Boys and Girls Club bulldozes probable wetlands on city’s land without a permit

“probable wetlands”

the land “is likely to have included wetlands,…”

” is very likely to have contained wetlands,..” “which would have been discovered in the permit process.”

Probably, likely, or very likely? Which is it? Not looking for a legal opinion, just balance. Other than Mr. Nagengast’s verbal comments, what is the source of any evidence that there may be or may have been wetlands on the site? Hopefully, something more concrete than hearsay exists.

Isn’t “might” more appropriate than “would”?

“land is now flat and dry.” What was it before?

Comment 2 by Jonathan Lundell  on  Jun 19  at  2:25pm  •  All my comments • 

Brian: that’s why there’s a permit process. Permit first, bulldoze second.

my point was not about the permit process. I could be splitting hairs.

The Google map is pretty cool. Try it from 400 Pilarcitos. I am sure the view from there is even better.

Good point Brian. Can I ask why the phrase “probable wetlands” was even included in the headlines? Ray

CDP? We don’t need no stinking CDP. We are fronted by a sympathy-engendering cause, so we are above regulations and zoning.

There will be a joint fundraiser hosted by the Boys and Girls Club and Big Wave on July 4. Bring your gun for the foot-shooting contest.

Comment 6 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 19  at  8:59pm  •  All my comments • 

I am curious about the history of this piece of ground.

Has it ever been farmed? If so, how long ago?

If it were farmed today would a permit have to be granted?

Is the field mowed to keep it fire safe? If so, does that need a permit? And also, if it has been mowed in the past, what damage has likely been done to the possible wetlands?

What catagory might the probable wetland fall under—wet meadow, seasonal wetland, coastal swale or potential wetland (which exist as part of the 2004 city draft General Plan Open Space Element)?

All questions residents should be asking themselves whenever they contemplate work in their garden. :)

(I am in no way condoning doing something without the proper permits. I am only bringing up questions for possible discussion.)

Carl, I have a feeling you will bring your gun.

Hi guys,

It may (or probably or is likely or should :-) interest you to know that in 1998 a group of residents in Casa del Mar formally expressed reservations about the completeness of CEQA process for the Boya and Girls Club and the City Park proposed at that time. Among those reservations was the concern that the sensitive habitat on or adjacent to the site was not adequately delineated and protected. The decision-maker(s) who felt authorized to install a “Future Home of Boys and Girls Club” sign should recall or have access to organizational memory about this and other issues, know better than to pay someone to bulldoze there, and should be ashamed of themselves.

The 14.8 acre site and adjacent property indeed contains some Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (“ESHAs”). These ESHAs (and buffers around them) are protected from disruption (let alone grading). As evidence, you may view biological assessments performed by Brady LSA on April 28, 2000 and updated August 2, 2000, as well as CDP 33-88-10.

Terms like “probable” or “likely” or “might” are not a criteria for deciding whether or not a coastal development permit is required. Intensification of use is an obvious criteria, and no probabilistic reasoning is required to see that scraping is an intensification of use.

The interesting thing is that the referenced surveys were conducted at the west end of the site, because the (different) project under consideration at that time was at the westernmost end of the site. Last Friday’s bulldozing occurred on the eastern portion of the property, most of which was not addressed in these surveys. I don’t think that USDF&W, CA DF&G, the the Coastal Commission or the City will look kindly on this action.

Moreover, indisputable documentation of the protected CLRF habitat to the east of Highway 1,(Pacific Ridge area) and west (Pilarcitos Creek, Caltrans wetland mitigation project, estevation areas delineated in LSA report), make the migration corridor to the south of the property supporting habitat and therefore protected from the impacts of future development. A buffer area adjacent to the migration corridor is also subject to such protections. The western portions of this drainage is also the subject of protections that conditioned Coastal Development Permit 33-88-10. Documentation on these projects are available for anyone with an inclination to look.

One of the reasons that activities like this requires a prior permit is so that owners and users can be made aware of these limitations, or they and concerned members of the public can learn that no such limitations exist. This and similar unpermitted scraping of land make it difficult to assess the quality of whatever habitat was destroyed. If the folks who paid for and operated the bulldozer were so confident that nothing was there to protect, they should have let the public come to the same conclusion. Sorry, but they are entirely responsible for the any consequences of their actions.

In addition to environmental concerns, other impacts documented in comments on the earlier CEQA process for the B&G Club, ball fields, bleachers, etc. included noise, visual, traffic, density of public service, air quality, lighting, trash and safety. The questions of funding not robbing residents of other valued city services, construction and maintenance annuities, what to do with the large structure in the event that the B&G Club decide to move to a different location (perhaps nearer to their middle school) were also raised. Unfortunately, none of these concerns were addressed in a satisfactory way; instead, the item was quietly set aside, and Casa del Mar residents like me were named as haters of children.

If development of the property is scaled down to the capacity of the area, impacts are acknowledged and mitigated in a meaningful way, history need not repeat itself. But the scraping and replacement of unsurveyed eastern park habitat with a sign that this will be a future home of the Boys and Girls Club is hardly an olive branch.

Notice that a traffic light at Terrace Avenue, paid for by the developers of Pacific Ridge, will undoubtedly be claimed as a cure for any and all traffic impacts - I hope the people on Terrace Avenue hoping to avoid a traffic light understand how they have been manipulated. The light will go in, hands will be rung, and another end run around traffic impacts of development will be attempted.

Keep in mind that the law places the burden on the APPLICANT to present evidence to support findings that projects conform to the LCP and zoning ordinances. Bulldozing the evidence makes that much more difficult for them; they want to win too much.

• Jimmy

As a Sewer Authority Midcoastside (SAM) director, I’ve driven past this property at least once a month for 9 years, and from casual observation, I’d say it looks quite likely to contain some wetlands. I’ll have to look through my photos to see if I have any of that area with standing water weeks after rains stopped, an important wetlands hint.

20 feet north, on the other side of Sewer Plant Road, 7 acres owned by SAM is virtually all Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and unbuildable. SAM received a detailed report from a biologist on this. A copy could probably be obtained from the SAM office. So the question is, why would one expect the land on the south side of the “road” (more like a very long private driveway) to be significantly different than that on the north side?

Carl — do I really need to enumerate the locations which are problematic to develop due to environmental issues, but have sympathetic projects proposed for them to make it difficult to argue against the development?

Moss Beach Highlands - some senior housing (and a lot of “market rate housing” on new substandard lots, as if we needed more substandard lots on the Coastside.) (part of) North El Granada CUSD property - “affordable” housing (LCP designation, nothing proposed) Wavecrest - B&G club, new school Big Wave * HMB site by Sewer Plant Road

It’s likely that without a “how can you be against x?” type project, none of those sites would be worth diddly due to sensitive habitats. There is a reason why those sites are the last large open spaces inside the urban/rural boundary. If they were easy to develop, they wouldn’t still be undeveloped. In the case of the Big Wave site, owner(s) have been trying to build something there for years, and finally the Big Wave project came along.

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your questions. It’s been a while since I looked at the history of this land in EIRs that involve this and nearby property, but I think it’s safe to say that it was almost certainly farmed in the past.

It may interest you to know that a portion of the parcel was used as a landfill. I believe it served as a corp yard for a period, too. When Caltrans created the eastbound passing lane on highway 92, they mitigated the negative environmental impacts by cleaning up the landfill and creating a wetland that was subsequently inhabited by the California red-legged frog (as I understand it, the property to the south still contains landfill separated from the City property by a capped dam). The land also held soil excavated from the SAM plant during its expansion project in the 1990s. All of these activities were the subject of approved coastal development permits.

Generaly, permits are required when the intensity of land use changes. When a use is terminated (I believe the period is six months, but I would need to check our LCP), a permit to resume the use is required, and the use must conform to legal standards in effect at the time the permit is requested.

Mowing to control for a fire hazard would make sense on the eastern border, where the parcel is adjacent to a residence and the Lutheran Church. I think the size of the fire break on the north would be smaller because the Sewer Plant Road would contribute to its width. This kind of mowing would be really minimal if any adjacent to the crops to the south, and not permitted in the buffer for the Caltrans wetlands mitigation area. (It is a source of perennial amusement to see the SE corner of the intersection of Hwy 1 and 92 mowed in utter contempt of this standard, to make room for oil-dripping pumpkin festival parking.)

It’s important to distinguish between mowing, which removes vegetation above a certain height (say, 6 inches), and scraping, disking or bull dozing, which destroys vegetation, kills animals that live in that vegetation, and reshapes the land in ways that greatly reduce the habitat value of the land.

The sections of law that define the limitation on land use in ESHAs depend on what type of environmental resource occurs there; more that one may apply. At the west end of the parcel we know that there is CRLF habitat, which implies particular buffer areas. A pond and seasonally wet area would have other restrictions.

Concerning your caution to a resident working in their garden: If the garden is part of a legal yard of their home, they really don’t have to worry. If they have set up a garden in a buffer zone that was established as a condition of approval for development (rare in Half Moon Bay), then they really never had the right to garden there, and should move their garden outside the buffer area.

HTH,

• Jimmy

Whoops, my bad. In my June 19 post, The migratory corridor I mentioned is is north of the City’s property, not south (until you get to Pilarcitos Creek). And in another slip of the fingers, I meant wrung hands — sorry for those typos.

• Jimmy

What shame that that the Boys and Girls Club directors chose to act in such a hasty, irresponsible manner. This does not set a good example for their members or supporters.

The mission statement for the Boys and Girls Club of the Coastside, as well as for the Boys and Girls Club of America, says:

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

I was Capital Campaign Co-Chair for the DeLue Boys and Girls Club in Daly City. We worked closely with the Daly City to create an outstanding project comprised of a new, state of the art, library, community center and Boys and Girls Club in the heart of a neighborhood with no resources for kids or families.

If the grading was done to plant pumpkins for this year it should have been done months ago. According to UC Extension pumpkins in the coast require more than 100 days from planting to harvest on the coast. Planting pumpkins from seed at this time of year appears to be a financial risk.

I am sure that we can have a Boys and Girls Club here if the board works within the laws and does not try to evade them, creating something everyone can be proud of.

Kathryn

Comment 13 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 20  at  10:32am  •  All my comments • 

Thank you for your response, Jimmy. Your comments should be required reading for all residents of the coastside.

However, I am a little concerned about your statement that folks don’t really have to worry about wetlands in their gardens. That may be true today, but what about in the future?

Things change. Just ask anyone who applied for a remodel permit and found their home had somehow been built on a substandard lot.

Things change. Laws change. Sometimes it’s hard to keep up with them. Yes, I know, it’s our responsibility as citizens of this great country to educate ourselves. :)

In the July 20 article on this subject (in case anyone is lost, you are presently reading a comment in the July 19 article) I find this quote:

Johnston says it’s still possible to establish if Cline’s group graded wetlands. “You only need to meet one of three criteria to be considered wetlands in California: ponding duration, plant types, or glade soils. It’s harder to tell from the soils, but you can still do it.”

Doesn’t this mean that if you have a wetland plant on the property, it can be declared a wetland? Unless residential lots are specifically exempted from this, I would be very wary! And if residentila lots are exempted at this time I would not be surprised if this changed in the future.

See Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay. This ruling has been applied in your own back yard.

I appreciate your kind words, Mary.

With respect to establishing whether wetlands were destroyed, I understand Mr. Johnstone’s point that the evidence remains, at least in a forensic sense. But the grading has destroyed the vegetative clues of where samples should be taken for analysis. So in theory we COULD find wetlands that existed, but if those wetlands occupied, say, 1% of the parcel, then the odds of finding it in a randomly selected sample are no better than 1 in 100, and perhaps worse if the samples are throughy diluted with non-wetland soils. I hope this clarifies why this kind of unpermitted bulldozing is such a cause for concern.

With respect to obtaining a remodeling permit on a substandard lot, I agree with you that future changes in law are difficult to predict, and citizens should keep up with them. I was one of the very few citizens at the early-90’s LCP amendment public hearing asking about the impacts of the proposed LCP update.

I tried to follow the Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay link that you included in your post, but it brought me back to the unpermitted grading article. However, if I may take a guess, I think it is important to distinguish between being able to maintain a current level of intensity of use, which does not require a CDP, and creating new uses or increasing the intensity of use. In the referenced case, I believe that there was no argument that a new and increased intensification of use was being proposed. A land owner who is maintaining a garden plot in a portion of their back yard is not increasing the intensification of use, and so would not be required to stop gardening if a wetland were to appear in or adjacent to her garden. Personally, I chose my house because it does have a legally recognized and protected wetland (a stream) flowing on it. I would be thrilled to find endangered species living there, and try to nurture them with a supportive habitat. I think that some gardeners would consider this one of the very highest forms of gardening. I hope this helps distinguish Yawagiwa from the backyard gardener, and gives the latter a well-deserved measure of comfort.

It’s up to all of us to ensure that, if the Boys & Girls Club builds at this site, the City’s decision making process and the club’s operating program will model habitat protection values, respect for neighbors, and instill a respect for nature and the rule of law that protects them. It is also one of the highest forms of education that we can pass on to the next generation.

My $0.02’s worth

• Jimmy

Oh man, my front lawn is a wetland? You mean I can’t cut it?

And that pesky red-legged frog strikes again!

Ray

If I entered every foot-shooting contest in fundraisers to benefit stalking horses for development on the midcoast, I would have been out of feet decades ago.

Leonard, you missed at least one front for development when you omitted the old navy property on the east side of the highway at the north end of Moss Beach. The Stuporvisors did their best to grease it for over-the-hill developers (I seem to recall Jack Foster, Jr.) maybe 15 years ago by lowering the percentage of “affordable” units required in the project to allow profits from more market-rate housing, a claimed necessity for making the mess work economically. (Some really precious rationalizations by Anna Eschoo, among others.) But the builders and their backers never got their act together—financing was tough in California during the Reagan-Bush recession. Still, it waits.

One of the most amusing of these bleeding-heart scams was J.L.’s attempt to initiate an eight-story senior housing project in what is now Quarry Park. Remember that one?

Carl May

Comment 17 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 20  at  8:52pm  •  All my comments • 

Sorry the link to the Yamagiwa document didn’t work in my previous comment. I’ll try again.

It appears to be right here at coastsider.com. (I found it with a google search.)

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/planning/beachwood/yamagiwadecision.pdf

I do not expect anyone to wade through it. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. However, if anyone is up for a challenge…!

I believe the findings set a precedent that will be used for years to come. I am not an attorney and can hardly wade through the verbiage, though. That was just the impression I got once my headache cleared up.

I wonder if there’s software that will translate it?

Or if anyone out there speaks legalese…

The Yamagiwa legal mess is one of the more convoluted things we’ll ever see. Everything in this comment is my opinion or my recollection or my guess, any of which might be wrong in this case.

As to “precedent”, it says at the very top that it cannot be cited. This means that it has no effect on any other situation.

It seems to me that I read this decision when it came out, and had someone more familar with it explain it to me back then. If people want to ask focused questions, I’ll see what I can remember and/or figure out again.

One of the more fun parts of it, if I’m understanding it correctly upon rereading, is that there was somewhat of a procedural catch-22. Therefore, the trial court ordered the city to grant a CDP for the specific purpose of allowing the process to move forward to an appeal to the Coastal Commission. But the city retained the right to challenge that court order, and if such challenge is successful (it was), the city can revoke the CDP (they did.)

The disagreement in Yamagiwa vs HMB is whether the Beachwood Subdivision is wetlands, and that disagreement flows from a disagreement over which definition of wetlands takes precedence. HMB and the Coastal Commission argued that the HMB LCP definition takes precedence. This is what was upheld on appeal in the decision referred to by Mary Bordi. I believe that was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. Therefore, the appeals court decision stands, but it can’t be cited as precedent because it’s legally “unpublished.” Realistically, however, anyone contemplating similar action within that appellate jurisdiction can expect an equivalent result.

I hope this helps. I’m sure if I’m wrong about anything here, someone more knowledgeable will post a correction.

I also have a really vague recollection that I was told that the Beachwood Subdivision’s Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) is now expired, meaning that to try again to get something permitted they’ll have to start from scratch.

Comment 19 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 22  at  11:31am  •  All my comments • 

I’ve been mulling over a statement made by Jimmy Benjamin above on Jun 20, 06 at 11:53 am.

He wrote:

I chose my house because it does have a legally recognized and protected wetland (a stream) flowing on it. I would be thrilled to find endangered species living there, and try to nurture them with a supportive habitat. I think that some gardeners would consider this one of the very highest forms of gardening. I hope this helps distinguish Yawagiwa from the backyard gardener, and gives the latter a well-deserved measure of comfort.

As a gardener and a steward a bit more than a city lot, I can certainly appreciate the awe of encountering an endangered critter in the backyard. Jimmy, it sounds to me as if your house was already located by the wetland when you chose it. I am curious—under today’s CCC/HMB zoning, could your house have been built?

I don’t want to seem confrontational by asking this! Providing habitat for our threatened and endangered neighbors is a Good Thing. I don’t see it as an either or situation: either you are for protecting them or you are out to destroy them.

The Yamagiwa decision, confusing and convoluted for those of us without the benefit of a higher education (and many who do have that education…) seems to say that…well, let me back up and see if I can make sense here.

Some agencies define a wetland as requiring three things (this is simplified so I hope my translation is accurate):

1) Water saturation (could be seasonal) 2) Water loving plants (or plants that grow under those specific saturation levels even if seasonal) 3) A certain type of soil (either caused by the wet conditions or causing those wet conditions)

Please note: I am not a professional, I have not gotten a professional opinion on this! I have simply tried to put stuff into plain English. I’m sure folks will chime in with corrections and I encourage that! Just don’t attack me for trying!

(Please seen my next comment—I have run out of space)

Comment 20 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 22  at  11:32am  •  All my comments • 

(continued from previous comment)

Okay, back to Yamagiwa. I believe that the decision finds that the above number 3 “certain type of soil” is not required for the site to be considered a wetland. It just needs to be saturated (wet) part of the year and support the types of plants that grow in that situation. Using the “soil type” definition made it easier to point to a site in the dry season and state that it was indeed a wetland. Now it just has to be proven to support wetland plants during its wet cycle.

What I am getting at here is that if we don’t need those certain types of soils, wouldn’t it be easier then to construct some wetlands to encourage wildlife to move in? What about making it a requirement for developments in areas like ours that have seasonal wetlands to actually set aside areas for constructed wetlands and even add wetlands that remain wet all year? I don’t think I am actually talking about “mitigation”. I am suggesting encouraging construction of wetlands in addition to mitigation.

Some communities draw people who want to live on a golf course fairway, some next to riding or hiking trails. Why not wetlands? Instead of making them a “no no, don’t touch” make them a feature of the neighborhood.

There are people like Mr. Benjamin and me who would think having endangered or threatened species in the neighborhood is a plus!

One can construct a wetland, but one cannot construct a natural wetland. Not enough is known about the biologic and geologic complexities, especially on the crucial microbial level. This is why, when it comes to mitigations, nothing created artificially truly compensates for damage to natural wetlands. On the other hand, it is easier to argue the appropriateness of well-designed mitigations for damage to wetlands that were created artificially in the first place.

Carl May

Totally agree with your statements and suggestions Mary! Keep it up! It is not an either or proposition. I think there are enough smart people in our community to do both.. Be good stewards of our environment and have a community that takes care of our health (ie sufficient roadways and bikeways, support for local businesses, etc). Ray

Comment 23 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 22  at  9:36pm  •  All my comments • 

Carl, (or anyone) I am curious (I’m doing some research on wetlands). If, as you say, “one cannot construct a natural wetland” what are we to say about a wetland that develops where man might have had a hand in it? Say, by disturbing the earth or diverting a stream (or ditch) or building an agricultural pond? Can that ever be a natural wetland?

If the land around here has been intensively farmed as in the past, can a damp area regenerate into a natrual wetland?

Is there some criteria for what has to happen naturally for it to be a natural wetland?

Would Pescadero Marsh not be a nattural wetland because of the draining or whatever that occurred in the previous century?

I am genuinely curious and I’m sure others are, too. Does anyone have answers or know where they can be found?

Hi Mary,

Sorry for the delay in posting; I was on the other thread posting some thoughts for Steve and Brian.

My home was built in 1989. I purchased it in 1993. In my opinion, if the planning commission and city council were on their mettle, the City would not support a lot subdivision that created a lot so close to an ESHA. I haven’t thought about how to design a builing site that is not within the buffer area — it certainly would result in a narrower house than we live in.

But the stream (designated as an ESHA in the Coastal Development Permit that established the subdivision) is one of the reasons we liked the house, and we try to be good stewards of the species that need it.

Yes, many people in Half Moon Bay have structures that couldn’t be built under current law. No, the law does not require that property owners alter (say, demolish) their legally permitted development to conform to new law. The City’s ability to take care of its natural resources rests heavily on our husbandry of the few that remain. I’m grateful to those that are paying attention and respect the law.

• Jimmy

There are a number of definitions of “natural,” but the consideration in play for a wetland (or any other ecosystem) has that word as the opposite of “artificial.” In this sense, something is natural to the degree that it is not artificial (and vice versa). An ecosystem might be considered essentially natural if its interwoven ecologic and evolutionary processes operate freely and, overall, stably in the absence of human technologic inputs (past or present).

So, over time, what was set up artificially might become natural if artificial human inputs are halted and the system comes to operate sustainably on its own. This depends on the presence of the components necessary for system to operate, components not fully recognized or characterized for any kind of ecosystem.

So there is an element of luck involved in any artificially-created situation that one wishes to become natural over time. One can try to improve the odds and accelerate the naturalization process by altering the landscape into a more natural configuration and moving components of natural systems into place (such as wetland soil [containing bacteria and fungi], plants, and animals [especially diverse invertebrates], of numerous kinds), but it’s still something of a crapshoot. Partial success is the best restoration ecologists can hope for in most situations if one wants results on a timescale of human lifetimes. The best, cheapest, and obvious practice if one wants a natural area and all the free subsidies one gets from such areas is to not wreck it in the first place.

Disturbed places that are simply abandoned will also return to some sort of natural condition over time—occasionally decades but more often hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years depending on the location, the extent of human artificial endeavor, and the availability of natural components that can move in on their own. This process is sometimes called “secondary succession.” Because some of the conditions and pieces may no longer exist, the natural system that eventually establishes itself is not necessarily the same as the one that was originally removed by human activity. So, no, a natural wetland will not absolutely become re-established if a field that once contained a wetland is abandoned.

This is broad-brush stuff, but the principles can be used to guide one’s thinking and questions on any specific situation. There are numerous introductions to environmental science that can do a much better job of introducing what is involved than can possibly be done on an Internet message board.

Carl May

Comment 26 by Mary Bordi  on  Jun 24  at  8:57am  •  All my comments • 

Thank you very much Carl May for insight into the principles you’ve used to guide your thinking.

The great thing about Coastsider is that people can give deliberate, well thought out answers.