane admittedly held the anti-contest disposition, however, the industry was adamant and
pressed for more contests at the Lane. In 1969 the first surfer to have a Surfer magazine
cover shot was Roger Adams, who was a leading competitor in the Western Surfing
69
Association AAAA circuit. The Santa Cruz 4A Invitational of that era is known today as
the O’Neill Cold Water Classic and is a showcase for local talent to make the Santa Cruz
community proud of their local talent.
Aside from the modern wetsuit, the second most important and functional piece of
equipment that has radically changed the sport of surfing at a global level is the leash. A
leash connects a surfer’s ankle to their surfboard during a wipeout. Prior to the surf leash,
lost surfboard would be bashed into oblivion by the rocky cliffs of the Santa Cruz
coastline. Jack O’Neill’s son Pat recalled breaking three boards in one day surfing the
Santa Cruz Harbor, and that back before leashes “ding repair factories were busier than
the surfboard factories” (Save the Waves Coalition, 2012). In the late 60’s, a group of
Santa Cruz surfers including Steve Russ, Pat O’Neill, Roger Adams and Michel Junod
started experimenting with methods to keep their boards attached to themselves.
The first leashes were suction cups attached to surgical tubing attached to a
surfer’s wrist. Eventually the best method was a fiberglass rope that was looped at the tail
of the surfboard, of which the leash was attached to the surfer’s rear ankle. The invention
of the leash in Santa Cruz broke the long legacy of segregation at surf breaks. For the first
time, anyone was able to feasibly surf anywhere because a lost board didn’t leave a surfer
swimming in heavy surf without a floatation devise. While most people benefited from
the leash, old-time surfers who had been surfing deepwater surf breaks for years without
the crowds of unskilled surfers found themselves overwhelmed by increasing crowds.
The 1970’s marked the first time when Santa Cruz surfers began making names
for themselves on a larger scale and in doing so, put Santa Cruz on the map as a surfing
destination. Handcrafted surfboards have been synonymous with Santa Cruz since the
70
three Hawaiian Princes carved their redwood boards in 1885. Surfboard shaping and
construction in Santa Cruz has a long history of innovative design and construction that
continues today. The most notable shapers from Santa Cruz include the Mitchell brothers,
Bill Grace, Johnny Rice, George Olson, Gary and Jerry Benson, Jack O’Neill, Rich
Novak, Doug Haut, Joey Thomas, Mark Angell, Rick Noe, Buck Noe, Mike Croteau,
Bob Pearson, Steve Colletta, John Mel, William “Stretch” Riedel, Ward Coffey, Geoff
Rashe, Mark Goin, Doug Schroedel, Ashely Lloyd, David Vernor, Nick Palandrini, Mark
Andreini, and others (Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve). Boards that are shaped in
Santa Cruz are sold at the best surf shops worldwide, and have driven a widespread
understanding that Santa Cruz is a surfing hotbed for both talent and craftsmanship.
Reimagining Surfing Within Local Culture
Exploring the histories of coastal development and tourism provides a unique lens
into nineteenth and twentieth-century Santa Cruz culture, and how hotel owners, local
businesses and tourists alike perceived its relationship to the expansive Pacific Ocean and
Monterey Bay. Many ideas in the environmental and social history in California have
their foundation in discussions and conversations that took place in oceanfront hotels and
private homes along the shores of Santa Cruz. Oceanfront development was formed upon
the Santa Cruz landscape, and was designed to be relaxing and encouraged from the onset.
In the twenty-first century, the relationship with the sea and oceanfront
development has persisted to structure surfing culture within the wider California
coastline. The evolutionary process that molded a wild ocean seascape into a
domesticated and tangible property for development and exploitation is an ongoing
71
process that offers many transformative views of change along the Santa Cruz coastline.
The ocean as a wilderness remains a powerful image to view, and has been questioned
with regard to its social meaning and its long lasting relationship to cultural values in
Santa Cruz. This questionable identity implicates the power of the oceanic wilderness and
coastal bluffs as California’s alternate landscape, and it is along the shores of Santa Cruz
that wildness of the sea became the inner theme of California surf culture.
Climate Change and Coastal Zone Management
Climate change related atmospheric and oceanic phenomenon represents a
significant concern for coastal zone planners. Larger and more frequent storm events that
impact the coastline of Santa Cruz are widely associated with El Niño weather
phenomenon. El Niño weather patterns are generated by increased sea-surface
temperatures and have had catastrophic consequences for the coastal communities of
Santa Cruz County. Increasing concerns regarding the magnitude of sea level rise add a
significant layer of complexity to the effects of climate change that coastal zone
managers should expect to plan for. Increasing storm frequency and associated significant
wave events, in combination with increasing rates of sea level rise pose a significant risk
for coastal zone planners in Santa Cruz County. Increasing variation in storm patterns and
intensity across the eastern Pacific Ocean have raised significant concerns for the coastal
neighborhoods of Santa Cruz.
Impacts of hurricanes and extratropical storms or nor’easters have been well
documented within the Atlantic Ocean and along the East Coast of the United States
(Dolan, Lins, & Hayden, 1988; Dolan & Davis, 1992a; Dolan & Davis, 1992b; Dolan &
72
Davis, 1993; Jones & Davis, 1995; Maa & Wang, 1995). Major extratropical storms
occurring in the North Pacific Ocean have been the subject of far fewer analyses
comparably, and less information is known regarding storm frequency and intensity along
the coast of California (Allan & Komar, 2002). Pioneering data collection and analysis of
storm intensity and wave conditions in the Gulf of Alaska was first conducted by
Danielsen, Burt, and Rattray (1957) to understand the ocean conditions when the S.S.
Pennsylvania was lost during a severe storm on January 9, 1952.
Maximum significant wave height during the storm reached 14 m, and was
concluded to be the result of strong winds of the same direction acting on the ocean
surface for a long duration (Danielsen, Burt, & Rattray, 1957). The focused direction
covering a significant distance and duration resulted in low-frequency, or long-period
waves holding an unusually high level of energy. From the 1920’s to the early 1950’s,
Danielsen, Burt, and Rattray (1957) also documented large degrees of variability in storm
intensity within the Gulf of Alaska, with years corresponding to the most intense storms
generally grouped together (Allan and Komar, 2002). Groupings of years that produced
significantly large storms during winter months corresponded with El Niño and La Niña
weather patterns.
Coastal Protection and Armoring
Coastal ecosystems are among the most drastically transformed and degraded
environments globally as a result of the cumulative impacts from human activities
(Halpern et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2001; Lotze et al., 2006). Over the past fifty years,
urbanization and intensified development pressures within coastal zones has significantly
73
reduced the ability of coastal ecosystems to absorb increasing natural and anthropogenic
disturbances (Costanza, Graumlich, & Steffen, 2007; Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Hughes et
al., 2003). Environmental degradation along shorelines increases the vulnerability of
coastal communities and the risks to ecosystem goods, services and cultural values that
are depended upon by society (Adger, 2006; Adger et al., 2005; Cinner & McClanahan,
2006; Worm et al., 2006). Coastal ecosystems have increasingly been recognized as
heavily influenced and disturbed by the role of humans and social agency (Hanna, 2001;
Jackson et al., 2001; Cinner et al., 2009). Complexity within human-environment
relationships has accelerated through differences in regional ecosystem quality and
socioeconomic conditions. A goal of coastal protection is to stabilize a wide range of
social-ecological outcomes, while moving from degradation and collapse to resilience
and sustainability (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010).
Anthropogenic changes to coastal zones have altered natural processes to a point
where system dynamics are increasingly difficult to isolate in terms of effects from
human activities and natural processes, and have resulted in coastal zones being
characterized as complexly linked social-ecological systems (Adger et al., 2005; Koch et
al., 2009; Stutz & Pilkey, 2005). Social-ecological systems and their associated
complexity have been described as nonlinear and exhibiting feedback loops, time lags,
thresholds, and lasting historical legacies (Barbier et al., 2008; Berkes, Colding, & Folke,
1998; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Koch et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2007). Resilience within
interconnected social-ecological systems has come forward as a connecting theme within
sustainability research because it provides a platform and mechanism to identify
significant components that facilitate complex social-ecological systems to successfully
74
weather anthropogenic and natural environmental disturbances (Adger, 2006; Berkes,
Colding, & Folke, 2003; Berkes, Folke, & Colding, 1998; Clark & Dickson, 2003; Folke,
2006; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Gunderson & Pritchard, 2002; Kates et al., 2001;
Palmer et al., 2004). Effectively managing systems involving social and ecological
components and demands understanding complex relationships between humans and the
environment. Successful strategies include outlining ways to reach optimal outcomes by
implement effective environmental based management approaches (Kittinger & Ayers,
2010).
The regulatory shoreline in California plays a critical and complicated role in the
defining line between privately owned coastal property and publicly owned submerged
lands, which are managed by the state while being held in trust for the public (Kittinger
& Ayers, 2010). Stabilization of shorelines through hard seawalls and riprap are
widespread along the shores of California. Hard stabilization measures within California
have resulted in the loss of public beach access (Fletcher, Mullane, & Richmond, 1997;
Kraus & McDougal, 1996; Kraus & Pilkey, 1988; Pilkey & Wright, 1988). Coastal
communities experience increased vulnerability to major environmental disturbances
while continued loss of remaining beach ecosystems occurs, and distinct coastal
ecosystem types are additionally placed at risk (Schlacher et al., 2007). Systematic
shoreline armoring and other engineering approaches to natural hazards have been shown
to reduce, rather than enhance, the ability of ecosystems to absorb disturbances by
reducing the amount of diversity and variability that conserve complex system function,
adaptive capacity and ecological resilience (Bengtsson et al., 2003; Elmqvist et al., 2003;
Gunderson, Holling, & Light, 1995; Holling, 1996; Holling & Meffe, 1996). Ecological
75
buffers between terrestrial and coastal systems are important for effective functioning of
shoreline ecosystems. Ecological degradation increases coastal hazards risk and decreases
ecosystem resilience to natural disturbances (Adger et al., 2005; Baird et al., 2005;
Danielsen et al., 2005; Hughes et al., 2003; Kathiresan & Rajendran, 2005; Schlacher et
al., 2007).
Policy Prescriptions for Ecological Resilience
Several policy prescriptions to change shoreline management plans under ongoing
coastal erosion, immediate erosion events, and planning for future sea level rise have
been identified by Kittinger and Ayers (2010). These policy prescriptions are
1) Reconfigure state-local integration of CZM
2) Adoption of anti-armoring policies
3) Initiate ecosystem-based coastal zoning
4) Reverse “burden of proof” for taking littoral property
Reconfigure State-Local Integration of CZM
An important aspect of CZM plans are to integrate management efforts between
state and local authorities for a more holistic and coordinated multi-agency approach at
multiple levels of agency governance (Lowry, 1985). The most critical relationship in
shoreline management is between the state and county agencies responsible for planning
and permitting, which are responsible for determining the direction and scope of coastal
development (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010). Decisions made by locally based agencies may
subject the shoreline decision-making process to political and private interest pressures.
76
Short-term or immediate interests in the protection of private or public property are
typically favored, compared to long-term planning objectives of coastal and shoreline
communities (Alcala, 1998; Wescott, 1998). Comprehensive state and county holistic
planning was shown by Kittinger and Ayers (2010) to best be supported by a governance
and agency-wide format that allows for flexibility when addressing ongoing and
persistent management issues such as coastal erosion, while proactively addressing
increasing threats such as sea-level rise.
Anti-Armoring Policy Adoption
A significant component of shoreline management in Santa Cruz is based in the
determination of ownership for the risk of erosion. Risk ownership has emerged as a
critical issue for coastal communities experiencing ongoing erosion risk and will continue
to be at the forefront of major management issues under scenarios of increasing sea level
rise (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010). In California, property owners who’s coastal property is
threatened with imminent erosion emergencies are often permitted to finance, engineer
and construct shoreline protection structures, which typically result in permanent loss of
the publically owned beach (Fletcher, Mullane, & Richmond, 1997; Kraus & McDougal,
1996; Kittinger & Ayers, 2010). Armoring public beaches in front of private property
inherently puts the risk of erosion onto the public, for loss of public beaches reduces
collectively held environmental goods, services, and cultural values that are protected
under the trust doctrine (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010. Policies that reduces private landowner
ability to armor their shoreline shifts the hazards and risks of coastal development from
the public to private property owner and creates valuable incentives for risk reduction
77
measures (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010).
Initiate Ecosystem-Based Coastal Zoning
Changes within intertidal and ecosystem function based zoning schemes are
important because they allow for a mechanistic platform for policy that both reduces risk
to societal infrastructure from natural hazards, and protects critical and sensitive natural
resources through careful review of any proposed actions (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010).
Climate change and sea level rise will likely change coastal zones and present a
significant challenge for management, as reformation of existing zones to include shifts
in resources and natural disturbance regimes will likely occur (Kittinger & Ayers, 2010).
Ecosystem-based zoning can increase environmental resilience if stakeholders and the
public are successfully engaged through a strategic planning process. It becomes
increasingly important that the scales of governance and environment are matched to
enact an adaptive management process to monitor and review progress towards clearly
established objectives and goals (Day, 2002; Galaz et al., 2007; Olsson, Folke, & Berkes,
2004; Olsson, Folke, & Hughes, 2008; Ruckelshaus et al., 2008).
Reverse “Burden of Proof” for Taking Littoral Property
If a government agency deprives a property owner of all of their economically
beneficial uses of their property through enacted rules or regulations, a regulatory “taking”
occurs (Kalo et al., 2007; Titus, 1998). When government rules deprive coastal
landowners of any use of their property, and a regulatory taking is found, then erosion
control structures including seawalls and riprap that deprives the public access to public
78
property must also be considered a “taking” (Dean, 1999). Three ways may be used to
codify the reversal of burden of proof: (1) CZM legislation may be provisioned for antiarmoring; (2) coastal ecosystems that are publicly owned as part of the public trust
doctrine may be explicitly protected (Ewing, Magoon & Robertson, 1999; Stone &
Kaufmann, 1985; Turnipseed et al., 2009); and (3) by increased judiciary recognition of
non-regulatory takings resulting from natural erosion processes along coastlines (Shell
Island vs. Tomlinson, 1999).
Surfers have an extended history of accessing the coastline of Santa Cruz County.
An increasing trend of the privatizing of public lands has raised significant concerns.
Surfers in the Santa Cruz area represent a historically unique stakeholder group that has
systematically experienced the firsthand effects of political ecology upon the landscape,
and persistent environmental injustice within coastal zone management. The coastal
landscape of the Santa Cruz area continues to be molded and created in the imagined
vision of private property wealth, political power and aggressive land use planning.
Artificial coastlines that are constructed of boulder fields and textured cement has come
to symbolize ecological disturbance and unwavering environmental injustice experienced
by surfers as a unique marine stakeholder group.
The historical presence of surfers upon the landscape at places like Pleasure Point
has cultivated the idea of surfers as iconic symbols of independence, romance and a
lifestyle of tranquil relaxation. Tourists have always been attracted to the surfing culture
along the bluffs of Pleasure Point. Architecture and real estate within the Santa Cruz area
has come to view the surf breaks of Pleasure Point as a significant County commodity
that has an extended history of being bought and sold.
79
Chapter 4: Case Study Method: Pleasure Point Seawall Project
“The Ability of Minority Stakeholder Groups to Engage Within Coastal Zone
Management Decisions in Santa Cruz County, CA” is a case study to understand the
formation of a coastal landscape and to reveal what the landscape represents. Seawalls
are representative of political power dynamics along the California coastline. Coastal
homeowners in Santa Cruz County have reinforced their echelon in social hierarchy over
the general public by cementing their success and built wealth into the future. Seawalls
represent a constructed landscape where social wealth and private property overlooks
historically iconic beaches and the user groups who identify with them. In this case study,
it is clear to see from the landscape that seawalls symbolically reinforce existing power
dynamics between social disparities, and that capital influenced political power is
questioning the democracy of capitalism along the coastline of Santa Cruz.
Over the course of recent decades it has become increasingly clear to Santa Cruz
County and the residents of the Live Oak neighborhood along Pleasure Point that sections
of East Cliff Drive have been failing as a result of ongoing coastal erosion. A significant
cliff failure between 38th and 41st Ave caused an emergency response by the County and
traffic along East Cliff Drive was limited to a one-way street that continues to allow
vehicular traffic to flow from north to south along the bluff top. Rain gutters along the
edge of the eroded roadway had also been lost as a result of ongoing erosion, and heavy
precipitation events have periodically increased the rate of bluff erosion along the
roadway. Metal drainage pipes under the roadway had been placed to direct stormwater
off the bluff surface and directly onto the beach below were left exposed as a result of
continuing erosion. The iron stormwater pipes had corroded back under the existing
80
roadway, and could be observed as rusting holes deep within the cliff face. The East Cliff
Drive roadway is culturally significant because it represents an extended history of public
access and recreation along a unique section of the Santa Cruz coastline. From the time
the project was initiated in the late 1990s, Commission staff had accepted and reviewed
public comments through letters and meetings with the County. The original seawall
project was financed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) before eventually
withdrawing their support after the California Coastal Commission initially denied the
County’s plans for the seawall.
When the ACOE withdrew their involvement and support for the initial project
proposed in 2003, Santa Cruz County turned towards the Santa Cruz County
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and County Public Works Department for financial
support. While significant failures to the bluff face along East Cliff Drive have occurred
periodically for many decades, the erosion significantly threatening the roadway during
the early 1990s. The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency argued that the erosion
would threaten vehicle access for residents of Pleasure Point, limit access to the cliffs and
beaches below for pedestrians and bikers, and compromise major underground utilities
buried beneath the roadway.
The County identified public access to the bluffs and beaches, and the protection
of public utilities as primary concerns. Congressional support assisted the County and
Live Oak neighborhood residents in securing funding for a cliff stability study by the
ACOE. When the initial study was completed in 1994 the ACOE concluded that cliff
stabilization was critically needed along East Cliff Drive and that a stabilization project
would qualify for federal funding. As the study was completed, significant additional
81
bluff failures along East Cliff Drive occurred early in 1994, which required the
permanent restriction of traffic to one-way and emergency repairs to the bluff and
roadway adjacent to Larch Lane. A citizen’s task force was loosely formed to evaluate
erosion issues along East Cliff Drive and to come to a consensus of what citizens wanted
to take place.
The consensus between the citizen’s task force was that walking and bicycling
along the cliffs should be made as safe as possible, and that they wanted to keep the
roadway as a one-way through street. During my research, the County, Commission, and
former RDA director were unable to explain how the citizen’s task force was formed,
how many citizens were involved, and whether the task force was representative of the
demographic diversity found within Santa Cruz County. Based on the future vision
outlined by the citizen’s task force, a goal for a fully redeveloped bluff top and seawall
were envisioned by the County. Emergency repairs to three crib walls along the bluffs
were completed in the fall of 2004 as the initial phase of a larger and more complex
Pleasure Point seawall project.
The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency was created as part of a State
funded program to address deteriorating conditions within communities through the use
of public funds and appropriate action. Plans are designed to respond to the unique vision
and needs that a community expresses. The RDA received direction from the County
Board of Supervisors, who served as the official Board of Directors of the County
Redevelopment Agency. The RDA had unique authority of power and political will
within the Santa Cruz County while in existence. In addition to planning and redesigning
areas of the County, the RDA had the political power to buy and sell private property,
82
make loans, construct recommended improvements, and to both rehabilitate and entirely
remove structures. Project areas receive focused attention for partnerships with private
development companies that are contracted using RDA issued financial investment
capital to reverse deterioration, create low-paying tourism driven jobs, with a goal of reenergizing the local business climate of project areas.
An important foundation of the Redevelopment Agency was towards contributing
to the local housing stock, and to generate active participation and investment from
within the Santa Cruz County community in localized real estate. The RDA claims that
redevelopment reduces crime rates within communities, and improves access to public
transportation for local residents by improving traffic infrastructure. An important benefit
claimed to result from Redevelopment Agency funded projects were that they promote
affordable housing for low-income demographics. The County Redevelopment Agency
acted to socially construct and develop the social landscape of Pleasure Point, while
appearing to preserve the integrity of the coastal bluff.
The Redevelopment Agency was financed from property “tax increment” which
relies on a portion of the locally generated property taxes that result from redevelopment
projects, and also from the tax increment that is incurred from the sale of property. While
the RDA was not responsible for setting tax rates or collecting taxes, however, the
County is responsible for setting tax rates and the collection of taxes while directing the
RDA. While the RDA states that they are not involved with property taxes whatsoever,
the RDA is directed by the County, which directs both property taxes and the direction of
RDA projects. Financing for redevelopment projects is generated primarily by bond
proceeds. Bonds within the County are repaid from revenue generated by the tax
83
increments that result from within the project area. The foundation of the Santa Cruz
Redevelopment Agency model is based on the funding generated from the localized
increases in tax revenues that result from specific RDA projects.
The RDA claims that one of significant benefits of the Santa Cruz County
Redevelopment Agency is that they improve access for low income demographics to
access affordable housing. A housing fund for low and moderate-income housing
receives 20% of the tax increment generated by Redevelopment Agency projects by State
law. The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency increased their generosity by 5% to
a total of 25% of the tax increment going towards low and moderate-income
demographics. Affordable housing projects funded by the Redevelopment Agency are not
required to be located anywhere that would allow certain demographics easy access to
mass-transit or other aspects of low to moderate-income household community support.
Affordable housing projects financed by the RDA could essentially replace existing low
to moderate-income housing throughout the unincorporated County. Three-quarters of the
tax increment total is directed away from low to medium-income households, and is
instead directed by the County towards stimulating more development in areas of the
County that will increase overall tax revenue from increased property values and the sale
of real estate within the project area.
The seawall project is located in Santa Cruz County’s coastal development (CDP)
jurisdiction, while the portion of the project located along the base of the bluffs, and is
within the Coastal Commissions CDP jurisdiction. Improvements that were proposed for
the bluff tops and toe of the bluffs were subjected to the Santa Cruz County and
California Coastal Commission CDP process, respectively. The project was artificially
84
separated by jurisdiction even though the project is considered one whole project that has
been developed and considered almost entirely by the County. The final Pleasure Point
Seawall Project involved two different regulatory processes. When the ACOE submitted
their consistency determination for the initial seawall project, they did so without
addressing applicable coastal resource issues, which “lacked analysis of impacts to and
protection of offshore surfing resources and shoreline sand supply, and lacked supporting
documentation regarding whether shoreline-altering armoring was necessary.” (A-3SCO-07-015 and CDP Application 3-07-019, 7).
In 2003 ACOE submitted a federal consistency determination to the California
Coastal Commission for the main portion of the Pleasure Point seawall project. At the
time of their submission, the ACOE was proposing consistency with the California
Coastal Act for the section of the seawall project extending between 32nd and 36th
Avenues, but not proposing consistency for the component of the seawall component at
the Hook, located at the project’s terminus at 41st Avenue. At a Commission hearing on
November 7, 2003 the Commission objected to the ACOE’s consistency determinations
and denied most of the seawall portion of the project. The proposed seawall was
determined by the Commission to be inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the
California Coastal Management Program (CCMP).
The Commission determined that the ACOE had not provided adequate
information and had not explored all feasible alternatives, particularly options that were
clearly founded in limiting shoreline alteration and ecological degradation. When the
Pleasure Point Seawall Project was proposed for the first time to the Commission, the
objection of the Commission “was based on lack of information” (CDP Application 3-07-
85
019, 7). The Commission was essentially unwilling to make a decision regarding this
seawall project without any adequate information that would allow an understanding of
the project site and potential alternatives to a permanent seawall that would fix the bluff
face.
Since the initial objection to the Pleasure Point Seawall Project by surfers and
other stakeholder groups in 2003, two significant events have impacted the Pleasure Point
seawall project. The first event that occurred is that Santa Cruz County issued itself an
emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to improve and strengthen the failing
emergency crib walls with formed and sculpted concrete. Three locations that were
fronting East Cliff Drive were undermined by erosion and were near terminal collapse.
The California Coastal Commission approved CDP’s to allow constructed emergency
seawalls along the bluff toe to be molded in response to the County’s initial development
along the top of the bluffs.
In March 2007 the California Coastal Commission “took a field trip” to the
seawall to view the emergency wall as an example of what the Commission would look
for in a future coastal development permit applications along the California coastline.
The Pleasure Point Seawall project between the County and the Commission was shown
as a model for future seawall construction along the California coastline before sufficient
information was known about the impacts of seawalls on the coastline and without any
formal consideration of if the seawall was necessary along the bluffs of Pleasure Point.
The second event that took place was that the ACOE’s involvement in the project
was taken over by the Santa Crux County Redevelopment Agency because the ACOE
“bowed out” of the project after the initial project application was denied by the
86
Commission. Efforts by the County were “redoubled” to develop the information and
analysis that had been “deemed lacking” by the Commission in 2003 when the first
application was denied by the Commission. The most significant effort from the County
to address lacking information and analysis arose from a collaborative project with the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a bathymetrical study of the Pleasure Point
reef breaks in order to generate required “baseline surfing related data” (p. 8) The County
responded to the Commission’s request for seawall alternatives by submitting a revised
Environmental Impact Review (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a
“supplementary threat evaluation” and “alternatives information” (p. 8).
The County was significantly committed to ensuring the seawall project was
approved and regularly met with Commission staff to identify specific information and
analysis that would satisfy the Commission and reverse the original applications denial
from 2003. It is important to note that the Commission field trip to the seawall location
was in March 2007, and the CDP was filed with the Commission in October of 2007. The
initial phase of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project construction was initiated by Santa
Cruz County prior to the CDP being filed with the Commission.
A ten-working day appeal period by the Commission began on March 27, 2007
after receiving the Notice of the Board of Supervisors’ action on the CDP the day prior.
Two valid appeals were received before the appeal period concluded at 5pm on April 9,
2007. The California Coastal Act Section 30603 provides many categories that are
appealable regarding CDPs for development. The two valid appeals were received and
stated clearly that the seawall application is inconsistent with the Coastal Act because:
“(a) approval for CDPs for development… is located (1) between the sea and the first
87
public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of
the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater
distance, (2) on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any
wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any
coastal bluff, and (3) in a sensitive coastal resource area; or (b) for counties, approval of
CDPs for development that is not designated as the principal permitted use under the
Local Coastal Program (LCP).” (p. 8). The proposed seawall was both a major public
works project, is located both seaward of the first public roadway, and would be
developed within 300 feet of the bluff top edge.
The foundation for appeal under Section 30603 is restricted to appeals where the
proposed development does not conform to established Local Coastal Programs or is
inconsistent with public access policies found within the Coastal Act. The Commission
held a “de novo hearing” to determine if the development is consistent with public access
and recreation policies within Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Only the permit applicant, the
local government and people who made their views known before their representatives or
local government are “qualified to testify before the Commission” (p. 9). Anyone else
who wants to testify before the Commission must submit their testimony in writing. The
appeals component of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project permit application is written
using vague language and it has never been clearly stated how or where persons may
make their views known before the local government or representatives. It is also unclear
whether appeals written in foreign languages are considered, or how people who are
unable to write are able to effectively engage in the appeal process during the “de novo
hearing” stage of the appeal processes.
88
Commissioners Reilly and Wan both contended that the County approved seawall
project “raises substantial issues” concerning the conformance with fundamental LCP
policies, Coastal Act access and recreation policies. The appeal stated: “the County’s
CDP approval raises substantial issues with respect to the approved County CDP
project’s conformance with LCP and Coastal Act provisions, including those related to
long-term stability, access, recreation, public views, community character, and water
quality. These issues are also inextricably linked to similar and other coastal resource
issues associated with the seawall component of the overall project that is located in the
Commission’s retained CDP jurisdiction; their resolution will effect the Coastal
Commission’s review of the seawall application” (p. 9). The Commissioners raised the
concern that the County’s approval of the CDP for East Cliff Drive and associated
development could influence the Commission’s review process of the proposed seawall
project and dangerously prejudice the Commission’s final decision.
Any time a seawall is proposed before the Commission one of the “fundamental
questions… is in understanding the range of potential alternatives” (p. 9) that may
address the given erosion problems. Other alternatives that have not been explored by the
County and would have a significant effect on the community character of the Live Oak
neighborhood along East Cliff Drive include “abandonment, relocation of threatened
elements inland, aggressive landscaping and drainage controls, etc.” (p. 9). A Countyapproved CDP for the development along the bluff tops and East Cliff Drive would
“represent a development entitlement” to the entire Pleasure Point Seawall Project, could
“skew the Commission’s review of the seawall”, and may also “preclude certain
alternatives from consideration” by the Commission (p. 9).
89
Coastal Commission staff recommended that the Commission determine that a
“substantial issue” exists with regards to the filed appeal (p. 10). The Commission did
find that Appeal Number A-3-SCO-07-015 contained a substantial issue under Section
30603 of the Coastal Act and associated inconsistencies with the LCP and the Coastal
Act’s public access and recreation policies. After determining a substantial issue exists
and was raised within the appeal process, Commission staff recommended that coastal
development permits for the Pleasure Point Seawall Project be approved as long as
special conditions amended to the project were followed. When the Commission found
substantial issue, the Commission effectively took jurisdiction over the CDP application.
Only two motions and two votes were required to implement project approval, and while
there were significant objections to the conformity of the proposed project to be
consistent with the Santa Cruz County Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal
Act’s public access and recreation policies previously, the coastal development permit
was approved by the Commission. Proposed seawall development along Pleasure Point
was conditioned to conform to the previously raised inconsistencies in order to be
approved. The approved permit was also surprisingly compliant with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
To comply with CEQA regulations, the proposed seawall project had to
demonstrate that either: “(1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been
incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the amended
development on the environment; or (2) there are no feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the amended
development on the environment” (p. 11). Both Commissioners Reilly and Wan had
90
previously contended that there were significant issues with the permit applicant failing
to take into account any alternatives to the seawall permit. During the four years that the
County was trying to condition the Pleasure Point Seawall Project application and
advance Redevelopment goals, County staff failed to significantly consider meaningful
alternative solutions to the originally proposed project.
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Special Conditions
Before the Commission issued coastal development permits, changes to the plans
submitted to the Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission Application Number 3-07019) were required to be “substantially in conformance” (p. 12) to the plans that were
approved by Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz County Application 00-00797). All riprap
that was previously placed at the Hook was to be completely removed (p. 12). The
transition from the seawall project to Jack O’Neill’s property, which was not included
within the proposed project, must be removed from County property unless it is necessary
for the seawall to transition into existing private property. All other riprap that exists
within the project area other than the riprap allowed for the O’Neill transition must be
removed. All “other riprap” includes other rock, concrete rubble, or “equivalent in the
project area” (p. 12). The stairway that was to be “seamlessly integrated into the seawall”
(p.12) in a similar manner that was to be implemented at Pleasure Point Park adjacent to
36th Avenue.
The natural undulating bluff landforms along East Cliff Drive were to be
mimicked by sculpted concrete surface that was to be in accordance with the special
conditions of both A-3-SCO-07-015 and CDP Application 3-07-019. The sculpted
91
concrete was to be of “similar or better visual quality” as the best examples of already
constructed emergency seawall within the project area. The emergency walls that were
redeveloped prior to the proposed project were to be used as examples for the final
Pleasure Point Seawall Project were already failing by the time the proposed seawall
project was to be built. The emergency constructed seawalls within the project area began
to fail from the moment they were finished. It was obvious that the construction methods
used in the modeled seawalls were irreversibly failing and had proved to be an ineffective
method of stabilizing the roadway and bluff faces that were rapidly deteriorating at the
time of the final Pleasure Point Seawall Project permit approval.
Drainage and related elements listed within the required Special Conditions of the
proposed permit have been of significant concern. A large degree of the combined
failures that have resulted in the proposed seawall at Pleasure Point have resulted from
failing drainage additions to the ocean facing aspect of East Cliff Drive. Drainage
engineering has fallen from the cliff’s edge onto the shore below from mass wasting
events that were never addressed by the County. The Pleasure Point seawall application
stated that “all drainage and related elements” need to be camouflaged by randomly
spaced or hidden by “overhanging or otherwise protruding sculpted concrete” (p. 13),
which indicates that the Pleasure Point Seawall Project along East Cliff Drive encouraged
seawall engineering that not only developed on actively eroding bluff tops, but actually
extends seaward from the eroding edge. Creating a visual illusion that attempts to keep
drainage pipes “hidden from view and/or inconspicuous as seen from the on top of the
bluffs and the beach” did not adequately address significant drainage related seawall
failures (p. 13).
92
An important component of the special conditions that was a focus throughout my
research by all involved agency staff were the later additions of “goat trails” or “high
relief areas” (p. 13). The only statement within the seawall’s special conditions is that “all
seawalls shall incorporate areas of high relief/goat trails at appropriate locations for
emergency egress for surfers” (p. 13). Goat trails have become an iconic term within the
Pleasure Point Seawall Project discussion, as goat trails were identified by surfers as
existing public safety mechanisms that had been used for decades along Pleasure Point
during significant wave events when large swell coincided with high tides. During these
conditions surfers would be unable to exit the water without culturally significant
pathways that extended to ideal entrance and exit locations for water access.
Including goat trails within the Pleasure Point seawall project was a significant
component for the local surfing community and was adamantly vocalized to the
Commission by the surfing community. The County and Commission responded to a
significant public safety concern raised by local surfers during the application process by
issuing a one sentence special condition that lacks a quantity of goat trails, locations of
goat trails, or design of what might be considered a “goat trail” or “areas of high relief”.
Descriptions of significant paths used by surfers to avoid serious injury or death during
dangerous ocean conditions and tides failed to adequately include the surfing community
within the Pleasure Point Seawall Project planning process.
Several components of the Pleasure Point/East Cliff Drive Parkway and Seawall
CDP application response written by the California Coastal Commission had not been
comprehensibly edited for grammatical errors prior to approval. Grammatical errors
represent significant lack of review and oversight by the California Coastal Commission.
93
Significant misspellings and vague vocabulary choice make appropriate responses
difficult for County and Commission staff. The rights of the general public who want to
understand regulatory documents issued by the California Coastal Commission and be
effectively involved within coastal planning decisions as a participating stakeholder are
significantly limited by obvious and significant errors within the permit application
process.
Within the section (i) of the special conditions, it is stated “most of the homes
along this stretch of Eats Cliff gain access from the Avenues” (p. 13). Within the
previous statement from the Commission, two things must be noted. The first is that the
Commission acknowledges that most homes that would require emergency access would
also be accessible from the adjacent Avenues and significantly reduce the necessity for
East Cliff Drive to continue to allow vehicular traffic. The second significant portion of
the noted quotation is that the document A-3-SCO-07-015 and CDP Application 3-07019 issued by the Commission contain significant misspellings of primary terminology
within the document.
Within the Pleasure Point seawall project application, which was applied for
because of consistent coastal erosion along the bluff faces, the California Coastal
Commission mistakenly inserted “Eats Cliff” instead of “East Cliff” in two separate
instances within the Commission’s documentation of the County application for the
Pleasure Point Seawall (p. 13; p. 62). Grammatical errors implicating cliff erosion within
the permit application for a controversial seawall represent a significant example of the
overall lack of regulatory guidance and ability of the California Coastal Commission to
effectively uphold the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission has
94
consistently approved disputed development permits along the coastline of Santa Cruz
County while simultaneously approving emergency permits to protect recently developed
private property.
Physical features of curbs along East Cliff Drive that were significantly important
for the local stakeholders were also greatly misunderstood by the County Redevelopment
Agency and California Coastal Commission. Rolled curbs along East Cliff Drive were
labeled “battered” within the permit, and were outlined within the Pleasure Point seawall
project special conditions needing to be replaced with standard curbs along the full length
of the project. The County and Commission failed to understand that rolled curbs allow
bicyclists to safely transition between sidewalks and the roadway. Importantly, traditional
curbs that were to replace the existing rolled or “battered” curbs pose a significant public
safety concern for bicyclists along the length of the project area along East Cliff Drive.
Both crosswalks (k) and striping plan (l) components of the project were
fundamentally incomplete within the A-3-SCO-07-015 and CDP Application 3-07-019
projects. It is stated within the approved application “all project area crosswalks shall be
raised crosswalks that can also act to slow vehicular speeds” (p. 13). None of the project
area crosswalks have been constructed as raised crosswalks, and have failed to slow
vehicular speeds as a result of their design. When I spoke with the Santa Cruz County
Commissioner during my research, he was unaware that raised crosswalks had never
been developed within the completed project. The Santa Cruz County Redevelopment
Agency and California Coastal Commission failed to address fundamental failures in
meeting the standards that were clearly outlined within the approved Pleasure Point
seawall project application.
95
The former County Redevelopment Agency founded confidence within the
approved Pleasure Point seawall project application; however, the former RDA was
unclear of what was actually stated within the approved application at several points
within my interviews. While raised crosswalks had never been implemented within the
project area and acknowledged to be unaccounted for by the County Commissioner,
former RDA staff directed me to visit the project site again. When the County and
Commission made application A-3-SCO-07-015 and CDP application 3-07-019 available
for public review, they inherently failed to indicate how project striping would meet the
standard of being “limited to the degree feasible while still providing clear direction and
accounting for public safety” (p. 13). A clear demarcation on the project pavement was to
be marked “in some way” (p. 14) and was stated to run “more or less in the same general
direction as the paths as much as possible (i.e., angled to the road as opposed to a
perpendicular crossing” (p. 14). The wording of the approved application is
representative of vague and open-ended language that continues to facilitate the
California Coastal Commission in approving coastal development applications, that raises
significant concerns regarding consistency with public access and recreation policies as
stated within the California Coastal Act.
Path separation (v) between bicyclists and pedestrians was never achieved by the
County or enforced by the Commission within the completed Pleasure Point seawall
project. The approved application states that “separation between the decomposed granite
and paved paths shall be provided wherever feasible, and this area shall be landscaped”
(p. 15). While the approved seawall project confirmed idealistic perspectives by the
County and Commission of what was realistically obtainable within the outlined project,
96
a separation between decomposed granite and paved paths was never achieved because
only paved paths were developed along the oceanfront bluff top.
Parking limitations (x) have been a reoccurring and significant concern for surfers
and residents of the project area throughout my research. Section (x) of the A-3-SCO-07015 and CDP Application 3-07-019 special conditions states “all parking spaces in the
project area shall be available for free at all times with the exception that parking may be
prohibited from 2am to 4am in the five spaces adjacent to the O’Neill residence and the
three spaces opposite Pleasure Point Park. Section (x) of the project’s special conditions
fails to recognize that many more vehicles will inherently impact the project area and
adjacent neighborhood streets than the eight cumulative parking spaces identified in
section (x). Local surfers identified within my research who live within the Pleasure Point
seawall project area expressed significant frustration with the County and Commission to
address the widespread parking limitations that have been compounded as a result of the
Pleasure Point Seawall Project.
Landscaping (y) requirements under the approved permit special conditions
section offer a significant understanding in the degree to which the County and
Commission want to hide the approved seawall from public view, while simultaneously
proposing within their permit that they look to seawalls of this character and uniform
construction to pave the way for seawalls designed to camouflage within the natural bluff
landscape. The approved permit requires “as much screening as possible” of the seawall
by native plant species that are capable of providing trailing vegetation that would
“screen the top of the seawalls as seen from the beach and Monterey Bay” (p. 15). There
is currently no trailing vegetation from the top of the project wall, and that may be an
97
unforeseen benefit of failure to meet section (y) of the Pleasure Point seawall project
special conditions. Trailing vegetation that extends from the bluff tops is capable of
producing significant weight and stress within the soil structure along the margins of the
bluff top. No section within the Pleasure Point Seawall Project application specifically
identifies varieties of native plants that would be most beneficial for the bluff-armoring
project, or whether certain plant species would produce excessive biomass that may
dually screen the seawall project from view and lead to weight related failure of the upper
sections of the seawall.
Overhead lines and lighting (z) requirements within the special conditions of the
approved permit specifically states that “all utility poles along East Cliff Drive” shall be
removed “if feasible” (p. 15). The language used with section (z) implies that the
overhead lines and lighting are to be moved, however, they are only to be moved if
deemed feasible by the contractor. Therefore, all other information within section (z) is
subjective and contingent depending on if the contracted developer feels the efforts to
move all of the utility poles along East Cliff Drive is within their limited budget.
Importantly, there is no guidance or planning related to where all of the utility
poles along East Cliff Drive would feasibly relocate their existing utility lines. The
overhead lines and lighting section (z) of the approved permit special conditions was
designed so that there was never any mechanism for the County Redevelopment Agency
or the California Coastal Commission to be held accountable in meeting the special
conditions that were conditioned within the permit application to compensate for
significant and objectionable inadequacies that were clearly identified within the
Commission’s denial of the original permit application. The special conditions of the
98
Pleasure Point seawall project application that failed to be included in the final project
remain “enforceable components of this development permit” (p. 15-16).
Other significant amendments to the Pleasure Point Seawall Project application
have failed to be competed as planned by Santa Cruz County. The California Coastal
Commission has failed to monitor, address and enforce completion of required special
conditions that were contingent on the project application approval. The permit
application special condition (5) that identifies the contingency for the County
Redevelopment Agency to “acquire private property” is the most controversial for both
the legality of such actions and the actual willingness for the County to meet the required
special condition and uphold their liable position within the permit. Section (5) states,
“all private property between the East Cliff Drive right-of-way and the ocean shall be
acquired by the County prior to the commencement of construction” (p. 16). Several
private properties with existing homes are located along the East Cliff Drive right-of-way
and remain private at the time of this research.
Throughout my research with agency staff, none have indicated that they were
capable or willing to acquire private property along the East Cliff Drive right-of-way.
The language within the approved permit also fails to indicate the scope of acquisition of
private property and importantly which private properties would be acquired in
accordance with the enforceable special conditions of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project
application. The permit application also fails to indicate how the County Redevelopment
Agency plan to acquire private property along East Cliff Drive, as private property
owners have not been adequately included within the permit application.
99
The County Redevelopment Agency has failed to include any structural or
financial indication of how they will proceed with financing imminent domain based
private property acquisition along East Cliff Drive and within the budget of the project. It
is clear from this research that Jack O’Neill and other private property owners have never
been under the impression that an enforceable condition within the approved project
permit would allow the County to acquire his private residence. Private property owners
that are located between East Cliff Drive and the ocean have all been forced to finance
their own seawall that would tie in to the approved Pleasure Point Seawall project with
the goal of protecting their private property from ongoing coastal erosion.
While the special conditions section of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project clearly
state that the County shall acquire all private property between East Cliff Drive and the
ocean “prior to the commencement of construction” (p. 16), the County has never had an
organized plan that would have allowed them to meet several required special conditions
that are specifically stated within the seawall permit and are enforceable by the California
Coastal Commission as a result of approving the project application.
A significant amount of political power is given to California Coastal
Commission staff. The political power dynamic is clearly prejudicial with regard to the
approved Construction Plan. More than a dozen individual requirements address how
construction and development must occur to prevent potential erosion and pollution that
may potentially result from the construction of the project. Enforcement of stated
requirements has not been a priority for California Coastal Commission staff throughout
the Pleasure Point Seawall Project construction, as stated requirements have been
overlooked, unaccounted for and not enforced.
100
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Construction
The Pleasure Point Seawall Project permit removed an existing restroom structure
that was never fully operational since the time it was initially constructed. A coastal
access stairway was also removed in order for machinery to access the shoreline during
construction (Figure 1). The seawall project both removed the existing coastal access
point that was culturally significant for surfers, and the County Redevelopment Agency
constructed their own vision of how surfers should access the ocean. Coastal access at
38th Avenue was compromised as a result, and local surfers described events when less
experienced surfers were washed from the stairway at 38th Avenue during high tides and
larger swell events. During high tides and significant swell events, wave action can be
dangerously unpredictable and has resulted in a significant unaddressed public safety
concern. Signage identifying coastal access stairways along the Pleasure Point Seawall
Project fails to include any information that ocean conditions at the bottom of the
stairway and along the seawall could inflict life threatening injuries or death. Many
surfers overestimate their skill level and are not familiar with the coastal access points
within the project.
During my participant observational research I was unable to exit the water during
a rising high tide and became trapped on a pocket beach adjacent to the stairway at 38th
Avenue. I quickly scale up the slick riprap granite boulders that line the base of the
wooden stairway between waves. When I exited at 38th Avenue I had previously entered
at the Hook stairway and paddled north from the Hook to 38th Avenue due to the intense
crowd and competition for waves at the Hook. Damage to my surfboard and minor
injuries were unexpectedly sustained while climbing over the slick boulders. At the time I
101
exited the water I witnessed two young children attempting to time their entrance to the
water between waves during a professional surfing lesson. The stairway at 38th Avenue is
the main stairway that is used by beginners within the Pleasure Point seawall project, and
is where novice surfers are directed to access the water when renting boards from the
many surfing retail shops located along 41st Avenue.
The 38th Avenue stairway that was replaced during the project is noticeably
different than the other two stairways at Pleasure Point Park and the Hook. Both Pleasure
Point Park and the Hook stairways were directly incorporated into the wall so they appear
seamless within the texture and character of the seawall surface. Coastal access at 38th
Avenue is inconsistent with the viewscape that was to be a primary goal of the intended
seawall project. Removing all of the existing riprap was another primary goal of the
project, however, some of the removed riprap was replaced at the base of the new
wooden stairway at 38th Avenue. The riprap at the bottom of the stairway both poses a
public safety hazard and reduces beach width within this section of the project.
The Pleasure Point seawall project is divided into two separated seawalls on both
sides of the O’Neill residence at the terminus of 36th Avenue. The first section covers a
distance of 1,000 feet between Pleasure Point Park and 36th Avenue, and the second
extends 300 feet between 41st Avenue and the Hook. A four foot wide concrete scour
apron extends seaward throughout the base of the wall, effectively removing four feet of
public beach as a direct and immediate result of the project (Figure 1). The wall design
that was proposed and completed was designed to use “horizontal steel tieback rods”, or
more commonly referred to as “soil nails” (p. 25). Soil nails are lengths of “high-strength
102
rebar, grouted into drilled holes and inclined slightly downward into the soil” (p. 25).
Concrete is sprayed up to two feet thick over the grouted steel rebar soil nails.
Figure 1. Pleasure Point Seawall construction at 38th Ave. (California Coastal Records Project)
Former Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency and Santa Cruz County staff
supporters the project were unaware of any structural damage that was visually apparent
during this research. Agency staff indicated that if the wall were to be failing after less
than five years from completion at the time of my research, it would represent a
significant problem for the County. Future repairs to the Pleasure Point seawall to address
unexpected failure were never discussed between agency staff, addressed within the
project application or California Coastal Commission approval.
Surfers at Pleasure Point directed me to specific locations within the base of the
wall at Pleasure Point Park where heavy wave action at the toe of the bluff had removed
portions of the outer concrete and exposed rust stains that were stained down the face of
103
the wall. The rust indicates active corrosion of the iron rebar soil nails within the seawall
project. The lowest bidding contracting developer that was able to demonstrate their
ability to complete the Pleasure Point Seawall Project was chosen as required by State
policy. The chosen contractor had no prior experience building seawalls that are directly
within contact of ocean conditions and heavy surf conditions. Soil nail construction is a
method of constructing reinforced walls that has never been previously used to create a
seawall within a high surf and wave impacted bluff face.
Despite these risks, the California Coastal Commission explained that they would
hope to see more seawalls along the California coastline in future years that used soil nail
construction because of the initial aesthetic appeal of the completed walls. The contracted
developer was Drill Tech Drilling and Shoring, which was unwilling to provide any
information within this research regarding their role in the Pleasure Point Seawall Project.
All agency staff interviewed explained that they had not considered project failure due to
internal corrosion of the iron rebar soil nails, and were unable to comment on any plan
for wall removal if it was found to be experiencing rapid failure due to unforeseen events
within the structural integrity of the construction method.
The Pleasure Point seawall project is within the Federally protected Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The Pleasure Point intertidal zone is held in
trust under federal protection, and any drilling or the removal of minerals is illegal within
the sanctuary. Considering that any drilling or removal of minerals is illegal within the
marine sanctuary, it is alarming that Drill Tech Drilling and Shoring was chosen for a
project within the marine sanctuary based on their name alone. It is important to note that
both drilling and mineral extraction occurred below mean high tide line within the
104
intertidal zone of the Federally protected marine sanctuary as a direct result of this
seawall project. While the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary involvement with
the seawall project is outside the scope of this research, it is important to note that they
approved the Pleasure Point Seawall Project following significant opposition by their
agency to the initial project during the first application proposal in 2003.
It is unclear why the marine sanctuary approved the project during the second
permit application even though nothing was altered within the project plans related to the
fundamental character of the proposed wall design within the intertidal zone. The
Pleasure Point Seawall Project was located on State Lands, and the County obtained a
required State Lands lease prior to the project. The projects lifespan or methods for wall
removal following the lease of publicly owned State Lands failed to be discussed within
any document reviewed for this research. All agency staff included in this research
indicated that there has never been a discussion that considered the feasibility or process
for project removal if an unforeseen catastrophic failure occurred. Significant water flow
from behind the seawall was partially responsible for past bluff failures within the project
area.
Water quality was also to be improved as a result of the Pleasure Point seawall
project. The 13 water outfalls that existed prior to the project were replaced by 7 outfalls.
Of the 7 new outfalls, 5 were constructed with new water quality filtration and treatment
units. At the point of application approval, it was unclear how the filtration units would
be monitored, cleaned or replaced over the course of the project lifespan. The actual
method of filtration was never identified within reviewed permits or documentation. It is
also unclear why 2 of the outfalls failed to incorporate filtration units, and may be
105
understood as contributing to untreated stormwater runoff and associated pollution within
the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary as a result.
The riprap that was removed during the project construction should have been
removed prior to the seawall project regardless of whether the project application was
approved or denied. Within the seawall project, only 350 cubic yards of existing riprap
were officially authorized by the Commission, and were placed at the base of the
replaced stairway at 35th Avenue to protect the public coastal access corridor (CDP XS82-83, 1982; p. 24). The Commission was “unable to establish a CDP history” for the
extensive riprap along the base of the bluffs from Pleasure Point Park to the Hook along
the beach at the bluff face. Prior to the Pleasure Point seawall project construction,
existing riprap along the project site was haphazardly placed, or “dumped off the side of
the bluff” (County) prior to the California Coastal Act or California Coastal Commission.
Certain individuals within this research identified the source of the existing riprap that
remained along the beach as being masses of the dilapidated sidewalk that was replaced
along the bluff top. Informants remember the old sidewalk being dumped off the bluff top
prior to the replacement concrete sidewalk being poured, however, Santa Cruz County
had no record of this taking place.
During this research I was unable to locate records of that identified the existing
riprap along the beach below East Cliff Drive. Santa Cruz County was unable to “identify
specific amounts of rock or rubble that might pre-date CDP requirements” and had “not
identified any CDPs authorizing such development” for any of the other placed riprap (p.
24). Prior to the seawall project, a total of 4,000 to 6,000 cubic yards of unpermitted
riprap was estimated to exist along the beach within the project location. Surfers who
106
were interviewed during my research expressed that one aspect of the project that was a
significant improvement to the surf breaks along Pleasure Point was the removal of the
unpermitted riprap.
It was stated repeatedly by all interviewed surfers within the Pleasure Point area
that when the riprap existed at along the beach, conditions when entering and exiting the
water were extremely dangerous and represented a significant public safety risk. The
uneven riprap surfaces had become dangerously slick as a result of being exposed to the
marine environment and the riprap represented a significant public safety concern. Some
interviewed surfers stated that they were pleased with the project outcome; however, the
satisfaction with the Pleasure Point Seawall Project was founded on the removal of
unpermitted riprap along the beach, and was independent of their expressed views of
physical seawall construction along Pleasure Point.
Substantial Issues of the Pleasure Point Seawall Project
The Pleasure Point seawall project application appeal was divided into four main
categories within the permit documentation. The four main substantial issues raised by
the Commission include: “hazards, public access and recreation, scenic
resources/community character, and water quality” (p. 26). The LCP “requires that
development be sited and designed to ensure long-term stability… by requiring a
minimum 25-foot setback from coastal bluff edges as adjusted inland as necessary to
achieve at least 100 years of development stability, and to avoid the need for shoreline
armoring with its attended impacts” (p. 26). The seawall project has no specified length
of anticipated stability or lifespan, and it is increasingly unclear because soil-nail
107
construction within seawalls has not been significantly tested in wave-dominated coastal
systems. During this research I was unable to find another example of a soil-nail based
seawall project that had been developed in a wave-dominated coastal system within the
State of California. It is clear that after less than 5 years of exposure since completion, the
Pleasure Point seawall is experiencing significant structural failure. The permit
application required that structural assessments would be conducted at ten-year intervals;
therefore both Santa Cruz County and the California Coastal Commission have enabled a
mechanism of ongoing denial of significant structural failure within the completed
Pleasure Point Seawall Project.
Public access and recreation opportunities are required to be maximized within
the LCP and Coastal Act (Sections 30210-30223), and “shoreline land appropriate for
coastal access and recreation uses and facilities be protected for that purpose” (p. 27).
Sections 30210 through 30214 and Sections 30220 through 30224 of the California
Coastal Act specifically protect recreation and public access along coastal shores within
the State of California. These sections of the Coastal Act indicate that “in carrying out the
requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution” (p. 29); maximum
access is required to be provided for the public. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states
that “development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where
acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of
dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation” (p. 29). The
Pleasure Point seawall project was designed to armor public access paths that were
created by surfers over many decades at places where it was shown to be the safest
locations to access the water. The development of this project resulted in a complete loss
108
and redevelopment of culturally significant coastal access paths within the Pleasure Point
coastal landscape. Public right-of-way within the project is not maximized because
private properties along the project area remain privatized. Public recreational access
improvements cannot be utilized as a result of remaining private property that exists
within the project and is inconsistent with the LCP and California Coastal Act use
priorities.
Public parking within the project permit application was also incredibly unclear at
the time of approval, and demonstrates a significant lack of oversight and ability to
enforce the Coastal Act by the Commission. The approved Pleasure Point Seawall Project
included “unspecified restrictions on public parking that may diminish public access and
recreation opportunities, depending on what configuration of parking the Planning
Director approves” (p. 30). The approved application specifically states, “at a minimum,
the lack of precision in the approval is a problem because the Commission does not know
exactly what parking will remain with the completed project” (p. 30).
The approved seawall project clearly indicates that residents of the Pleasure Point
neighborhood and public access to coast was unaccounted for by Santa Cruz County or
the California Coastal Commission. The approved application also notes, “parking is
critically important in coastal Live Oak, it is protected by the LCP and the Coastal Act,
and it is not adequately protected and improved in the County action” (p. 30). The permit
approval by the Commission represents a clear example of significant factors related to
this project that were unclear and unaccounted for by the County, however, the
Commission approved the application regardless of potential damage to community
character as a result of the approved project.
109
Seawalls are representative of existing political power dynamics along the
coastline of California. Owners of property along the coastal zone of Santa Cruz County
are increasingly cementing their wealth, success and social class into the coastal bluffs in
the form of seawalls. Seawalls have materialized into an iconic constructed landscape
where social wealth and private property overlook historically iconic coastal areas and
the public stakeholders who identify with them. This case study clearly shows a socially
constructed landscape where seawalls symbolically reinforce longstanding power
dynamics between social inequalities, and that capital influenced political power is
currently questioning the democracy of capitalism along the Santa Cruz County coastline.
110
Chapter 5: Pleasure Point Seawall Project Case Study Interviews
Surfers have been drawn to the waves of Pleasure Point because of the
exceptional quality of waves found along the northern shores of Monterey Bay. While
most of the northern California coastline is exposed to heavy swell conditions for much
of the fall and winter months, Pleasure Point is protected within the shelter of Monterey
Bay. Offshore islands and thick kelp forests also act in concert to reduce the raw energy
of the ocean, and organize swells so when they peel across Pleasure Point, waves often
appear groomed and flawless.
Qualitative data and information collected during recorded interviews has been
transcribed and coded. Emerging themes that were coded from within this case study
research include public access, non-government organizations (NGO’s), government
agency, tourism, water quality, wave quality and consistency, El Niño and La Niña, and
the Pleasure Point Seawall Project failures. Interview participants are identified with two
initials created by the researcher in order to protect interviewee privacy. This research
highlights the role of public access, NGO’s, government agency, tourism, water quality,
wave quality and consistency, El Niño and La Niña, and the ultimate failure of the
Pleasure Point Seawall Project.
Wave conditions from the northern shores of California to Alaska are considered
unsurfable for much of the year due to dangerous wave conditions, gale force winds, and
extreme tidal fluctuations. Pleasure Point is unique in “that it’s always rideable” (DA),
even when other locations up and down the coast are breaking with punishing
inconsistency and force. The open ocean wave climate offshore of Santa Cruz is unique
in that it has “two extremes” (DA). The surf breaks throughout the County are either
111
considered too big to surf, or the waves are too small. Pleasure Point is a “nice point
break, and you can just ride the break. It’s fun… and you go there for fun times” (DA).
Annual weather variations of El Niño and La Niña also significantly affect the waves of
the Santa Cruz region.
The past two or three years have been relatively stable, and easing off a dominant
La Niña pattern. Surfers have seen “some really good waves in the last two to three
years… the La Niña was a good thing for certain sections of the coast” (DA). While
Pleasure Point is somewhat protected by Monterey Bay, it can become extremely
crowded with surfers. Increased crowds often increase competition for waves and
occasionally leads to verbal or physical altercations between surfers both in and out of the
water. Most conflict arises when the most experienced surfers are forced to surf at the
most popular breaks inside Santa Cruz because waves on the outer beaches are unsurfable
due to wave size or wind conditions. Years when La Niña weather patterns dominate
allow the best surfers the freedom to surf more remote, and often secret locations, while
allowing Pleasure Point to be surfed by local surfers and surfers who may not have as
much experience. El Niño weather patterns comparatively produce wave conditions that
are unpredictable, are extremely powerful, and have led to significant property damage
and loss along the California coastline.
Waves that break along the central and northern California coastline during El
Niño winters are significantly larger than waves that reach the shores during La Niña
winters. La Niña winters are perceived by surfers to be “small swell years” (DA), where
“you can get ten-foot waves every day, and they’re barreling like a fucking dream” (DA).
During El Niño winters, however, “it gets bigger, like double overhead and it becomes a
112
nightmare to paddle through” (DA). Surfers who prefer to travel to the outer breaks of
Santa Cruz County, and leave the protection of Monterey Bay often come to find a beach
with nobody present. One surfer I spoke with explained what it’s like during an El Niño
winter:
“One of the first big swells of the year, and it was mega high tide and the
whole beach was washed out. There was just a little film of water and
then the beach was overlapping… so there were big sand bars and like
triple overhead and perfect a-frame (wave type). No one on it… and it’s
just me. Like shore-pound mean shit… you know? So what do you do?
You just look at it and pass it. So perfect, but out in the water it’s just too
much. You get a dude from SoCal (Southern California) and he’s just
“ohh yeeeaa!” (excited) and you’re like “do you know what you’re
getting into?”. I’ve seen so many days where it’s like freaking perfection
but it’s just too much. You can’t paddle out and the waves are just too
gnarly… and you’re going to die… like a mean spirit” (AD).
During intense El Niño winters, and during strong winter swells that occur during
any given year, surfers seek out Santa Cruz and Pleasure Point for the consistent and
perfect surfing conditions. Surfers who prefer the isolation and powerful waves of the
County’s northern region seek shelter in Monterey Bay when conditions become too
powerful. One of the greatest things about Santa Cruz County is that “if it’s too big you
can always go and find something facing south and get some small waves that you can
tackle” (DA). Surf breaks are inconsistent by their very nature because you have to have
“the perfect swell and the perfect tide” (DA) with preferably light offshore winds. Surf
breaks are “a thing you can’t plan because you never know” (DA). Even if conditions are
forecasted to be favorable, “you never know what it’s going to be doing or how it’s going
to be” (DA). The same could be said for the coastline itself, as no matter what the
forecast indicates, conditions occasionally change and “you can’t plan it” (DA). While
surfers have seen their landscape as a continuously changing place depending on a
113
culmination of environmental factors and conditions, privatization and development
interests along the California coastline have been unwavering in their drive to plan a
coastline in the form of their vision.
Two culturally significant surfing breaks have been completely destroyed in
California as a result of development. The first was “Killer Dana” at Dana Point, which
was destroyed as a “result of the Dana Point Harbor” (MJ). The other was “a place called
Stanley’s Diner, which was a surf spot down in Santa Barbara” (MJ). Development at
Dana Point gave no compensation for the destruction of one of the World’s greatest surf
breaks. When Stanley’s Diner was destroyed when a development project “basically put
land where the surf break was”, the California Coastal Commission attempted to replace
what they had destroyed:
“When they changed how the 405 goes down the coast they… basically
put land where the surf break was. And I think there was actually some
sort of mitigation… or at least they tried to do some sort of mitigation by
creating a spot down in Southern California, though I don’t think that was
very effective. They made that spot down in El Segundo or somewhere
around there, you know… which was a little sand bar that lasted for a
year or two.” (MJ).
The Commission has adopted a recent regulatory acceptance of replacing
compromised surfing breaks with artificially constructed surf breaks that are constructed
in a social ideology of what is found to be an acceptable plan by the Commission for a
surfable breaking wave in place of existing world-class surfing breaks.
Maintaining public access to the ocean and also allowing property owners to do
what they want with their personal property is viewed by the surfing community, the
County, and the Commission as an emotionally debated issue that has been controversial
for more than forty years. While “the fact that (surfers) have had the Coastal Commission
114
for all the number of years has been the most effective protection, particularly for access”
(JM), however, coastal access has not been effectively protected by the Commission.
Interviewees encouraged me to “look at what’s happened around Santa Cruz in the last 40
years” to understand how “access becomes a key issue” (MJ) for surfers at Pleasure
Point:
“You could pull up where that big fancy house is at Sewer Peak, and park
at the cinder block house and watch the surf there. That’s long since gone,
and I’ve got very mixed feelings about it” (MJ).
Where MJ remembers “pulling up where that big fancy house is at Sewer Peak”
and being able to park to watch the surf was still accessible for the public to access in
1976 when the California Coastal Act was established. The parking area was accessible
until the El Niño winter of 1982-83 when the outer edge of the parking area was
compromised as a result of active erosion. When the California Coastal Act was
established, culturally significant public property along the ocean edge at Sewer Peak
was still actively being enjoyed by the general public. After storm wave erosion
compromised the stability of the parking lot in 1983, vehicular access to the land was
blocked in 1986. By 1993 the posted signage that blocked public access and parking was
replaced with a chain link fence and new signage that clearly discouraged public access
of any kind. A vertical concrete seawall was constructed during the years between 1987
and 1993 along the edge of the previous parking lot.
By 2002 the homes that previously existed behind the parking lot had established
manicured lawns and gardens with fences separating each parcel. Three of the four homes,
which are directly protected by the seawall, were one-story homes in 2002. By 2013, the
same three homes had been completely rebuilt into two story homes with manicured
115
yards that exist today where one of the most culturally significant parking lots in the
history of surfing once existed. Public land at Pleasure Point that was heavily used and
enjoyed by the general public was sold as private property. This land exchange allowed a
small number of wealthy individuals to purchase land that was held in public trust under
the Public Trust Doctrine, and was in direct violation of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, and the California Coastal Act of 1976. The general public was the victim of
a “takings” by Santa Cruz County without adequate compensation for the privatized
taking of public lands.
The California Coastal Commission must approve any development or additions
to existing homes within the coastal zone and ensure conformity and consistency with the
California Coastal Act and County Local Coastal Programs (LCP). One of the three
homes at Sewer Peak along Rockview Drive, had submitted their development permit
application with the Commission for the construction of a second story in 2010. Within
the approved application, the applicants state:
“That the project conforms with the public access, recreation, and visitorserving policies, standards and maps of the General Plan and Local
Coastal Program land use plan, specifically Chapter 2: figure 2.5 and
Chapter 7, and, as to any development between and nearest public road
and the sea or the shoreline of any body of water located within the
coastal zone, such development is in conformity with the public access
and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
commencing with section 30200. The finding can be made, in that
although the project site is located between the shoreline and the first
public road, the site does not afford public access to the shoreline because
wave run-up prevents access. Further, there is established public access at
the east end of Rockview, approximately 100 feet from the site”
(Application 10-0080, APN: 028-304-23, p. 17-18).
Public access to the shoreline at the property site is not afforded because the
County developed the historic public access area that once existed in front of the site.
116
Wave run-up does not prevent public access because of the large seawall that was
constructed to block wave run-up. The “approximately 100 feet” of distance from the site
to the nearest public access represents the distance of shoreline that has been taken from
the general public out of Public Trust held by the County, and sold to private property
developers (Application 10-0080, APN: 028-304-23, p. 17). The “cinder block house”
has been replaced by the “big fancy house”, and the lot where surfers “could pull up and
watch the surf” has been replaced by private property and fences that block public access
(MJ). The historical and culturally significant parking lot at Sewer Peak was redeveloped
into privately owned real estate at the end of Rockview Drive at Sewer Peak, and
characterized future redevelopment to the Pleasure Point landscape. While the
conversation around surf break protection has long been founded upon protecting the
waves and physical surf breaks, “the access issue” has emerged as “more relevant than
the loss of surf spots” (MJ). The privatization of access at a surf break of “Privates”
located on the southeastern aspect of Pleasure Point is another surf break access loss
example.
Pleasure Point surfers have become frustrated because of the lack of
understanding that the County and the Commission have shown during the
redevelopment project. County commissioners that supported the Pleasure Point Seawall
Project were not mindful of the local surfing culture at Pleasure Point and larger surfing
community within the greater Santa Cruz County. Elected officials in Santa Cruz County
“who move here and get into these positions really don’t understand our culture” (HS).
Agency staff was not aware that surfers identify the surf breaks of Pleasure Point as like
“a church because of the emotional and spiritual connection to ourselves and to nature”
117
(HS). When the County initiated the seawall project at Pleasure Point, they didn’t
“understand the true care of what it’s going to create or how it’s going to affect the
quality of life” (HS) after the project is completed.
The geographic area of Pleasure Point and the Live Oak neighborhood has
become “more of a destination” (HS) and the surfers “understand what the County is
trying to do” (HS) with increasing the number of surfing related businesses. The “retail
shops and a lot of the new stores have brought a lot more commerce into this particular
area” (HS). Many surfers “didn’t see anything wrong with (Pleasure Point) the way that it
was” (HS) before the seawall project. Local surfers who reside within the Live Oaks
neighborhood have seen significant changes in their quality of life now that the seawall
project has been completed. Pleasure Point has become “such a destination, there has
been an overcrowding situation” (HS) as a result of the project. Local surfers complain
that the “little neighborhood” known as Pleasure Point and encompassing the “quartermile stretch” of coastline that has been named a “Sea Trail” has resulted in a “massive
influx” of visiting tourists and recreational walkers who arrive with “double-wide baby
carriages, ten-speed bikes and dogs on six-foot leashes that are going in different
directions” across the seawall project walkway (HS).
Public Access
Privates is a surfing break located along the base of the towering bluffs that
characterize Opal Cliffs, located just south of the Hook at 41st Ave. The entrance to
Privates, which is also the only public access point within this neighborhood, is blocked
by a locked gate that resembles the entrance to one of the privately owned multi-million
118
dollar homes along Opal Cliffs. The gate is difficult to locate for the general public, and
importantly, the gate is locked to everyone except those with a key. To enter the Privates
gate, surfers must purchase a key to the gate’s lock, which is replaced annually. A local
Pleasure Point surf shop “became involved about ten years ago, basically just doing this
service of facilitating the sale of the keys” (MJ) that continued to allow access. The beach
was “being used as a party spot and some of the people down there would just trash it”
(MJ). The sale and regulation of the Privates gate keys is currently handled by the
Privates Board, which represents socially respected surfing figures within the community.
The Privates Board “basically offers semipublic access with the virtue that you
have to buy a key” (MJ), and has effectively privatized a historically frequented public
access point along the Santa Cruz coastline. Keys to the gate have also become
increasingly expensive, and are significantly unaffordable for many low-income
demographics. When the Privates gate first privatized public access “it was five bucks,
and then it jumped to twenty bucks and now it’s up to a hundred bucks” (MJ). The
Privates gate is not solely funded by the sale of the keys. Residents of the neighborhood
“who live in the little recreation area, which is a little triangle surrounding the area there
get a discounted rate because part of their property tax goes to fund” (MJ) the socially
constructed coastal landscape that improves their property values.
Privates was redeveloped and privatized by the local homeowners and surfers in
an attempt to “preserve the access there because many feared that the stairway would fall
into disrepair like many other stairways” along Opal Cliffs (MJ). When the Privates gate
was established, “a pretty funky old wood set of stairs” led down to the beach, and it
“would get mangled by the ocean or get mangled by kids to burn fires on the beach and
119
stuff” (MJ). Homeowners “used to always have a lot of issues on the beach down there”,
and “now that it’s monitored more, it’s improved” the perceived image of public access
along Opal Cliffs.
A hired security guard, key holders, and the local homeowners hold the
monitoring role at Privates. Surfers perceive a monitoring situation that engages citizens
to be better than when agencies have oversight of regulation. In other coastal
management situations “usually it’s the government that gets involved more to monitor”
and “Surfrider Foundation for example, and Save our Shores, and all those type of groups”
have emerged as a new wave of non-profit groups that “are certainly effective in bringing
issues like that to the public’s attention” (MJ). Surfers view non-profit organizations as
being effective in bringing important issues to the public’s attention. Non-government
and non-profit environmental organizations have a significant and influential voice within
coastal policy.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)
The Surfrider Foundation and Save our Shores were unable to bring enough
public attention to the Pleasure Point Seawall Project to stop the project despite the fact
that the project had been denied once and been debated for roughly a decade. Non-profit
groups were unable to organize a message that the surfers could stand behind as a
collective group. Non-profit groups that opposed the Pleasure Point Seawall Project were
run primarily by volunteers who have limited time to organize for effective social
opposition. One of the oldest volunteer run organizations within the Pleasure Point are
the Pleasure Point Night Fighters.
120
The Night Fighters are “a pretty old group that goes back to the 1920’s and 30’s
and were originally a fire department group that was regenerated back in the 70’s and
80’s as kind of a combination of a surf club and a service organization” (MJ). The Night
Fighters “came back again probably ten or twelve years ago, as again, sort of a surf club
slash service organization” (MJ) that was based locally in the Pleasure Point community.
When the seawall project was proposed and the application was before the Commission,
“the Night fighters were very active in going to the public meetings and giving the
County input as to what a reasonable way to particularly create a physical access to the
breaks” (MJ) at Pleasure Point. When the County “originally had done the plan, they
hadn’t consulted the surfers at all and were going to build the access at pretty
inappropriate places” (MJ). The Pleasure Point Night Fighters outspokenly opposed the
Pleasure Point Seawall Project because they saw the seawall project as a disorganized
County project that had failed to consider public safety at coastal access points where
surfers have historically entered and exited the ocean. The Night Fighters have
reorganized in recent years to effectively bring awareness of redevelopment to the public.
Actively engaging the public within the public process of coastal management has
been a significant cause of why coastal development has continued to push forward
despite strong voices within the public opposing development. When coastal
development projects are proposed, “as soon as the public knows about what’s going on,
they pay more attention to it” (MJ). Paying attention to development pressures does not
mean the public is effectively engaged in blocking development projects. When
development projects are proposed and the public stops paying attention, it’s “like the
squeaky wheel gets oiled” (MJ). When the squeaky wheel runs out of oil “and if nobody
121
knows about it or hears about it… it (development) just happens” (MJ). The Pleasure
Point Night Fighters approach to raising public awareness of critical coastal development
decisions, and representing surfers with an effective voice for change is similar to the
goals of other non-profit organizations including the Surfrider Foundation and Surfers
Environmental Alliance.
Non-profit and non-government organization goals of generating “some public
attention” allows for “a little different approach to be taken” in future policy discussions
(MJ). The coastal access points that were originally proposed by the County “at pretty
inappropriate places” (MJ) were reconfigured within the project as a result of public input
after the seawall construction had begun. The County “held public meetings and they
actually listened to what people had to say” (MJ) about the seawall project. Receiving
public input at public meetings allowed the County to be “able to change the way that
they did the access and come up with a lot better solution” (MJ) with public input and
significant input from surfers within the local community.
Government Agency
In response to increasing opposition from the Pleasure Point surfers, the County
held “two or three meetings that were pretty well attended by active surf clubs and active
surfers” who are engaged with the surfing community (MJ). Both the County and
Commission were present at the meetings to hear voiced concerns of the public regarding
the seawall project because of “overlapping jurisdictions” (MJ). When asked if the
County and Commission had come to the surfers, or if the surfers had approached the
agencies first, the project “was just kind of going through, and people realized… it’s like
122
one of those things were people realized… like “whoa what are you guys doing?”… so
once it came out that that was going to happen, they realized they needed to have
meetings and have public input because there was a lot of concern as to how it was going
to be done and how it would affect the surf” (MJ). The voice of surfers within the seawall
project largely occurred after the project had already been approved.
The County and Commission held public hearings in response to the significant
opposition to the Pleasure Point seawall project. Typical coastal development
applications that come before the Commission may be responded to by the general public
by written letters. In the case of the Pleasure Point seawall project, if public hearings
were not organized by the County and Commission, the voice of surfers “would have
been nowhere near as effective” (MJ). The effectiveness that was achieved was
insignificant, however, as the only changes that were made to the project were to the
poorly considered stairways and the inclusion of goat trails. The bluff faces had
historically been scaled by surfers to both enter and exit the water. The paths up and
down the bluffs become increasingly important when heavy surf and high tides coincide.
Surfers have relied on the paths as a critical safety component of their socially
constructed landscape along East Cliff Drive. Without the paths, surfers would have no
clear or safe exit from the ocean during extreme wave conditions. Only after strong vocal
concerns were expressed were goat trails incorporated to mitigate the loss of the
culturally significant trails that had been formed by surfers entering and exiting the water
over the past century.
From the perspective of the surfing community, “politicians in general are a lot
more receptive to people being in their face than writing letters or petitions or emails”
123
(MJ). Once the supervisor of the seawall project “realized how much public interest there
was, they kind of went to bat for the surfers” (MJ) and organized the public meetings.
The heightened awareness of the supervisor “was instrumental in having the public
meetings held” (MJ) and allowing surfers to have an opportunity to clearly express their
views in person. Most decisions that are made by the California Coastal Commission to
approve development projects take place behind closed doors. The general public is
encouraged to submit their views to the Commission in written form, or attend
Commission meetings that are held once a month at changing locations along the
California coastline. If surfers want their voices to be physically heard by the
Commission, they are forced to commute significant distances.
Tourism
A significant limitation to development in Santa Cruz has been the result of the
restricted size of highway seventeen, which is the primary travel route from the greater
San Francisco Bay area. Highway seventeen consists of two lanes in both directions, and
significantly limits the number of vehicles that are able to enter the Santa Cruz area and
the eastern aspect of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The only other access route for northern
tourists to commute to Santa Cruz is by Highway 1 that extends from Half Moon Bay in
San Francisco through Santa Cruz to the south. Highway 1 is considered a scenic byway
and experiences significantly less vehicular use than Highway seventeen. Traffic along
highway seventeen on the weekends can be characterized as heavy gridlock, largely a
result of families who take day trips from outlying communities to enjoy the beautiful
beaches that Santa Cruz County tourism has historically been founded upon.
124
Pressure to increase the capacity of highway seventeen has been an ongoing
concern for Santa Cruz residents who want to avoid overdevelopment. There has been “a
lot of push for a long time for three lanes rather than two lanes each way, which would
open the faucet a little more” (MJ) for more tourism and subsequent development. The
lane restrictions on highway seventeen is “one of the things that has kept the population
growth here minimal” (MJ). The other significant limitation to overdevelopment “is that
the anti-growth sentiment that Santa Cruz has had for probably the past twenty-five or
thirty years as opposed to South County” (MJ), which has experienced heavy coastal
development. Counties to the south have “built a lot of really big projects in a very short
amount of time in a small area… which is geared sometimes more towards low income
housing, but they’re really into high density, getting a lot of people in a small amount
kind of thing” (MJ). The anti-sentiment towards high-density development “has been
pretty major” (MJ) within the Santa Cruz community.
Another significant limiting factor that has prevented overdevelopment in Santa
Cruz is “the limited amount of real estate makes it very expensive” (MJ) for development
to occur at a large scale. Private property owners along the coastline of Santa Cruz have
also financially benefited from the limited large-scale commercial development.
Residents and property owners are “lucky if they’re already in Santa Cruz and have a
little niche, but if you don’t (laughs) it’s tough” (MJ) to afford real estate. Santa Cruz has
experienced a significant increase in the amount of tourists who are priced out of coastal
real estate and are forced to live further inland where real estate is increasingly available
and financially affordable.
125
Increasing tourism and the marketing pressures to sell the iconic surfing lifestyle
by private development has increased the total number of people coming to Santa Cruz to
participate in the sport of surfing. The sport of “surfing has really become an
international sport and it’s much more accepted as a real sport now and it’s a lot more
visible than it used to be... and that has stimulated a lot of growth” (MJ) within the Santa
Cruz community. Surfers have seen “more and more people surfing every year” (MJ),
which has increased pressure on the limited natural resource of surfable waves. Another
reason why surfing has become increasingly popular is “that Santa Cruz is really an
international surf destination, and particularly last summer (2013), a lot of Europeans,
and a lot of people from other countries” (MJ) chose to visit Santa Cruz. As “Santa Cruz
has become a pretty well renowned surf spot, there’s been a lot of influx on the
population as well” (MJ). Compared to the years when surfing established itself within
the cultural roots of Santa Cruz, a noticeable shift has taken place.
Anyone surfing at Pleasure Point currently can expect crowded conditions on any
given day. Local surfers understand that “it’s going to be crowded and that’s just the way
it is (laughs)… there’s no going back (laughs)… you can’t put the genie back in the bottle
(laughs)” (MJ). Population increases of Santa Cruz residents and increasing tourism
pressure has irreversibly changed the character of the socially constructed landscape of
Pleasure Point and the surfing culture that has historically considered the unique breaks
as culturally significant sacred places. Increasing development pressure that has
synonymously increased with increasing populations has also resulted in degraded water
quality at many surf breaks in Santa Cruz and poses a significant public health concern
for surfers and the general public who comes into contact with marine waters. Water
126
quality at Pleasure Point was an environmental concern with the seawall project, however
there was no significant effort by the County or Commission to incorporate effective best
management practices between the protected roadway and the intertidal zone. As a result
of the seawall, vegetation along the permeable bluffs was redeveloped into an impervious
concrete surface that flushes urban runoff directly onto the beach.
Water Quality
Water quality has been a notably concern for the County and Commission,
however, efforts to improve water quality have been limited. The Surfrider Foundation is
the primary organization that “has paid attention to water quality” (MJ) at Pleasure Point.
Water quality has historically been “something that not a whole lot of people paid
attention to” (MJ). There are specific locations within Santa Cruz that have consistently
poor water quality, and contribute to water quality conditions at local surf breaks
including Pleasure Point. Specific locations of chronically poor water quality largely
consist of any water flowing from an inland source. The San Lorenzo River mouth, where
surfing first took place in North America in 1885, is characterized by surfers as “a pretty
nasty toxic place where you can see there is crap in the water” (MJ). There is “the highest
concentration of septic systems of any waterway that directly enters marine waters in the
State of California” (LJ). Many of the septic systems have been significantly impaired by
seismic activity and have experienced systematic failure resulting from outdated and aged
infrastructure. Direct point source pollution has represented a historic and ongoing
concern for surfers in Santa Cruz.
127
Sewer Peak is considered by many surfers to be the highest quality wave at
Pleasure Point, and “the reason it was called Sewer Peak is because there was an outfall
there” (MJ) that dumped raw sewage into the nearshore waters. One of my interviewees
recalled the risk associated with surfing at Sewer Peak before the outfall was removed: “I
remember I got… I think it was 1972, I got hepatitis from surfing in the water there… so
there was some pretty nasty stuff going on” (MJ). The Santa Cruz community became
more aware of the aging sewer system and has made some changes “that kind of cleaned
things up a little bit” (MJ). Anytime it rains, however, water quality at surf breaks in
urban areas falls below water quality standards for bacteria levels and surfers are warned
to avoid water contact for up to 72 hours following any measurable precipitation within
areas where urban development is within localized proximity of surf breaks. Precipitation
events in Santa Cruz most often occur during winter months when swell conditions are
favored by local surfers, and the “rivers and streams that are flushing out haven’t been
cleaned in a long time” (MJ) discharge accumulated urban pollutants of various non-point
sources. Surfers know that near stormwater outflows, they regularly experience “a lot of
crud that comes out” (MJ) into the surf zone following precipitous storms. Local surfers
regularly choose to ignore posted water quality warnings if local swell conditions are
delivering quality waves to local breaks.
Many local surfers reported about other surfers that they know “who will go surf
the San Lorenzo River mouth regardless of how many things are posted on the beach
there telling them how bad the water is” (MJ). Skilled surfers in the Santa Cruz
community and considered “knowledgeable surfers who will make their decisions based
on what they know rather than the postings” (MJ) placed by County officials at popular
128
beaches. While hazardous water quality “postings are probably good for people who
don’t have a clue about it” (MJ), the benefit of postings are often difficult to observe.
Many families are seen by local surfers who “bring their kids down, and see people on
the beach south of the Santa Cruz harbor, and they’ve got their kids playing in this stuff
and you look at the water and you go… oh my goodness… (laughs)” (MJ). Surfers tend
to ignore posted water quality warnings because of the local knowledge surfers have with
visual characteristics of marine flowing water at local breaks. Older local surfers who
have observed significant changes to the coastline of Santa Cruz and to Pleasure Point
breaks continue to express longstanding feelings of untrusted government oversight.
Surfers who have observed changes to the Pleasure Point landscape “get a little
nervous when the government gets involved in stuff. Older generations of local surfers
have watched surf breaks historically exploited by government projects and coastal
development along California’s extensive shoreline. Surfers who remember the ongoing
environmental degradation that went unregulated before the California Coastal Act of
1976 maintain the perspective that “the fact that we’ve had the California Coastal
Commission for so long has probably preserved a lot of things that would have not been
preserved before” (MJ) the Commission was formed as a regulatory agency. Surfers who
witnessed the Commission’s creation are still skeptical of government involvement by
simply stating “the jury is still out” (MJ). Younger generations of surfers who were born
following the California Coastal Commission creation in 1976 are significantly more
opinionated about coastal zone management in Santa Cruz County.
129
Wave Quality and Consistency
Santa Cruz is a socially constructed landscape for the echelon of global big wave
surfing and professional elite who train at local breaks in preparation for the most high
performance big waves in the World. Many legendary big wave surfers have risen from
the local surfing community in Santa Cruz. Local legends that have become
internationally famous big wave surfers in recent years include numerous surfers who
grew up surfing Santa Cruz breaks from the time they were children, having been taught
the unspoken social etiquette and rules from underground surfing pioneers within their
childhood neighborhoods. Local wave conditions allow surfers to spend significant time
in the water surfing waves that are characterized by exceptional quality and consistency.
The biggest thing “about Santa Cruz is just the amount of surf breaks it has… the
huge exposure to swell… from a north swell to a south swell. And then the prevailing
winds blow side to offshore… so it’s like the best of all worlds. A surfer in Santa Cruz
can surf almost ever day theoretically… as long as there’s swell in the water and most
winds are favorable” (DS). Santa Cruz is a hotbed for surfing talent because “there are a
lot of people that just want to surf all day long because the waves are good all day long”
(DS). At other surf breaks along the California coastline and other renowned international
breaks, “it’s usually the case where most surfers have to surf their break early in the
morning or right before dark” (DS) because of variable onshore winds that cause waves
to break in irregular sections.
Santa Cruz surf breaks are characteristically “good all the time” (DS). The vibe at
local surf breaks is also significantly unique compared to other surfing communities
because “there’s so much surf stoke here compared to other places… but also the quality
130
of waves is really high… so surfers get really really good in Santa Cruz” (DS). The level
of surfing stoke, or the primal excitement around surfable waves and culture, are
considered a force of “environmental” causes that arise from the influential people who
are legendary locals within Santa Cruz surfing culture (DS). Young surfers within the
Santa Cruz community are influenced “by the people you’re around… and growing up
around Flea (Darryl Virostko), Barney (Shawn Barron), Peter Mel, Skindog (Ken
Collins), Richard Schmidt… and surfing with those guys makes it more realistic to want
to become a big wave surfer because… if you’re a kid playing basketball with the top
pros at your local court… you’re going to think that… I could be that… I could do that”
(DS).
Having local professional big wave surfers within the lineup separates Santa Cruz
from coastal communities who don’t have local big wave surfer representation and
respect within local breaks on a daily basis. The big wave culture within Santa Cruz is
directly related to the fact that “having Mavericks right here so close is huge” (DS) for
the local big wave community to represent their geographic region and socially
constructed identity of charging the largest waves in the World. Mavericks is located just
North of Santa Cruz at Half Moon Bay and is culturally respected as one of the highest
quality and consistently breaking World-class big waves that can be paddled into on the
planet today.
A fundamental characteristics of Santa Cruz is that the geographical
characteristics of the ledged reef breaks demand that “you have to be a really good surfer
to get to that level… and Santa Cruz has such good waves and so much variety… and
some nice big waves too… it’s a perfect training ground to become a big wave surfer. So
131
it’s totally environmental… from the people to the waves… they’re here” (DS). The
environmental character of surfing in Santa Cruz is still transitioning from a lifestyle that
has long been viewed by the general public as a demographic that refuses to formally
contribute to society.
Surfers in Santa Cruz “still carry a lot of that stereotype of… surfers don’t really
want to work… they just want to surf and that’s kind of the truth you know? When the
waves are good the surfers want to be surfing because it’s not good all the time” (DS).
Surfers in Santa Cruz have been transitioning within recent years to move into
mainstream society and achieve financial goals that benefit both the local surfing
community and the local economy.
The character and vibe of the Pleasure Point community has been changing in
recent years in the wake of efforts by the County to redevelop the local image. Santa
Cruz County is moving to transform the way that Pleasure Point looks like from the
outside. When the Pleasure Point Seawall Project was constructed, it was paid for by the
County Redevelopment Agency, and significantly lacked input from the surfing
community. Local surfers have raised the idea that the County is attempting to transform
the identity of Pleasure Point into a vision that continues to exclude surfers and the
socially constructed landscape that surfers have been instrumental in creating.
Santa Cruz currently has significant problems with drugs and homeless transients.
The current situation of drugs and crime is an image that the County is attempting to
transform with redevelopment projects, and create a landscape that is more affluent. The
appearance of an affluent neighborhood along Pleasure Point does not address the
132
underlying problems that are increasingly becoming representative of Santa Cruz. A
participant described the current redevelopment of Santa Cruz County:
“Like what is Santa Cruz? We don’t want Santa Cruz to be like this…
we’d like it to be like that. Well what is this? This is what it is currently
or what the perceived impression of what Santa Cruz is. We have fucking
needles on the beach, and we’ve got crack heads and fucking meth heads
running around. Is that what we want Santa Cruz to be? No. We want
Santa Cruz to be… what I feel… Santa Cruz wants… certain people in
Santa Cruz want Santa Cruz to be this kind of Silicon (Valley) beach…
which is… until everyone is wearing Patagucci (Patagonia/Gucci)
jackets… holding Starbucks cups… walking a baby stroller down
Pleasure Point… it’s not Santa Cruz. Kind of imagining Santa Cruz
becoming where all the people from over the hill come to retire.” (SK).
Redevelopment plans promote projects that ultimately increase property values
and create a landscape of real estate that becomes unaffordable for the people who have
historically resided in the Pleasure Point neighborhood. Silicon beach is a reference to
Silicon Valley, which generates immense wealth for a limited amount of people that
choose to purchase real estate to redevelop. The people who live in the neighborhood
fundamentally change the character of the community:
“So Mark Suckerberg just bought a house right down near Pleasure
Point… Google guys... just bought a house down there. So it’s only a
matter of time before the wealth pushes out the core surfers… pushes out
core Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz becomes like a Los Gatos or a Los Altos.”
(SK).
Santa Cruz has developed a character of being a community that supports artists
and other creative and talented residents. Walking through the streets along Pleasure
Point, widely diverse demographics are observable together, and create a complex and
dynamic fabric that Santa Cruz has been founded on in recent decades. As the
interconnected and complex community is redeveloped, there is growing concern within
133
the established community that Santa Cruz will ultimately resemble other municipalities
of California where communities are static, wealthy and conservative:
“That’s kind of a scary thought. Santa Cruz is weird… like “Keep Santa
Cruz Weird”… Santa Cruz is unique and it has a lot of different
personalities. It has a lot of extremely talented people that live here from
all over the place. Talented people… a lot of artists from all different
facets. So to see that art kind of get pushed into a corner and all of a
sudden all of these yuppies kind of appear as what Santa Cruz is
supposed to be like now. So if you are walking through Santa Cruz and
you don’t look like you’re a yuppie then you… you’re a fucking kook
and you should bounce… type of thing. It’s a scary thought. It’s a scary
future.” (SK).
As the County has increasingly supported development projects like the Pleasure
Point Seawall Project and authorized existing homes to be rebuilt into much larger homes,
surfers are becoming profiled in gentrified neighborhoods. Through the 1970’s, 80’s and
90’s surfers were viewed as a demographic of the general population who were more
involved with drug use and unemployment. Within the past decade there has been an
observable social shift in how surfers are represented within society. Throughout past
decades “surfers used to be dudes who didn’t go to school and didn’t really want to
work”, and now that surfing has become more mainstream “people are finding the
balance between going to school and finding good jobs and still surfing and being
passionate about it” (DS). Social change is evident within the new generation of young
surfers. Now that the reputation of surfers is “getting better and better… parents actually
encourage their kids to grow up and become surfers because the lifestyle is good…
versus twenty or thirty years ago… most parents were like “don’t”… they did not want
their kids to be surfers” (DS). New generations of young surfers from Santa Cruz have
played a significant role in the rise of big wave surfing at a global level.
134
El Niño and La Niña
El Niño dominated winters cause significant damage to coastal development and
private property, and are perceived by the Commission and the County to be a negative
force within the coastal zone. Surfers who ride big waves view El Niño driven winters as
possibly the best environmental phenomenon on the planet. When a big wave surfer
participant is asked what he thinks about El Niño, he “only thinks about huge waves…
the waves are going to be massive… and it’s going to be a tough year (laughs)” to
concentrate on anything other than surfing big waves. Santa Cruz professional big wave
surfers are “catching big waves on non-El Niño years” (DS), so the prospect of a big
wave environmental phenomenon that is not seen for many years at a time holds real
possibility to allow surfers into the biggest waves ever ridden. Big waves cause coastal
erosion and the loss of private property, and similarly erode the offshore reefs submerged
ledges that physically cause the waves to break with exceptional consistency and quality.
Ongoing coastal protection efforts that consist of “all the sea walls and all the riprap on
all the beaches” (SD) along the coastline of Santa Cruz pose a problem for the surf breaks.
Historical movement of surf breaks indicate that “eventually the breaks have to
deteriorate because they naturally should be flowing inward… traveling inward… inch
by inch… but you know the waves are going to keep breaking down the reefs and if that
reef isn’t moving inward at all” (DS) because of riprap and seawalls, it raises clear
concerns for “how the surf quality will be later” (DS). There has been a recent shift by
the Commission to view seawalls as preferable to riprap placed on the beach to protect
private property (Figure 2).
135
Figure 2. Seawall protecting private property along East Cliff Drive.
A beneficial component of the Pleasure Point seawall project was the removal of
riprap that covered the sandy beach below the bluff (Figure 3). The riprap that was
removed at Pleasure Point was unlike the large granite boulders that are typically used.
Much of the riprap at Pleasure Point was not riprap at all, but rather remnants of the old
sidewalk that ran along the coastal side of East Cliff Drive on the bluff top. The specific
year that the sidewalk was dumped off the side of the bluff onto the beach below is
unclear, however, it was done sometime before the Coastal Act of 1976 and is viewed by
the Commission as “not unpermitted”, thereby releasing the Commission from enforcing
the County to remove the broken slabs of concrete.
136
Figure 3. Below Pleasure Point Park the beach is now accessible after the removal of
dumped riprap and concrete
Riprap poses a significant public safety concern for anyone attempting to move
across the uneven and unstable surface. Surfers understood the riprap at Pleasure Point to
be a significant hazard when entering or exiting the water. It is clear that “all that old
concrete riprap that was down at the bottom for years was terrible. It was so hard to get in
or out… it was like… dude, at high tide it was so dangerous… so dangerous” (DS). One
of the largely overlooked hazards posed by concrete riprap is that there is often rusty iron
rebar that can cut or impale surfers. The primary issue with placing riprap on the beach is
the loss of sandy beach under the boulders.
Surfers at Pleasure Point have witnessed the dumping of urban waste both on the
beaches and directly offshore even after the California Coastal Act was enacted in 1976.
It is unknown whether the dumping was to mitigate coastal erosion, or simply to dispose
of waste, but the extent of the dumping was significant. A local surfer who is in his mid
137
forties and has lived at Pleasure Point for his entire life remembers dumping as a child.
He recalled:
“There was times when I was a little… and even when I was a kid I was
kind of in shock because there used to be these barges… and I don’t
know if they were doing this on purpose… for the fisheries… I was too
young at the time and didn’t really ask any questions… but they used to
dump right off of here… numerous tires that were bundled up into big
circles. I don’t know if it was… they used to wash up on the beach pretty
regularly. The ocean would push them up on the beach. So they would tie
the tires through the holes and bind them in circles… but they dumped
thousands of them right off of here (38th Ave). It must have been in the
early eighties… or maybe seventy-eight, seventy-nine. I was like “are
you kidding me?”… “what are they dumping out there?”… and it was
these freaking tires man”. (PS).
Components of the Pleasure Point seawall project application that were identified
to cause potential negative changes to the existing character of the Pleasure Point
neighborhood are now causing significant problems for local residents. Increases in
vehicular traffic have become a significant issue along East Cliff Drive and the smaller
side streets that have historically experienced low traffic volumes. Mitigation for the
increase in driver use was not adequately understood or planned for within the Pleasure
Point Seawall Project, and “like many coastal Counties in California, land use planners
are addicted to roads” (MM). Protecting the roadway for vehicular traffic is a way of
complying with the California Coastal Act to ensure that existing public access is
protected and maintained. A local resident describes the increase in traffic as:
“It’s a freaking expressway now, or a highway. You know what we call it
bro? The locals? An extension of Highway 1. It’s sad. I’m not going to
say that it’s totally… completely maddening… but it definitely gets on
your nerves. You should see this around four o’clock or six o’clock
because all the commuters come this way now. On the weekend when
they all want to get out of here… it’s backed up to 41st Avenue as far as
the eye can see. You’ve got the cars idling and you’ve got the people who
are impatient and they’re honking their horns. It’s a traffic jam… and
then they get angry too. I’ve seen this too… they’ll slow down and then
138
they’ll bolt our little side streets at like a hundred miles per hour when
there are kids and animals and people. I’m exaggerating about the
speed… but they go at a high rate of speed down our little neighborhood
strips and it becomes dangerous and hostile to the neighborhood to live
in.” (PS).
County project planners and the Commission failed to understand many of the
dynamic preferred use patterns that local surfers and neighborhood residents have
historically been accustomed to. East Cliff Drive is a roadway that many surfers have
traditionally accessed using bicycles with side-mounted surfboard carriers or by carrying
their surfboard under one arm. Curbs that existed before the project were rolled at the
edge from years of use and allowed cyclists to safely move up and down the curb to the
sidewalk in order to negotiate pedestrian traffic and other cyclists (Figure 4). Within the
application, the existing rolled curbs were referred to as “battered”, and were to be
replaced with a “standard curb” (p. 13). Failure to adequately study surfers as a
significant user group, and significant lack of project oversight and conformity to the
approved application has resulted in significant public safety hazards within the
completed Pleasure Point seawall project.
139
Figure 4. Cyclist with surfboard along East Cliff Drive. Note rolled and non-rolled curbs.
A local professional Pleasure Point surfer and lifelong community member
describes the significance of the standard curb replacements:
“This is in the agreement too. When I’m riding my bike one handed with
my board… see this little lip on the road here… on the curb? That curb is
supposed to be rolled… and it’s not. So when you have to dodge people
out of the way… and I’ve seen guys on bicycles… on ten speeds eat crap
because of it. With their boards… and even just people riding their
bikes… because this… I’ll show you… (walks over to crosswalk at 38th
Ave). See how all the crosswalks are offset… and also the curb is offset.
So this is bad. You have to come over here and backtrack over into the
other lane… and it becomes dangerous. See how the recesses here are all
offset? If you walk up and down this entire East Cliff (Dr.) you are going
to see how they are offset to the crosswalk… or they are offset to the
actual street. So what happens when people want to get back up on here
or they have to avoid somebody… this catches their tire and they eat
fucking shit man. I’ve almost eaten shit… because of this stupid nonrolled… non-rolled hard curb. So I’ve seen guys go down hard here on
these kinds of things. Or if you’re riding one handed on a bicycle and you
have to avoid somebody because there are so many fucking people up
here… I’ve got to jump the curb… and then you know with a board in
one hand it is really dangerous and sketch. So it’s all like that. It’s just
140
bizarre-o. They should have the road and have dropped the freaking
curb… and they haven’t. This should have been rolled… for our safety.”
(PS).
Clear and understandable signage along the completed seawall project is another
significant problem that poses a clear risk to public safety and has been overlooked by the
County and unenforced by the Commission. Some meaningless signs are unnecessary and
should be removed, and others are nonexistent and should be posted:
“I’m not one for a ton of signs down here… which irritates me how there
are a lot of signs protruding on this side of the road. I would love the
County to take a lot of them down because they’re ridiculous. There’s
one right by the stairs that says “Coastal Access”… you’re like “really”
(laughs)… and one of them said “Pacific Ocean” and I’m going “yeah,
that’s the Pacific Ocean” (laughs). The less signs the merrier… but I’ll
tell you one thing that we definitely need… and this is putting a voice out
to the County… is that we need some signage… unfortunately… because
in any society or civilization… when you have an overpopulation… you
need to have a certain set of basic rules and people need an understanding
of them because “us” as locals are being over run by the wagon trains.
Like we are the Indians and the wagon trains are coming in and doing
whatever they want. They’re shooting up the buffalo… if you will. Or
they’re posting up their wagons here and there and whatever else and
they’re not really understanding about our community and how it works
and operates here and out on the water… how it’s causing conflicts and
misunderstandings… in the water… it’s been daily.” (PS).
Surfers at Pleasure Point have experienced a noticeable increase in the popularity
of surfing as a sport, and the amount of people are in the water as a result. While surfing
etiquette rules are posted, they are not posted in a conspicuous place near the coastal
access points like they are at Steamer Lane along West Cliff Drive. It is unclear whether
signage would effectively control crowds, but the surge in surfer use has created a
situation where there is exceeding demand for a limited natural resource of surfable
waves:
141
“People are putting themselves in situations where they should go more or
less to a beginner spot or a place that’s not over their level. That’s
something that’s of concern because of course… health care and surf
equipment are not cheap. They end up either injuring themselves or an
individual… or even someone’s surf equipment which is not cheap and
it’s an unnecessary bit of an incident… you know… that truly doesn’t
have to take place. And then you try to communicate these things… and
you know seventy or eighty percent of people appreciate that… but some
people take it as maybe you’re possibly damaging their egos or what
not… and you get a little bit more aggressive… if you will. So surfing
has definitely exploded in the past five years I’ve noticed. San
Francisco… now is really onboard… culturally as far as becoming surf
oriented I’ve noticed up the coast. And they have a tendency of visiting
down here in Santa Cruz quite a bit because we have a bay… a protected
area from the outer oceans and not affected by the conditions of the outer
oceans. Because Ocean Beach in San Francisco is of course on the outer
oceans.” (PS).
The completed Pleasure Point Seawall Project has changed the appearance of the
bluffs and the perceived risks associated with entering the ocean. Accessibility has been
improved as one of the identified goals of the project; however, improving accessibility
has unexpectedly increased the risk to public safety. Many surfers are inexperienced and
unfamiliar with potential hazards and the unpredictable force of surf zones:
“Because it’s way more way more accessible. It looks man made… which
confuses people… that this isn’t just mother nature and she can harm and
slap you down. It causes this complacency of “well… it was built this
way… this is the staircase… and I should just utilize this because this is
the way the County wants me to enter the water”… which there are
certain entry points that even I won’t utilize on large days because they
are so unsafe. It’s almost like a cattle slaughter gate. There’s one right
down here. This one will mess you up bad (Figure 5). I’ve seen people
have their pelvis’ broken… and legs… slammed! I’ve rescued some
people right down here… at Thirty-eighth Avenue… you know… in this
riprap. This riprap was never here back in the sixties and seventies and
eighties. I think it was put in… in the late eighties or something.” (PS).
142
Figure 5. Dangerous public access point constructed as part of the Pleasure Point
Seawall Project at 38th Ave.
Specific public access entry points within the completed seawall project represent
a significant liability for the County because of the significant risk of serious injuries to
unsuspecting surfers or beachgoers. Currently there has been no form of signage that
clearly states the inherent risk of using the public access points:
“There are some entry points that are dangerous too. There’s no signage
that really conveys that message because they don’t want to be fear
mongers or scare people… I don’t know what their deal is… but it is a
liability I would think… to the County if someone were critically injured
at certain entry points here. Because of course it’s not a controlled
manmade environment… like it’s kind of made Disneyland looking.
Mother nature can and will hurt you… if you’re not careful or aware of
your surroundings” (PS).
143
Pleasure Point Seawall Project Failure
The most significant overlooked hazard with the Pleasure Point seawall project is
within the technology that was chosen to engineer the seawall, and the contractor who
was chosen to complete the project. In recent years the California Coastal Commission
has clearly indicated that they “prefer seawall applications that include proposed seawalls
that consistently mimic natural bluff faces, rather than a hodge-podge of different types
of construction, and moving away from riprap” (CS). California law indicates that for
public development projects, the lowest bidding developer who can effectively complete
the project is chosen. In the case of the Pleasure Point seawall project, the development
company selected to complete the project was based in Arizona and had no previous
experience engineering seawalls to withstand wave energy of any level.
Drill Tech has primarily constructed retaining walls for transportation projects.
The decision to go with Drill Tech “was a terrible decision… the County thought they
were getting a great deal but it was a terrible decision” (MM). Santa Cruz County staff
clearly indicated “there were some pretty comical moments” when Drill Tech attempted
to hold back the tide for the cement to strengthen properly. Approved seawall projects are
traditionally intended to have a lifespan of roughly 100 years, but the Pleasure Point
Seawall Project is noticeably failing after less than 5 years after project was completed
(Figure 6). At the time of my interviews with County and Commission staff, none were
aware of the current degradation and ongoing failure of the Pleasure Point seawall project.
In accordance with the project, the seawall is not scheduled for an official inspection until
2018. The local surfers are keenly aware of the state of the Pleasure Point seawall:
144
“Down below you can see different colorization of where they’ve sprayed
the concrete to make it look more natural… there’s a big piece that broke
off over there. That’s where a big piece broke off. The gunnite and the
cement broke off as a big chunk. Gunnite is a really abrasive stuff they
spray over the concrete to make it look more natural. Disneyland natural.
It’s totally failing… and also with the cement… because you will see
“bleed through” from the steel that they mowed back into the cliff…
which of course… it expands. So what happens is it goes down the ends
of these rods and they expand… and the cement that is around these
rods… it breaks… and starts fracturing. And so when you get that
fracture… it just keeps fracturing and fracturing because it doesn’t have a
skeleton anymore and there is nothing that is holding on to these bars.
There is nothing to hold the seawall up. It’s done. It’s done. It’s kind of
like when you’re building a house and you have a big rain… and all of
your fasteners are made out of steel. They start rusting so you put stucco
over those nails but what happens is they keep rusting behind the stucco
but then they rot to a point where they are not fasteners anymore and then
they basically break and the plywood snaps away from the fastener… and
it breaks what? Your stucco starts cracking. I saw the rods they were
drilling. It was their whole premise of holding that thing back and I was
going “really? Are you serious?” (PS).
Figure 6. Pleasure Point Seawall Project corrosion structural failure.
145
Trying to get politicians to listen is the most frustrating part for the local Pleasure
Point surfers when projects are proposed. Once the County decided to go forward with
the seawall project “it was every man for himself” (MM). While surfers are largely
represented by the organizational structure of the Surfrider Foundation, their non-profit
foundation makes it difficult to functionally organize a central message and position that
is agreed upon by all surfers and delivered at Commission hearings. Two things are
significantly important for the Surfrider Foundation to protect surf breaks. There needs to
be “strong environmental laws, and strong public support” (NC). The “California Coastal
Act is seriously deficient” (MM) and has never meaningfully accounted for climate
change or sea-level rise. The Coastal Act is also significantly problematic for the
Commission to legally deny seawall applications to protect existing private property
because of the “twin pillars” (MM), which indicates that coastal development shall be
authorized if no significant threat is an imminent threat. Once a property owner receives
an approval for coastal development, they can “immediately turn around and apply for a
seawall permit by indicating that sea-level rise is imminently threatening their existing
structure” (MM). The Commission is seeing an increase in “twin pillars” strategic
applications, sometimes occurring within the same year.
A significant issue for the California Coastal Commission is the inability to
interpret the Coastal Act as it was originally intended. In 1976 when the Act was written,
existing structures would be understood as all structures that were already constructed in
1976, and structures built after 1976 would not be considered existing. The Commission
upholds the Coastal Act as any structure existing at the time of the permit application. If
the Commission continues to interpret the Coastal Act in the current way, prominent
146
coastal geologists and oceanographers indicate that “in the near future Santa Cruz County
can expect more than 50 miles of new seawalls and California could be 90% walled off
by the year 2100” (MM). Threats to funding from the State Legislature are an
enormously significant cause for the Commission’s failure to enforce the true intent of
the California Coastal Act. In Sacramento “everyone loves to rail on the Commission”
and threatens to “cut their funding even further if they are too hard on private property
owners along the coast” (MM). Political interests in the ongoing leniency of the Coastal
Act is because “coastal property owners are the primary political donors” for politicians
in the State Capitol of Sacramento.
Surfers have found it exceedingly difficult to persuade politicians and the
Commission to face the realities of sea-level rise that will significantly impact every
foreseeable future generation:
“Politicians… you know as well as I do that legally… all they need to do
is listen to you and go one-hundred and eighty degrees in a different
direction. That’s what they do… that’s what they do. Seriously. The ones
who aren’t totally proactive are for the people… and the others sit there
and listen to you and go a hundred and eighty degrees in the other
direction. That’s what we find in our funky little town here. Unless you
have some entitlement program for such and such and such (laughs)”
(PS).
The California Coastal Commission and Santa Cruz County have been unable to
uphold the California Coastal Act and the Pleasure Point Seawall Project is clearly
inconsistent with the environmental objectives of the Act. Public voice within coastal
planning and decision-making is significantly deficient. Surfers represent a significant
coastal stakeholder group who has lost confidence in their ability to engage in
government supported development projects.
147
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Coastal erosion remains an increasingly significant threat for the public beaches
and private property along the California coastline. Significant wave events and
associated large storm events have resulted in significant damage and loss of coastal
property. Historic El Niño events have resulted in lasting impacts and the degradation of
coastal dependent natural resources and public access along the West Coast of the United
States. Damage to civic infrastructure and property has resulted in significant economic
losses. The El Niño events of 1982-83 and 1997-98 have become clear indicators of
weather variability that California should expect to see as a result of a changing climate.
This research was focused in Santa Cruz County, CA because of the rich surfing
history, deep cultural significance of surfing within the local community, and significant
pressure to develop the coastline and protect existing development from imminent coastal
erosion damage. Santa Cruz County has experienced limited coastal development
pressure until recently, and is currently experiencing a significant influx of financial
investment within the local real estate market. The intertidal zone of the County coastline
is federally protected within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which
provides the strongest marine protection policies of any State within the United States.
The primary environmental protection policies were designed to protect California’s
coastal zone from excessive coastal development are the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 and the resulting California Coastal Act of 1976. The California Coastal Act of
1976 has not been updated to address sea level rise, and applies significantly vague and
dualistic language.
148
This case study focused on the Pleasure Point Seawall Project in Santa Cruz
County. Previous surf break research has been limited in how much information could be
obtained from the surfers themselves. Surfers have historically represented a high-use
stakeholder group in Santa Cruz County who has been marginalized by urban
development, environmental degradation and persistent disregard of public opposition to
County projects. The Pleasure Point Seawall Project represents an example of what the
California coastline may be characterized as an artificial coastal landscape. Extensive
interviews were founded upon a snowball method to gain the trust and willingness of
surfers to engage in the research process. This case study identified specific user groups
and significant components of existing research that have provided limited information
and knowledge regarding development project outcomes in coastal areas.
Identifying and understanding the associated impacts from protecting private
property and roadways along the coastline of California is a significant concern for CZM.
Coastal development projects in California have resulted in the destruction or loss of
several public beaches, and minority stakeholder groups who frequent compromised
beaches are negatively and disproportionately affected. Surfers represent a unique
minority stakeholder group that is fundamentally dependent on waves as a limited natural
resource that is increasingly threatened. Degradation and loss of culturally significant surf
breaks has resulted in raised awareness surrounding the protection of surf breaks that are
threatened or compromised. Protection and conservation of surf breaks has emerged as a
critically important component of CZM in California. Understanding surfers and the
cultural legacy of surfing was shown within this research to be significantly important in
order to understand the management and protection of culturally significant surf breaks.
149
Surfing was introduced surfing to North America at the mouth of the San Lorenzo
River in 1895 by three visiting Hawaiian princes, and surfing has progressively become
more popular. Between 1920 and 1960, Southern California surf breaks experienced a
rapid rise in the number of surfers in the water. As Southern California developed and
became heavily populated, popular surf breaks became significantly crowded and
environmentally polluted in the heavy wake of coastal development. During the late
1960’s and 1970’s, significant advances in technology and surf equipment resulted in a
pivotal changes in surfing culture.
The increasing popularity of surfing has resulted in Santa Cruz County becoming
further reliant on their surfing driven tourism industry. Santa Cruz began to identify the
local landscape image with iconic images of surfers on Santa Cruz beaches. Both the
County and City of Santa Cruz began actively marketing their coastal community as a
lucrative surfing destination. Building architecture and interior design within hotels and
restaurants enforced the presence of surfing, and tourists were able to experience surfing
without ever leaving indoor comforts and safety. Resulting coastal real estate booms
made property overlooking the ocean to become increasingly expensive.
Santa Cruz has been reliant on the presence and character of the strong local
surfing community as a significant attraction for visiting tourists. Within recent years, the
Santa Cruz County has progressively moved to redevelop the public image that represents
the greater Santa Cruz community. While Santa Cruz has commercialized, marketed, and
exploited surfers for decades, there has been no political action by Santa Cruz County or
the California Coastal Commission to effectively address potential impacts to culturally
significant surf breaks from coastal development projects.
150
Surfers represent a unique minority stakeholder group because they frequent
specific locations more often than other coastal stakeholder groups, are active in the local
marine environment for extended periods of time, and they often utilize culturally
significant locations at certain times of the day. One of the primary reasons that surfers
are attracted to ocean waves is the escape from everyday stresses and fast-paced society
on land. Coastal landscapes allow individual stakeholders to turn their backs on the
seemingly fixed and organized structure of modern urban life on land. Many surfers are
significantly reluctant to engage with any kind of involvement with coastal regulatory
agencies, and have chosen not to participate within the established public policy process
as a result of past agency regulation in Santa Cruz County.
Strong environmental protection for the coastal zone of Santa Cruz County has
been ineffective in enforcing California Coastal Act violations. The California Coastal
Commission is limited by Legislative funding to challenge coastal armoring and seawall
construction. The Pleasure Point Seawall Project represents a highly complex socially
constructed coastal landscape that is experiencing increasingly intense pressures from the
temporary profitability of coastal redevelopment in Santa Cruz County.
In conclusion, this research has found that the coastline of Santa Cruz County, CA
is a socially constructed landscape, with an extended history of being modified by
privately driven development. Surfers have been attracted to the exceptionally consistent
and well formed surf breaks of Santa Cruz County since the time surfing was introduces
to the Americas on July 19, 1885 at the San Lorenzo River mouth. Surfing has since
experienced many transformations and throughout history, has been commercialized by
capitalism across many industries. Surfing has been shaped into an iconology and
151
figurative representation of what is attractive and marketable within the coastal zone of
California. Santa Cruz County has embraced the iconic image of surfers along the shores
in recent decades and has marketed Santa Cruz County as cultural landscape where
surfers are embraced.
Surfers are exploited as an iconic and marketable image, and do not have an
effective voice within coastal management decisions in Santa Cruz County. The
California Coastal Commission misinterprets the California Coastal Act of 1976 to aid
private property owners along the coast in protecting their property through the
construction and development of coastal protection structures. Over many decades, Santa
Cruz County has experienced widespread armoring of the coastline in nearly every
structural method possible. It may be concluded that fixed seawall construction along the
California coastline for the protection of private property is done so at the expense of the
general public. I also conclude that the State of California has failed to meet the goals of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The California Coastal Commission has been
ineffective at upholding the California Coastal Act of 1976, and has been unable to
enforce Coastal Act violations as a direct result of limited Commission funding by
Congressional interests. Although surfers have represented themselves through the public
policy system, they have been ineffective largely due to the lack of formal organization
and the inability of the California Coastal Commission to effectively protect public
beaches from increasing private development threats along the coastline of Santa Cruz
County.
Climate change and associated weather phenomena have resulted in progressively
increasing significant wave heights and significant wave event frequency. As a result,
152
coastal erosion rates have continued to encroach on coastal property and inflict
significant damage to coastal infrastructure. Property owners along the coast of Santa
Cruz County have constructed their landscape to be significantly armored in a temporary
attempt to protect their wealth and private ocean view from the increasing strength of the
Pacific Ocean. The sandy beaches and iconic bluffs of Santa Cruz County have
increasingly been lost to coastal armoring projects and seawall construction in a
mismanaged effort to temporarily protect coastal property as sea level rise unwaveringly
accelerates into the extended future. The construction of seawalls and other coastal
development projects in Santa Cruz County have resulted in a significantly altered coastal
landscape, and have irresponsibly disregarded the degradation of federally protected
nearshore ecology without meaningfully investigating or considering alternative policy
approaches.
153
Bibliography
A Bill for an Act. Relating to Hawaii Surfing Reserves (2010). State of Hawaii.
Adger, W. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16: 268-281p.
Adger, W., Hughes, T., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., and Rockstrom, J. (2005). Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309: 1036-1039p.
Alcala, A. (1998). Community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines: A
case study. Ocean and Coastal Management, 38: 179-186p.
Allan, J., and Komar, P. (2000, in review). The wave climate of the Eastern North
Pacific: long-term trends and El Niño/La Niña dependence. Submitted to the Journal of
Coastal Research.
Allan, J., and Komar, P. (2002). Extreme storms on the Pacific Northwest coast during
the 1997-98 El Niño and 1998-99 La Niña. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(1): 175-193p.
Andrews, C. (1997). Sandy Shoreline Response to Offshore Reefs. Hamilton, New
Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 137p.
Aarninfkof, S., Turner, I., Dronkers, T., Caljouw, M., and Nipius, L. (2003). A video
based technique for mapping intertidal beach bathymetry. Coastal Engineering, 49: 275289p.
Aron, C. (1999). Working at Play: A History of Vacations in the United States. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Auckland Regional Council (2010). Draft Auckland Regional Policy Statement,
Background Report – Surf Breaks. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council.
Baird, A., Campbell, S., Anggoro, A., Ardiwijaya, R., Fadli, N., Herdiana, Y.,
Kartawijaya, T., Mahyiddin, D., Mukminin, A., and Pardede, S. (2005). Acehnese reefs
in the wake of the Asian tsunami. Current Biology, 15: 1926-1930p.
Bancroft, S. (1999). Performance Monitoring of the Cable Stations Artificial Surfing
Reef. Perth, Australia: Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Western
Australia, Bachelor’s dissertation, 153p.
Barbier, E., Koch, E., Silliman, B., Hacker, S., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., Granek, E.,
Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L., Stoms, D., Kennedy, C., Bael, D., Kappel, C., Perillo,
G., and Reed, D. (2008). Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological
functions and values. Science, 319: 321-323p.
154
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg,
F., and Nystrom, M. (2003). Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio, 32:
389-396p.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5): 1692-1702p.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems:
Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems:
Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Black, K. (1999). Designing the shape of the Gold Coast Reef: sediment dynamics. In:
Proceedings of the 1999 Coasts and Ports Conference (Perth, Australia), volume 1, 5863p.
Black, K., Hutt, J., and Mead, S. (1998). Narrowneck Reef Report 2: Surfing Aspects.
Technical Report prepared for the Gold Coasts City Council, June 1998, Hamilton, New
Zealand: Centre of Excellence in Coastal Oceanography and Marine Geology, The
University of Waikato and NIWA, 120p.
Black, K., Mead, S., Beamsley, B., Scarfe, B., and McComb, P. (2004). Studies for
Resource Consent: Opunake Surfing Reef. South Taranaki District Council and the
Opunake Artificial Reef Committee by ASR Ltd.
Black, K., and Mead, S. (2007). Sand bank responses to a multipurpose reef on an
exposed sandy coast. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 55-66p.
Blackmar, B., and Cromley, E. (1982). On the Verandah: Resorts of the Catskills. In
Victorian Resorts and Hotels, edited by R. G. Wilson, 49-58. Philadelphia: Victorian
Society of America.
Borrero, J. (2002). Two years of Pratte’s Reef: performance and considerations for future
artificial reef endeavors in Santa Monica Bay. In: Proceedings of the Second Surfing Arts,
Science and Issues Conference (SASIC 2, Ventura, California), 9 November, 19-29p.
Borrero, J., and Nelsen, C. (2003). Results of a comprehensive monitoring program at
Pratte’s Reef. In: Black, K., and Mead, S. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd
International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand). CD-ROM, 83-98p.
Buckley, R. (2002). Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-Pacific Islands. I.
The industry and the islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5): 405-424p.
155
Bushman, R. (1992). The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities. New York:
Vintage Books.
California Coastal Records Project, Copyright (C) 2002-2014 Kenneth & Gabrielle
Adelman, www.Californiacoastline.org. Accessed: 5/2/14
Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological
implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1): 65-76p.
Christie, P., and White, A. (1997). Trends in development of coastal area management in
tropical countries: from central to community orientation. Coastal Management, 25(2):
155-181p.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management:
Concepts and practices. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cinner, J., and McClanahan, T. (2006). Socioeconomic factors that lead to overfishing in
small-scale coral reef fisheries of Papua New Guinea. Environmental Conservation,
33(1): 73-80p.
Cinner, J., McClanahan, T., Daw, T., Graham, N., Maina, J., Wilson, S., and Hughes, T.
(2009). Linking social and ecological systems to sustain coral reef fisheries. Current
Biology, 19(3): 206-212p.
Clark, W., and Dickson, N. (2003). Sustainability Science: The Emerging research
program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 100(14): 8059-8061p.
Clarke, B. (2008). Seeking the grail: Evaluating whether Australia’s Coastcare Program
achieved “meaningful” community participation. Society and Natural Resources, 21(10):
891-907p.
Climate Prediction Center (1999). National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, Electronic data: (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.html).
Cole, T. (1836) Essay on American Scenery. American Monthly Magazine, January, 112p.
Corbett, T. (2001). The Making of American Resorts: Saratoga Springs, Ballston Spa,
Lake George. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press.
Corne, N. (2009). The implications of coastal protection and development on surfing.
Journal of Coastal Research, 25(2): 427-434p.
156
Costanza, R., Graumlich, L., and Steffen, W. Eds. (2007). Sustainability or Collapse? An
Integrated History and Future of People on Earth. Dahlem Workshop Report 96.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Couper, M. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64(4): 464-495p.
Dally, W. (1989). Quantifying beach surfability. In: Proceedings of the Beach
Technology Conference (Tampa, Florida), pp. 47-58p.
Dally, W. (1991). Stochastic modeling of surfing climate. In: Edge, B.L. (ed.),
Proceedings for Coastal Engineering 1990 (Delft, The Netherlands), ASCE reference 087262-776-4, pp. 516-529p.
Danielsen, E., Burt, W., and Rattray, M. (1957). Intensity and frequency of severe storms
in the Gulf of Alaska. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 38: 44-49p.
Danielsen, F., Sorensen, M., Olwig, M., Selvam, V., Parish, F., Burgess, N., Hiraishi, T.,
Karunagaran, V., Rasmussen, M., Hansen, L., Quarto, A., and Suryadiputra, N. (2005).
The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. Science, 310: 643p.
Davidson, C., and Tolich, M. (2003). Social science research in New Zealand. Auckland:
Pearson Education.
Davis, R., and Dolan, R. (1993). Nor’easters. American Scientist, 81: 428-439p.
Day, J. (2002). Zoning – Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 45: 139-156p.
Dean, C. (1999). Against The Tide. New York: Columbia University Press.
Department of Conservation (2008). A Report to the Board of Inquiry on the Proposed
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2008. Wellington: Department of Conservation.
Department of Conservation (2009). Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
(2008) Board of Inquiry Report And Recommendations Volume 2: Working Papers.
Wellington: Department of Conservation.
Dolan, R., Lins, H., and Hayden, B. (1988). Mid-Atlantic coastal storms. Journal of
Coastal Research, 4(3): 417-433p.
Dolan, R., and Davis, R. (1992a). An intensity scale for Atlantic coast northeast storms.
Journal of Coastal Research, 8(4): 840-853p.
Dolan, R., and Davis, R. (1992b). The “All Hallows’ Eve” coastal storm – October 1991.
Journal of Coastal Research, 8(4): 978-983p.
157
Dolan, R., and Davis, R. (1993). Nor’easters. American Scientist, 81(5): 428-439p.
Dunn, G., and Stoner, K. (2010). Riders of the Sea Spray. Good Times. Accessed
4/25/2014. [http://www.gtweekly.com/component/content/article/2-good-times-coverstories/936-riders-of-the-sea-spray.html]
Dulles, F. (1940). America learns to play: a history of popular recreation: 1607-1940.
New York, NY. Appleton-Century.
Durand, A. (1855). Letters on Landscape Painting II. The Crayon, 17 January, 34-35p.
Dyer, W., and Hyams, K. (2001). Assessment of the Potential Contribution of Marinas
and Watersports to Increasing Prosperity in Cornwall. Bristol, England: Ove Arup and
Partners International Ltd., Report for Job, (67566/00).
Earle, M., Bush, K., and Hamilton, G. (1984). High-height long-period ocean waves
generated by a severe storm in the Northeast Pacific Ocean during February 1983.
Journal of Physical Oceanography, 14: 1286-1299p.
Edwards, A. and Stephenson, W. (2014). Assessing the potential for surf break comanagement: evidence from New Zealand. Coastal Management, 41(6): 537-560.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystrom, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., Jon, N.
(2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 1: 488-494p.
Ewing, L., Magoon, O., and Robertson, S. Eds. (1999). Sand rights ’99: Bringing back
the beaches. Coastal Zone Foundation and the California Share and Beach Preservation
Association, September 23-26, 1999. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Farmer, B., and Short, A. (2007). Australian National Surfing Reserves: rationale and
process for recognizing iconic surfing locations. Journal of Coastal Research, SI(50): 99103p.
Flad, H. (2000). Following “the Pleasant Paths of Taste”: The Traveler’s Eye and New
World Landscapes. In Humanizing Landscapes: Geography, Culture and the Magoon
Collection, edited by S. Schwartz, 69-102. Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: Vassar College, Frances
Lehman Loeb Art Center.
Flad, H. (2001). The Hudson River Valley and the Geographical Imagination. In From
the Hudson to the Hamptons: Snapshots of the New York Metropolitan Area, edited by I.
M. Miyares, M. Pavlovskaya, and G. Pope, 8-15. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Geographers.
158
Flad, H. (2009). The parlor in the wilderness: domesticating an iconic American
landscape. Geographical Review, 99(3): 356-376p.
Fletcher, S., Bateman, P., and Emery, A. (2011). The governance of Boscombe artificial
surf reef, UK. Land Use Policy, 28(2): 395-401p.
Fletcher, C., Mullane, R., and Richmond, B. (1997). Beach loss along armored shorelines
on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 13: 209-215p.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analysis. Global Environmental Change, 16: 253-267p.
Fox, M. (2011). Restoring coasts and connections on a Southern Australian coastline. In
Human dimensions of ecological restoration: Integrating science, nature, and culture, ed.
D. Egan, E. Hjerpe and J. Abrams, 51-61. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., and Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit
among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regines, and broader governance
systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In Institutions and environmental change:
principal findings, applications and research frontiers, 147-182. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gunderson, L., and Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gunderson, L., Holling, C., and Light, S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of
ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gunderson, L., and Pritchard, L. (2002). Resilience and the behavior of large-scale
systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Halpern, B., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, A., Kappel, C., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.,
Casey, K., Ebert, C., Fox, H., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H., Madin, E., Perry,
M., Selig, E., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., and Watson, R. (2008). A global map of human
impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319: 948-952p.
Hanna, S. (2001). Managing the human-ecological interface: Marine resources as
example and laboratory. Ecosystems, 4: 736-741p.
Hickenbottom, T. (2009). Images of America: Surfing in Santa Cruz. San Francisco, CA:
Arcadia.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999). Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the
world’s coral reefs. Marine & Freshwater Research, 50: 839-866p.
159
Holling, C. (1996). Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for
people. Ecological Applications, 6: 733-735p.
Holling, C., and Meffe, G. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural
resource management. Conservation Biology, 10: 328-337p.
Hughes, T., Baird, A., Bellwood, D., Card, M., Connolly, S., Folke, C., Grosberg, R.,
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J., Kleypas, J., Lough, J., Marshall, P., Nystrom, M.,
Palumbi, S., Pandolfi, J., Rosen, B., and Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human
impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science, 301: 929-933p.
Huth, H. (1957). Nature and the American: Three Centuries of Changing Attitudes.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hutt, J. (1997). Bathymetry and Wave Parameters Defining the Surfing Quality of Five
Adjacent Reefs, Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 183p.
Hutt, J., Black, K., Jackson, A., and McGrath, J. (1998). Narrowneck Reef Report 1: Surf
Zone Experiments. Prepared for the Gold Coast Council. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre
of Excellence in Coastal Oceanography and Marine Geology, The University of Waikato
and NIWA, 63p. + appendixes.
Ishiwate, E. (2002). Local motions: surfing and the politics of wave sliding. Cultural
Values, 6(3): 257-272p.
Jackson, J., Kirby, M., Berger, W., Bjorndal, K., Botsford, L., Bourque, B., Bradbury, R.,
Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J., Hughes, T., Kidwell, S., Lang, C., Lenihan, H.,
Pandolfi, J., Peterson, C., Steneck, R., Tegner, M., and Warner, R. (2001). Historical
overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293: 629-637p.
Jackson, L., Corbett, B., McGrath, J., Tomlinson, R., and Stuart, G. (2007). Narrowneck
reef: review of seven years of monitoring. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 67-79p.
Jones, G., and Davis, R. (1995). Climatology of nor’easters and the 30 kPa jet. Journal of
Coastal Research, 11(4): 1210-1220p.
Kalo, J., Hildreth, R., Rieser, A., and Christie, D. (2007). Coastal and ocean law. St. Paul,
MN: Thomson/West.
Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schellnhuber,
H., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J.,
Jodha, N., Kasperson, R., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore Iii, B.,
O’Riordan, T., and Svedlin, U. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292: 641-642p.
Kathiresan, K., and Rajendran, N. (2005). Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 65: 601-606p.
160
Kittinger, J., and Ayers, A. (2010). Shoreline armoring, risk management, and coastal
resilience under rising seas. Coastal Management, 38: 634-653p.
Koch, E., Barbier, E., Silliman, B., Reed, D., Perillo, G., Hacker, S., Granek, E.,
Primavera, J., Muthiga, N., and Polasky, S. (2009). Non-linearity in ecosystem services:
Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 7: 29-37p.
Kraus, N., and McDougal, W. (1996). The effects of seawalls on the beach: Part I, an
updated literature review. Journal of Coastal Research, 12: 691-701p.
Kraus, N., and Pilkey, O. (1988). The effects of seawalls on the beach. Journal of Coastal
Research, SI(4): 1-28p.
Lanagan, D. (2002). Surfing the third millennium: Commodifying the visual argot. The
Australian Journal of Anthropology, 13(3): 283-291p.
Lazarow, N. (2007). The value of coastal recreational resources: a case study approach to
examine the value of recreational surfing to specific locales. Journal of Coastal Research,
SI(50): 12-20p.
Lazarow, N., Miller, M., and Blackwell, B. (2007). Dropping in: a case study approach to
understanding the socioeconomic impact of recreation surfing and its value to the coastal
economy. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 21-31p.
Lew, D., and Larson, D. (2005). Valuing recreation and amenities at San Diego County
beaches. Coastal Management, 33(1): 71-86p.
Liria, P., Garel, E., and Uriarte, A. (2009). The effects of dredging operations on the
hydrodynamics of an ebb tidal delta: Oka Estuary, northern Spain. Continental Shelf
Research, 29(16): 1983-1994.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A., Deadman, P.,
Kratz, T., Lubchenco, E., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C.,
Schneider, S., and Taylor, W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems.
Science, 317: 1513-1516p.
Lotze, H., Lenihan, H., Bourque, B., Bradbury, R., Cooke, R., Kay, M., Kidwell, S.,
Kirby, M., Peterson, C., and Jackson, J. (2006). Depletion, degradation and recovery
potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 312: 1806-1809p.
Lowenthal, D. (1961). Geography, experience, and imagination: towards a geographical
epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 51(3): 241-260p.
161
Lowry, K. (1985). Assessing the implementation of federal coastal policy. American
Planning Association Journal, 51: 288-298p.
Maa, J., and Wang, D. (1995). Wave transformation near Virginia coast: the “Halloween”
northeaster. Journal of Coastal Research, 11(4): 1258-1271p.
Mack, I. (2003). Quantitative Assessment of the Surfability of Pratte’s Artificial Surfing
Reef Santa Monica Bay, CA. Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California,
Master’s thesis, 111p.
Maliao, R., Pomeroy, R., and Turingan, R. (2009). Performance of community-based
coastal resource management (CBCRM) programs in the Philippines: A meta-analysis.
Marine Policy, 33(5): 818-825p.
Marx, L. (1964). The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Idea in
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
McGloin, C. (2005). Surfing Nation(s)—Surfing Country(s). Wollongong, Australia: The
University of Wollongong, Ph.D. thesis, 317p., + appendixes.
Mead, S. (2001). Incorporating High-Quality Surfing Breaks into Multi-Purpose Reefs.
Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, Ph.D. thesis, 213p.
Mead, S., Black, K., and Hutt, J. (1998). An artificial reef at Tay Street, Mount
Maunganui Beach: Report 1 – Reef Design and Physical and Biological Process.
Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre of Excellence in Coastal Oceanography and Marine
Geology, The University of Waikato and NIWA, 105p.
Mead, S., Black, K., and Moores, A. (2007). Mount Maunganui Reef—Amalgamating
Design and the Constraints of Construction. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Coasts and
Ports Australasian Conference (Gold Coast, Australia), 18-20 July, CD-ROM, 6p.
Meinig, D. (1979a). The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene. In The
Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited by D. W. Meinig,
33-48p. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meinig, D. (1979b). Symbolic Landscapes: Some Idealizations of American
Communities. In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited
by D. W. Meinig, 164-192p. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meinig, D. (1992). A Life of Learning (The Charles Homer Haskins Lecture of 1992).
Occasional Paper No. 19. [New York]: American Council of Learned Societies.
[www.acls.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/OP/Haskins/1992%5fDonaldWMeinig.pdf].
Miller, A. (1993). Empire of the Eye: The Cultural Politics of Landscape Representations
in the United States, 1823-1887. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
162
Mills, S. (1997). The American Landscape. Edinburgh: Keele University Press.
Moffat and Nichol Engineers, (1989). The Patagonia Surfing Reef Feasibility Study.
Report prepared for the Surfrider Foundation, Huntington Beach, California, by Moffat &
Nichol Engineers, Long Beach, California, September 1989, Report No. 2521.
Moores, A. (2001). Using Video Images to Quantify Wave Sections and Surfer
Parameters. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 143p.
Morse, P., and Brunskill, P. (2004). Wavetrack New Zealand surfing guide. New
Zealand: Greenroom Surf Media Limited.
Myers, K. (1993). On the Cultural Construction of Landscape Experience: Contact to
1830. In American Iconology: New Approaches to Nineteenth-Century Art and Literature,
edited by D. C. Miller, 58-79p. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
National Marine Consultants (1961). Wave statistics for twelve most severe storms
affecting three selected stations off the coast of Washington and Oregon, during the
period 1950-1960. Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Engineers, 17p.
National Surfing Reserves (2012). Gold Coast. http://www.surfingreserves.org/goldcoast.php (accessed January 22, 2014).
Nelsen, C., Pendleton, L., and Vaughn, R. (2007). A socioeconomic study of surfers at
Trestles Beach. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 32-37p.
Nickerson-Tietze, D. (2000). Community-based management for sustainable fisheries
resources in Phang-nga Bay, Thailand. Coastal Management, 28(1): 65-74p.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building
resilience in social-ecological systems. Environemental Management, 34: 75-90p.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hughes, T. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystembased management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 205: 9489-9494p.
Oram, W. and Valverde, C. (1994). Legal protection of surf breaks: putting the brakes on
destruction of surf. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 13(401): 402-448p.
Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., Collins, S., Dobson, A., Duke, C., Gold, B.,
Jacobson, R., Kingsland, S., Kranz, R., Mappin, M., Martinez, M., Micheli, F., Morse, J.,
Pace, M., Pascual, M., Palumbi, S., Reichman, O., Simons, A., Townsend, A., and Turner,
M. (2004). Ecology for a crowded planet. Science, 304:1251-1252p.
163
Pattiaratchi, C. (2000). Design studies and performance monitoring of an artificial surfing
reef: cable stations, Western Australia. In: Proceedings of the 27th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering (Sydney, Australia ASCE).
Pattiaratchi, C. (2002). Performance Monitoring of the Cable Station an Artificial Surfing
Reef: 1999-2001. Prepared for the Ministry of Sport and Recreation, Perth: University of
Western Australia, The Centre for Water Research, Report WP1732 CP, 70p.
Pattiaratchi, C. (2007). The cables artificial surfing reef, Western Australia. Shore and
Beach, 75(4): 80-92p.
Peryman, B. (2011a). Surf break identification and protection in the Gisborne District.
Gisborne: Gisborne District Council.
Peryman, B. (2011b). Identification of surf breaks of national significance. Lincoln
Planning Review, 3(1): 15-20p.
Peryman, B., and Skellern, M. (2011). Planning tools for surf breaks. Coastal News, 46:
1-3p.
Pilkey, O., and Wright, H. (1988). Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research,
4: 41-64p.
Rennie, H., and Makgill, R. (2003). Implications of New Zealand’s effects-based coastal
planning regime for artificial surfing reefs: the Mount Reef Case. In: Black, K., and Mead,
S. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Ragland, New
Zealand), CD-ROM, pp. 260-267p.
Rennie, H., Mead, S., and Black, K. (1998). General Assessment of the Environmental
Effects of the Proposed Artificial Offshore Reef at Tay Street-Mount Maunganui Beach.
Annex III(a). Application for resource consent for a coastal structure. Report to
Environment Bay of Plenty prepared as part of the Artificial Reefs Program resource
consent application. Hamilton, New Zealand, University of Waikato. 26p.
Ruckelshaus, M., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N., and DeMaster, D. (2008). Marine
ecosystem-based management in practice: Scientific and governance challenges.
BioScience, 58: 53-63p.
Ruggiero, P., Komar, P., McDougal, W., and Beach, R. (1996). Extreme water levels,
wave runup and coastal erosion. Proc. 25th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers: 2793-2805p.
Sanders, F., and Gyakum, J. (1980). Synoptic-dynamic climatology of the “bomb”.
Monthly Weather Review, 108: 1589-1606p.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
164
Save the Waves Coalition (2012). Santa Cruz Formally Dedicated.
http://www.savethewaves.org/news/santa-cruz-formally-dedicated (accessed January 22,
2014).
Sayce, A. (1997). Transformation of Surfing Waves on Steep and Complex Reefs.
Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 158p.
Scarfe, B. (2002). Categorizing Surfing Maneuvers Using Wave and Reef Characteristics.
Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 181p.
Scarfe, B. (2008). Oceanographic Considerations for the Management and Protection of
Surfing Breaks. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Ph.D. thesis, 307p.
+ appendices. Available online at http://adt.waikato.ac.nz/public/adtuow20080806.195651/index.html (accessed April 5, 2014).
Scarfe, B., and Healy, T. (2005). Baseline bathymetric data collection for monitoring of
bar, rip and salient response to an artificial surfing reef—Mount Maunganui, New
Zealand. In: Townsend, M. and Walker, D. (eds.), Proceedings for the 2005 Coasts and
Ports Australasian Conference (Adelaide, South Australia), 20-23 September 2005, 459464p.
Scarfe, B., Healy, T., and Rennie, H. (2009). Research-based surfing literature for coastal
management and the science of surfing: a review. Journal of Coastal Research, 25(3):
539-557p.
Schlacher, T., Dugan, J., Schoeman, D., Lastra, M., Jones, A., Scapini, F., McLachlan, A.,
and Defeo, O. (2007). Sandy beaches at the brink. Diversity and Distributions, 13: 556560p.
Sears, J. (1989). Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Seymour, R. (1996). Wave climate variability in Southern California. Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, Am. S. Civil Eng., 122(4): 182-186p.
Shell Island v. Tomlinson (1999). North Carolina Court of Appeals, 134 N.C. App. 286.
Short, A. and Farmer, B. (2012). Surfing reserves: recognition for the world’s surfing
breaks. Reef Journal, 2: 1-14p.
SPARC (2009). Sport and recreation levels. Wellington: Sport and Recreation New
Zealand.
Splendelow, B. (2004). Numerical Modeling of the Shoreline Response to Offshore Reefs.
Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 99p.
165
Strange, R., Graham, N., and Cayan, D. (1989). Meteorological development of the
unusually severe coastal storm during January 16-18, 1998. Shore and Beach, 57: 3-9p.
Stone, K., and Kaufmann, B. (1985). “Sand rights”: A legal system to protect “the
shores of the beach,” 473-490. Coastal Zone ’85. American Society of Civil Engineers
Publications.
Storlazzi, C., Willis, C., and Griggs, G. (2000). Comparative impacts of the 1982-83 and
1997-98 El Niño winters on the central California coast. Journal of Coastal Research.
16(4): 1022-1036p.
Stutz, M., and Pilkey, O. (2005). The relative influence of humans on barrier islands:
Humans versus geomorphology. Reviews in Engineering Geology, 16: 137-147p.
Surf Coast Shire (2010). Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve Coastal Management
Plan and Masterplan: Revised Final Draft. Torquay: Surf Coast Shire.
Sweeting, A. (1996). Reading Houses and Building Books: Andrew Jackson Downing
and the Architecture of Popular Antebellum Literature, 1835-1855. Hanover, N.H.:
University Press of New England.
Taylor, B. (2007). Surfing into spirituality and a new, aquatic religion. Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, 75(4): 923-951p.
Titus, J. (1998). Rising seas, coastal erosion, and the takings clause: How to save
wetlands and beaches without hurting property owners. Maryland Law Review 57: 12791399p.
Tourism Resource Consultants (2002). Proposed Artificial Reef Opunake, South
Taranaki—Economic and Social Impact Report. Prepared for South Taranaki District
Council, Report, 38p. + appendixes.
Tuan, Y. (2002). Forward. In Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic, by K. R. Olwig,
xi-xx. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Turner, I. (2006). Discriminating modes of shoreline response. Journal of Waterway,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, May/June, 180-191p.
Turnipseed, M., Crowder, L., Sagarin, R., and Roady, S. (2009). Legal bedrock for
rebuilding America’s ocean ecosystem. Science 324: 183-184p.
Uccellini, L. (1990). Processes contributing to the rapid development of extratropical
cyclones. In: Newton, C., and Holopainen, E. (editors), Extratropical Cyclones, the Erik
Palmen memorial volume, American Meteorological Society, Boston, 262p.
166
Walker, J. (1974). Recreational Surfing Parameters. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of
Hawaii, Department of Ocean Engineering, LOOK Laboratory Technical Report 30,
311p.
Walker, J., and Palmer, R. (1971). Surf Parameters; A General Surf Site Concept.
Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Ocean Engineering, University of Hawaii, LOOK
Laboratory Technical Report No. 18, 48p.
Walker, J., Palmer, R., and Kukea, J. (1972). Recreational surfing on Hawaiian reefs.
Coastal Engineering Proceedings, 1(13): 2609-2628p.
Wescott, G. (1998). Reforming coastal management to improve community participation
and integration in Victoria, Australia. Coastal Management, 26: 3-15p.
Westwocl, P., and Neushul, P. (2013). The world in the curl: an unconventional history
of surfing. Random House LLC.
World Surfing Reserves (2011). About World Surfing Reserves.
http://www.worldsurfingreserves.org/about (accessed January 22, 2014).
Worm, B., Barier, E., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J., Folke, C., Halpern, B., Jackson, J., Lotze,
H., Micheli, F., Palumbri, S., Sala, E., Selkoe, K., Stachowicz, J., and Watson, R. (2006).
Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314: 787-790p.
Young, N. (2000). Surf rage. Angourie, NSW: Nymboida Press.
Zelinsky, W. (1973). The cultural geography of the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
167